When Lord Dunmore dissolved the House of Burgesses on May 26, 1774, the late members remained in Williamsburg to continue the work before them. They would respond to the Boston Port Act, host a previously scheduled ball in Lady Dunmore’s honor, and attend the day of prayer and fasting at Bruton Parish Church.

The Raleigh Tavern Association (Friday Morning, May 27, 1774)

The morning after their dissolution they assembled at Raleigh Tavern where they met in the Apollo Room and the day’s deliberations concluded with the signing of a document that became known as the Association. This document opposed the Boston Port Act, rejected taxation without representation, and suspended commerce with Britain to apply economic pressure for the redress of grievances. It also called for the organization of a congress of representatives from the thirteen colonies of British America, the efforts of which would bring together the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia that fall. Though not legally binding in the eyes of the British crown, it informally bound the late Burgesses together.

The Virginia Gazette reported:

“This day, at ten o’Clock, the Honourable Members of the late House of Burgesses met, by Agreement, at the long Room in the Raleigh Tavern in this City, called the Apollo, when the following agreement was unanimously entered into by that patriotick assembly, in support of the constitutional liberties of America, against the late oppressive Act of the British Parliament respecting the town of Boston, which, in the end, must affect all the other colonies.”^[1]

The Gazette published a broadsheet of the Association which you can read below:

This effort was not confined to the late members of the House of Burgesses as many others were present at Raleigh Tavern and twenty-one citizens added their signatures.

The Gazette reported:
The above was immediately signed by the Honourable the Speaker and all the Members of the late House of Burgesses, as well as by a Number of Clergymen and other Inhabitants of the Colony, who, after having maturely considered the Contents of the Association, did most cordially approve and accede thereto.^[2]

Signing tradition can be observed on the document as the first signature is Peyton Randolph, the speaker, immediately followed by Robert Carter Nicholas, the treasurer, who had previously presented the resolution for the day of prayer and fasting. The most famous of the signatures are of course George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry.

If you read the twenty-one additional signatures following the late members of the House of Burgesses, the majority of them were from Virginia’s pastors. This provides a sharp contrast with the allergy to political engagement that far too many pastors share today.

Thomas Price, the chaplain of the House of Burgesses, who was assigned to preach on the June 1 day of prayer and fasting signed the document. The application of economic pressure upon Britain in the defense of British America’s constitutional rights and liberties was a measure the clergy were eager to support.

The following clergy signed:

· Robert Andrews, who later served as a military chaplain during the Revolution.

· William Bland, who served in Bruton Parish in Williamsburg.

· Benjamin Blagrove, who served in Southwark Parish (Surry County) and other Tidewater parishes.

· Ichabod Camp, who served Amherst Parish (now Lexington Parish).

· Joseph Davenport, who served Charles Parish (York County).

· David Griffith, who served Shelburne Parish (Loudoun County).

· William Harrison who served in Dinwiddie and Prince George parishes.

· William Hubard, who served in Gloucester and Charlotte County parishes.

· Samuel Klug, served Christ Church in Middlesex County.

· William Leigh, who served in Chesterfield and Tidewater.

· Samuel Smith McCroskey, who served in Hungars Parish (Northampton County) on the Eastern Shore.

· Thomas Price, chaplain to the House of Burgesses.

In contrast to this, not all present in the Apollo Room at Raleigh Tavern signed the document. Eleven men were recorded as having abstained from signing, among whom are the following:^[3]

· John Camm, President of William and Mary, and a member of the Governor’s Council. Camm also served as the commissary of Virginia, an office representing the bishop of London. He had previously advocated for the establishment of an Anglican Bishop in America, but that measure had been defeated by conservatives.

· Thomas Gwatkin, of Bruton Parish Church, who authored the sermon for the fast day, yet declined to preach it. Gwatkin also served on the faculty of William and Mary and as chaplain to Lord Dunmore’s family.

· Samuel Henley, a William and Mary professor who had been denied the pulpit at Bruton Parish Church by Robert Carter Nicholas.

· Devereux Jarratt, who served in Bath Parish in Dinwiddie County and participated in the revival movement of the Great Awakening.

· Seven others who remain unnamed.

For three who abstained, loyalties and past conflict are observable with Camm, Henley, and Gwatkin. This trio of faculty from William and Mary declined to support American rights as opposed to the dozen clergy who signed their names.

Jarratt and the May 1774 Virginia Clergy Conference

Devereux Jarratt abstained from signing the Association, but he would become a strong supporter of American independence. Jarratt is a largely forgotten figure in Virginian history, but he was a prominent figure in the Virginia revivals of 1775–1776.^[4] In his biography, Jarratt described growing up within the Anglican church without the gospel. He was significantly influenced by reading sermons of George Whitefield and the works of the Puritan John Flavel. After his conversion he was seen as disruptive as he preached the necessity of being born again, and his willingness to fellowship with Methodists left him isolated by his Anglican peers. Ordination was impossible in the colonies as there was no bishop, so he traveled to Britain for education and ordination, and then returned to Virginia where he was placed at Bath Parish.

Jarratt described how he preached:

In a word, my plan was, first, To convince of sin. Second, of inability. Third, To point out the remedy and press the convicted to fly to Jesus Christ, and rest on him for complete salvation. And, fourth, to exhort those who believed, to be careful to maintain good works, and to go on to perfection.^[5]

We learn from Jarratt’s biography that the Virginia clergy had been summoned to Williamsburg in May of 1774 for a conference by Camm, which explains their significant presence as a dozen joined the signing of the Association in Raleigh Tavern. Jarratt’s writing did not detail the focus of the conference, but he revealed the presence of theological liberalism and the poor fellowship that existed between him and the other clergy:

I have already mentioned the unkind disposition of the clergy towards me from the beginning. They always seemed to look at me with an evil eye, and therefore there was little or no intercourse between them and myself. However, in the year 1774, I went to one of their conventions, which they used to hold, in the city of Williamsburg, for certain purposes. At the convention, I was causelessly insulted, and treated in such an ungenteel, not to say unchristian, manner, as, till that time, I had been a stranger to––and, what was still worse, I was distressed to hear some of the most sacred doctrines of Christianity treated with ridicule and profane burlesque. You may be sure I went to no more of their conventions at Williamsburg.^[6]

Lady Dunmore’s Ball (Friday Evening, May 27, 1774)

Following the signing of the Association at Raleigh Tavern, the Burgesses had a ball to attend. This event in honor of Lady Dunmore’s arrival to Virginia did not take place immediately upon her arrival, but it had been postponed until the Burgesses convened in Williamsburg. It would now ironically be held following their dissolution.

The Gazette announced that morning: “This evening there is to be a ball and entertainment at the Capitol, given by the honorable the House of Burgesses to welcome Lady Dunmore and the rest of our Governor’s family to Virginia.”^[7]

Washington’s journal entry was understated for what one would expect to be a significantly awkward event: “Went to the Ball given by the House of Burgesses to Lady Dunmore.”^[8]

A Convention Summons (Monday, May 30, 1774)

On Monday, May 30, 1774, twenty-five of the late Burgesses remained in Williamsburg while the rest returned to their homes across Virginia. With Peyton Randolph moderating, they met in Randolphs home, and then ended the day in Raleigh Tavern with the signing of a convention summons for the Burgesses. The document stated that “the Colony of Virginia will concur with the other Colonies in such Measures as shall be judged most effectual for the preservation of the Common Rights and Liberty of British America.”^[9] Desiring to work in concert with the other colonies, they recalled the Burgesses to return to Williamsburg on August 1, 1774.

In a letter to William Fairfax, Washington sent a copy and described the meeting:

[T]he proceedings mentioned in the enclosed papers were had thereupon and a general meeting requested of all the late Representatives in this City on the first of August when it is hoped, and expected that some vigorous measures will be effectually adopted to obtain that justice which is denied to our Petitions and Remonstrances; in short the Ministry may rely on it that Americans will never be taxed without their own consent that the cause of Boston the despotic measures in respect to it I mean now is and ever will be considered as the cause of America (not that we approve their conduct in destroying the Tea) and that we shall not suffer ourselves to be sacrificed by piecemeal though God only knows what is to become of us.^[10]

The Prince William County Statement (Tuesday, May 31, 1774)

In a parallel effort across Virginia, citizens in Dumfries met and called for county deliberations at the courthouse on Monday, June 6, 1774. This would be shared at the church on Wednesday, June 1, and also on Sunday, June 5.

At a Meeting of the inhabitance of the Town of Dumfries, in the County of Prince William, in the Colony of Virginia, on Tuesday, the thirty-first day of May, 1774 – RESOLVED, That it is the unanimous opinion of this meeting, that the Freeholders and others, inhabitance of this County, be invited to meet on Monday, the sixth day if June next, at the Court House of the said county to deliberate on measures the most proper to be taken to avert the dreadful calamities with which the Colonies in general, and the city of Boston in particular, are threatened from an unconstitutional act of Parliament lately passed, by which the town of Boston and its ports and harbours are to be blocked up by an armed force, which act, it is the opinion of this meeting, is fundamentally subsersive of out ancient, legal, and vital liberties, and that this resolve be published by the minister immediately after divine service on Wednesday, the first day and on Sunday, the fifth day of June next.

Resolved, that Messrs Cuthbert Bullitt, William Grayson, Foushee Tebbs, William Carr, Richard Graham, John Riddell, Cumberland Wilson, Andrew Leitch, and Do’r George Graham be a committee for this town, to correspond with the different committees of any colony or province within America. Resolved, That Evan Williams be appointed Clerk to this committee.^[11]

The Prince William County effort did not yet include the Burgesses from Prince William County as Thomas Blackburn and Henry Lee had remained in Williamsburg and it took about three days to travel. The deliberations of June 6,1774 produced the Prince William County Resolves, the first statement of its kind from a Virginia county.

The Day of Prayer and Fasting (Wednesday, June 1, 1774)

On June 1, 1774, Washington’s journal reads with its usual brevity: “Went to church, fasted all day.”^[12]

The morning of the appointed day of prayer and fasting had arrived, and the late Burgesses gathered at the courthouse along with a great crowd from Williamsburg and the surrounding countryside.

Peyton Randolph, the former Speaker of the House opened the day’s proceedings with a speech, after which he then carried the House of Burgesses’ ceremonial mace and led the crowd in a procession down the Duke of Gloucester Street to Bruton Parish Church for the worship service.

The Virginia Gazette reported:

In our last we mentioned the intention of the late respectable House of Burgesses to solemnize the 1^st of June with fasting, humiliation, and prayer; and it is with pleasure we assure our readers that every inhabitant of this city, and numbers from the country, testified their gratitude, in the most expressive manner, by attending the worthy and patriotic speaker at the courthouse, and proceeding from thence, with the utmost decency and decorum, to the church.^[13]

The service was well attended, and the Gazette stressed the appreciation of the citizens for the day. The size of the crowd revealed that it was not an empty gesture, but that there was genuine concern among Virginians for the measures Britain was taking against Boston.

As the crowd entered the church, the day did not take the original shape the resolution had called for. Thomas Gwatkin had been unwilling to preach the sermon, and so it had been reassigned to Thomas Price.

In a letter from Lord Dunmore to Lord Dartmouth, Dunmore wrote that Gwatkin “civilly but with firmness declined being employed for such a purpose.”^[14] Dunmore observed the day as an abuse of religion for a political stunt, and that Gwatkin would not lower himself to participate in such an occasion. The reality, however, is more complicated and it is doubtful whether Dunmore interpreted Gwatkin’s actions accurately. The Virginia Gazette reported that Thomas Price asked Thomas Gwatkin for assistance in preparing the sermon, and that Gwatkin assisted him by drafting the sermon that Price would preach on June 1.^[15]

Thomas Price, the chaplain to the House of Burgesses, led the congregation in both prayer and in preaching the sermon for the fast day. His sermon was entitled The Doctrine of a Providence Considered, and he preached from Psalm 103:19.

The Virginia Gazette reported on the service:

“Prayers were accordingly read, and a sermon, suitable to the important occasion, was delivered, by the reverend Mr. Price, from the 103d psalm, and 19^th, verse. The Lord hath prepared his seat in Heaven, and His kingdom ruleth over all.”^[16]

Robert Carter Nicholas also described the service and the sermon:

As to the ordinary service of the church being only performed on the occasion; the late House of Burgesses . . . did not presume to desire that additions should be made to that sacred office, which they knew was properly adapted to every purpose. They did not wish that any thing particularly pointed or inflammatory should fall from the pulpit. A general display of the superintendence of Providence, and the influence, which a thorough conviction and remembrance of this, ought to have, together with an implicit reliance on his goodness were the doctrines which they desired to have inculcated leaving the consideration to their own reflections in making proper applications.^[17]

Not only were services held at Bruton Parish Church, but services were held across Virginia:

Most of the ministers participated in the fast day called by the Assembly. In 1774 James Marye, Jr., preached at one service in Fredericksburg while Francis Wilson read the prayers. Isaac Giberne chided his most influential parishioner for not attending his fast day service, and neighbor William McKay preached on the text “be strong & quit yourselves like men” at a “court of liberty” which met in North Farnham Parish to indict Lord North. At Thomas Jefferson’s suggestion, Charles Clay set the fast day in his parish to coincide with the election of Burgesses.^[18]

Following the fast day, the Virginia Gazette added a note for the edification of their readers, using the narrative of Abraham’s intercession for Lot and the city of Sodom as an example for how Virginians might pray for Boston. These devotional notes in the Gazette reveal a sharp contrast between expressions of faith in journalism of that period compared to where we are today:

The following text being so extremely applicable, we are requested to insert it. Genesis 18:32, “And he (Abraham) said, Oh, let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once; peradventure ten (righteous) shall be found there. And HE said, “I will not destroy it for ten’s sake.” –– Reader, revisit this whole chapter: behold! and adore the goodness and mercy of God.^[19]

It is worth noting that histories of this event routinely misread this passage in the Virginia Gazette and misidentify Genesis 18:32 as the text of Price’s sermon, whereas it is clear he preached from Psalm 103:19.

You can observe in the text of Clementina Rind’s June 2, 1774 edition of the Virginia Gazette as shown in the images below that the text Thomas Price preached was indeed Psalm 103:19, and that Genesis 18 was not the sermon text, but a reading recommendation.

The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation’s article “A Revolutionary Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer” reported the wrong sermon text, and also misses the detail that Gwatkin wrote the sermon for Price. This error is repeated on another Williamsburg Foundation page about June 1, 1774. This error then ripples through other articles on this event, including Cardinal News and the Hilton Head Island Packet. Obscure and granular details frequently serve to humble historians. This example shows the fallibility of those who write history, and I am confident that I am ignorant of the points where my own writing needs to be straightened.

John Randolph’s Critique and Robert Carter Nicholas’ Defense of the Day

Though the day of prayer and fasting was largely attended and appreciated, opposition and critique persisted on the periphery. John Randolph, Virginia’s Attorney General, opposed the day, which put him at odds with his brother Peyton, the former Speaker of the House.

In a pamphlet entitled “Considerations on the Present State of Virginia,” John Randolph mocked the day of prayer and fasting as simply a delay of “sumptuous suppers” until nighttime. Robert Carter Nicholas responded promptly in another pamphlet, defending the sincerity of the fast day and the spiritual nature of self-examination and repentance which is an essential part of fast days:

I have too much reason to believe that the design of this fast was either misunderstood or misrepresented from the first, having been informed that it was spoke of by some as a scheme calculated to inflame and excite an enthusiastic zeal in the minds of the people, under a cloak of religion; that which nothing could be more calumnious and unjust. The author must know that the resolution was not smuggled, but proposed in a very full House, not above one dissentient appearing amongst near an hundred members. He, himself, I believe was present, and should be glad to know whether he opened his mouth against the measure? Surely he could not want that resolution, he so earnestly recommends, to have avowed his disapprobation. The mixing of religion with civil matters, merely to inflame people’s minds, I know has been practiced on some occasions, but I have ever considered it not only as culpable, but extremely wicked.

It gave me pain to find that the resolution of the House was considered as reflecting upon our gracious Sovereign. Nothing, I hope and believe, was farther from the intention of those, who voted for the Fast, than this. I speak positively for myself.^[20]

A High View of King and Country

At this point in 1774 continued loyalty to King George III is observed in many of those who would later support the Revolution. Instead of desiring independence, it was believed that King George would right the wrongs of Parliament, and we see this quite plainly in Nicholas’ rebuttal to John Randolph.

This attitude is similar to what was observed eight years earlier in responses to the Stamp Act. In one example, Thomas Davis preached at his church in Norfolk as they celebrated the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766, and he condemned the king’s counselors and praised the king from Proverbs: “Take away the dross from the silver, and there shall come forth a vessel for the finer. Take away the wicked from before the King, and his throne shall be established in righteousness.”^[21]

Nicholas’ continued loyalty to the British crown is visible in his response to Randolph, as he indeed prayed for reconciliation between Britain and America.

It is . . . my most ardent prayer that all those unhappy differences, which subsist between Great Britain and America may speedily subside and be buried in eternal oblivion; that a perfect reconciliation, and inviolable friendship may be established on the most permanent foundations, and that both countries may still enjoy the inexhaustible sweets of constitutional freedom and liberty till time shall be no more.^[22]

The posture of these men at this point was not that of revolutionaries who were seeking independence from Britain. Instead of taking drastic measures, we see a colony interceding for Massachusetts, and choosing to take economic measures to seek redress of grievances and protect British America’s civil liberties.

The following year, as the crisis turned into armed conflict, it is noteworthy to observe that prayer for reconciliation was included in a prayerbook for the American soldier:

And grant, O Lord, that the inhabitants of Great Britain may arise and vindicate their liberties; and a glorious reunion take place between them and thy people in this land, founded upon the principles of liberty and righteousness: that the Britons and the Americans may rejoice in the King as the minister of God to both for good.^[23]

This prayer is not for reconciliation alone, but it is also a prayer that the king would fulfill his biblical responsibility to wield the sword as God’s servant for the good of the nation as set forth by the apostle Paul in Romans 13.

Remembering the Past and Considering the Present

As we review the narrative of these events in 1774, there are similarities with the present. Higher education tends toward theological liberalism and frequently scorns the fundamental tenets of the faith. On the other hand, we observe significant discontinuity. It is difficult to imagine that a local newspaper would report on a sermon and add Bible reading recommendations for its readers, or that a whole town would attend a worship service. It has become unthinkable that a prayer book like Abiel Leonard’s would be printed and provided to our armed forces. Our polarized federal and state legislatures appear incapable of being united in anything, let alone in valuing the importance of prayer for our country. In contrast to the dozen pastors who engaged publicly with the events of the day and signed the Virginia Association in Raleigh Tavern, it is far too common for pastors to cloister themselves from public life and submit to anti-Christian dictums that faith only be exercised privately within the home and the church.

As the Virginia Gazette exhorted its readers in 1774, so too may it exhort us in 2026: “Reader, revisit this whole chapter [Genesis 18]: behold! and adore the goodness and mercy of God.”^[24] God is truly good and merciful to sinners, and he is worthy of our praise. Though times have and will continue to change, God’s goodness and mercy remain our immutable hope. God is perfect in his righteousness and judgments, and yet he graciously gives mercy to sinners. With this in view, let us be encouraged to earnestly pray for our nation as Abraham interceded for Lot. Let us likewise remember God’s sovereign providence. Our God is not powerless to answer prayer, but he reigns in heaven and governs His universal dominion for the good of his people and his glory. “The LORD has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all” (Psalm 103:19).

^[1] Purdie and Dixon’s Virginia Gazette (Williamsburg), May 27, 1774.

^[2] Ibid.

^[3]Joan R. Gundersen, The Anglican Ministry in Virginia, 1723–1766: A Study of a Social Class (New York: Garland, 1989), 149–50.

^[4] Devereux Jarratt, A Brief Narrative of the Revival of Religion in Virginia. In a Letter to a Friend (London: R. Hawes, 1778).

^[5] Devereux Jarratt, The Life of the Reverend Devereux Jarratt (1806), 89–90.

^[6] Jarratt, Life, 131.

^[7] Purdie and Dixon’s Virginia Gazette (Williamsburg), May 27, 1774.

^[8]Donald Jackson and Dorothy Twohig, eds., The Diaries of George Washington, vol. 3, 1771–75 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1978), entry for May 27, 1774.

^[9] House of Burgesses, resolution summoning a convention, May 30, 1774; manuscript held at the Library of Virginia, Richmond.

^[10] George Washington to George William Fairfax, June 10, 1774, Founders Online, National Archives.

^[11] “Proceedings of a Meeting of the Inhabitants of Dumfries, May 31, 1774,” in Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manuscripts, vol. 8, ed. H. W. Flournoy (Richmond, 1890), 53–54.

^[12] Jackson and Twohig, Diaries of George Washington, 3, entry for June 1, 1774.

^[13]Purdie and Dixon’s Virginia Gazette (Williamsburg), June 2, 1774.

^[14] Dunmore to Dartmouth, June 6, 1774, in The Parliamentary History of England, vol. 18 (London, 1813), 137–38.

^[15] Pinkney’s Virginia Gazette (Williamsburg), June 15, 1774.

^[16] Rind’s Virginia Gazette (Williamsburg), June 2, 1774.

^[17] Robert Carter Nicholas, Considerations on the Present State of Virginia Examined ([Williamsburg: Purdie and Dixon], 1774).

^[18]Gundersen, Anglican Ministry in Virginia, 150.

^[19]Rind’s Virginia Gazette (Williamsburg), June 2, 1774.

^[20] Nicholas, Considerations Examined ([Williamsburg: Purdie and Dixon], 1774).

^[21]Gundersen, Anglican Ministry in Virginia, 149.

^[22] Nicholas, Considerations Examined ([Williamsburg: Purdie and Dixon], 1774).

^[23]Abiel Leonard, A Prayer Composed for the Benefit of the Soldiery, in the American Army (Cambridge, MA, 1775).

^[24] Rind’s Virginia Gazette (Williamsburg), June 2, 1774).

As the apostle Paul exhorted Timothy to pray in 1 Timothy 2:1-2, it is right and essential for Christians to pray for the nations we inhabit, for “all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” It is my hope that this series will encourage you in your prayers for our nation in 2026.

Williamsburg served as the capital of Virginia from 1699–1780. At the time, Virginia was not only by far the largest colony in British America with an estimated 447,016 people in 1770, but Virginia was the largest geographically.^[1] Though it had defined northern and southern boundaries, the western boundary was not finalized, and claims extended out to the Mississippi River.^[2] French encroachment on those claims had previously led to the French and Indian War. Virginia’s size along with the events of 1774 help to explain Virginia’s prominence and leadership among the colonies during that period.

The colonial government at this time was led by the royal governor Lord Dunmore, and two legislative houses. The House of Burgesses was the lower house, being made up of Burgesses elected from every county, whereas the upper house consisted of unelected members of the Governor’s Council who were royal appointees from among Virginia’s wealthiest and most powerful families. This structure mirrored the House of Lords and the House of Commons in Parliament.

In May of 1774, news of Parliament’s Boston Port Act arrived from London, announcing that a naval blockade of Boston was scheduled to begin on June 1, 1774. This punitive act by Parliament laid consequences upon the entire colony of Massachusetts Bay in response to Samuel Adams’ Sons of Liberty who had boarded ships at Griffin’s Wharf and dumped 342 chests of tea into the harbor in December 1773. Though the Boston Tea Party served as one of the catalysts for the American Revolution, it was but one event in a series of escalations as new taxes were levied, goods were boycotted, custom fees were avoided by smuggling, and governance became increasingly severe. A blockade of its primary port city would be devastating to Boston’s economy and the livelihoods of those who lived in Massachusetts Bay. This decision by Parliament was condemned as an unjust seizure of the wharves and docks of Boston, amounting to theft, a violation of the eighth commandment in Exodus 20:15. The Boston Port Act was understood as a threat to Boston’s civil liberties as collective punishment would be dealt out to the entire colony instead of being limited to those guilty of destroying the tea. The blockade would be economically devastating as it destroyed the livelihoods of many and even threatened starvation.

Drafting the Resolution (Monday, May 23, 1774)

As news of the Boston Port Act arrived, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Francis Lightfoot Lee, and a handful of other Burgesses met on Monday, May 23, 1774 to consider a response. They were appalled by the naval blockade and agreed that Virginia must stand with Massachusetts. Toward that end, they decided that it was appropriate to call for a day of prayer and fasting for the city of Boston in order to awaken Virginians to the severity of the crisis.

Jefferson noted that it had been about twenty years since a day of prayer and fasting had been held in Virginia, the last going back to “the days of our distresses in the war of 55,” which followed General Braddock’s disastrous defeat at the Battle of the Monongahela on July 9, 1755.^[3] The French and Indian War (1754-1763) had a significant religious dimension as French aggression was quickly seen as a Roman Catholic threat to Protestant civil and religious liberties. Following Braddock’s defeat, the Virginia House of Burgesses declared the priority of defending the colony for the sake of preserving “that which is so valuable and dear to them––their civil and religious liberties.”^[4] There was real alarm as there was no religious tolerance in Catholic France and the persecution was brutal. Across the Atlantic, Protestant pastors were executed, children were seized and placed in Catholic homes, women who refused to convert were sentenced to life imprisonment, and men were enslaved in galleys. In one 1755 sermon to Virginia Volunteers, Samuel Davies proclaimed, “Our Territories are invaded by the Power and Perfidy of France; our Frontiers ravaged by merciless Savages, and our Fellow-Subjects there murdered with all the horrid Arts of Indian and Popish torture.”^[5]

As the Boston Port Act threatened civil liberties in British America, it was time to be alarmed, and it was time to call the colony to prayer. In considering the language for the resolution, Jefferson described their efforts and how they looked for historical precedent in the record of the Puritans as documented by John Rushworth:

“The lead in the house on these subjects being no longer left to the old members, Mr. Henry, R. H. Lee, Fr. L. Lee, 3. or 4. other members, whom I do not recollect, and myself, agreeing that we must boldly take an unequivocal stand in the line with Massachusetts, determined to meet and consult on the proper measures in the council chamber, for the benefit of the library in that room. We were under conviction of the necessity of arousing our people from the lethargy into which they had fallen as to passing events; and thought that the appointment of a day of general fasting and prayer would be most likely to call up and alarm their attention. No example of such a solemnity had existed since the days of our distresses in the war of 55. since which a new generation had grown up. With the help therefore of Rushworth, whom we rummaged over for the revolutionary precedents and forms of the Puritans of that day, preserved by him, we cooked up a resolution, somewhat modernizing their phrases, for appointing the 1st day of June, on which the Port bill was to commence, for a day of fasting, humiliation and prayer, to implore heaven to avert from us the evils of civil war, to inspire us with firmness in support of our rights, and to turn the hearts of the King and parliament to moderation and justice.”^[6]

The works consulted by the Burgesses in the upper house chamber were John Rushworth’s Historical Collections of Private Passages of State, being an eight-volume compilation of documents from 1618-48. You can access and review Rushworth’s volumes here.^[7] While Jefferson did not relay which passages in Rushworth were adapted as the basis for the resolution, the following are likely examples:

• On January 30, 1628, both houses of Parliament petitioned Charles I to proclaim a day of fasting and prayer to seek God’s blessing and protection on their nation, and to pray for churches outside England that were being persecuted by Catholicism. Charles I approved the request.^[8]

• On November 7, 1640, both houses of Parliament called for “one Day’s Solemn Humiliation in Fasting and Prayer” to seek God’s blessing, help, and direction for the safety and welfare of the king and the nation. Charles I approved the request.^[9]

Using these precedents, Jefferson, Henry, and the others drafted the following resolution:

This House being deeply impressed with Apprehension of the great Dangers to be derived to British America, from the hostile Invasion of the City of Boston, in our Sister Colony of Massachusetts Bay, whose Commerce and Harbour are on the 1st Day of June next to be stopped by an armed Force, deem it highly necessary that the said first Day of June be set apart by the Members of this House as a Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer, devoutly to implore the divine Interposition for averting the heavy Calamity, which threatens Destruction to our civil Rights, and the Evils of civil War; to give us one Heart and one Mind firmly to oppose, by all just and proper Means, every Injury to American Rights, and that the Minds of his Majesty and his Parliament may be inspired from above with Wisdom, Moderation, and Justice, to remove from the loyal People of America all Cause of Danger from a continued Pursuit of Measures pregnant with their Ruin.^[10]

Jefferson and the two Lees would all go on to serve as delegates in the Continental Congress and become signers of the Declaration of Independence. They were not revolutionaries from the beginning, but as evidenced in this resolution, it was their prayer that God would remove the threat of civil war, protect American rights, and restore the relationship between Britain and British America.

Presenting the Resolution (Tuesday, May 24, 1774)

Now that the resolution was written, the next step was to decide who would present it to the House of Burgesses. In thinking about this, the drafters concluded they should ask Robert Carter Nicholas, who also served as the Treasurer of Virginia, to present the resolution:

To give greater emphasis to our proposition, we agreed to wait the next morning on Mr. Nicholas, whose grave and religious character was more in unison with the tone of our resolution and to solicit him to move it. We accordingly went to him in the morning.^[11]

Nicholas was a good choice for presenting the resolution as he was a critically important figure in the Virginia government and he brought an unquestionable gravitas. In addition to serving as Burgess, he served as the Treasurer of the Colony and was well known for resolving a major financial scandal from the previous treasurer. Speaker Peyton Randolph had also appointed him to serve as the chair of the Committee for Religion, which would address matters related to the governing of the Anglican Church in Virginia as there was no American bishop.^[12]

Nicholas had a reputation as a serious Christian and faithful churchman who cared deeply about preserving theological orthodoxy. He served on the vestry at Bruton Parish Church in Williamsburg, where he had been embroiled in public religious conflict for the past few years. He opposed Samuel Henley’s applications on more than one occasion to prevent him from serving as rector of Bruton Parish. Henley was a professor at William and Mary who applied to fill vacancies in 1772 and again in 1773. Brent Tarter’s biography of Nicholas describes this controversy in detail which played out publicly on the pages of the Virginia Gazette, including testimony given by Nicholas’ wife Anne, Richard Bland, and John Page. They testified that Henley denied the deity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the existence of Satan and hell. Page testified that Henley was a Socinian, that is, one who denies the doctrine of the Trinity.^[13] Contemporaries who opposed Socinianism across the Atlantic include both John Gill and John Newton. In the end, Nicholas prevailed, and Henley was prevented from serving at Bruton Parish Church, though he retained his post at William and Mary until he fled to England in 1775.

After meeting with the authors of the resolution, Robert Carter Nicholas agreed to move it, and he would do so that very day. Nicholas, Jefferson, Henry, and the others joined the Burgesses in the legislative chamber in the Williamsburg Capitol.

Nicholas presented the resolution, and it passed. With slight variance from Jefferson’s recollection that “it passed without opposition,”^[14] Nicholas noted that there were two who opposed, and only one member who spoke against it. The silent opponent was Attorney General John Randolph, the brother to Peyton Randolph, the Speaker of the House. He would later respond with an anonymously written condemnation in which he would mock the day of prayer and fasting. In the days that followed, Nicholas likewise would write a rebuttal and rebuke Randolph.^[15]

As the resolution motion was finalized, the House of Burgesses established details for the day of prayer and fasting. It would be held on June 1, 1774 and Peyton Randolph, the Speaker of the House, would lead them in procession to Bruton Parish Church for the service:

Ordered, therefore, that the Members of this House do attend in their Places at the Hour of ten in the Forenoon, on the said 1st Day of June next, in Order to proceed with the Speaker and the Mace to the Church in this City for the Purposes aforesaid; and that the Reverend Mr. Price be appointed to read Prayers, and the Reverend Mr. Gwatkin to preach a Sermon suitable to the Occasion.

Lord Dunmore’s Dissolution of the House of Burgesses (Thursday, May 26, 1774)

After the resolution was passed, the House of Burgesses had it printed by the Virginia Gazette on Thursday, May 26, 1774 and it was distributed throughout the city.

Thomas Gwatkin of Bruton Parish Church had not agreed to the request personally and promptly bowed out of it. The Gazette reported that “Upon the Reverend Gwatkin’s petitioning to be excluded from complying with his Appointment, the Reverend Mr. Price, Chaplain to the House, was directed to preach in his Stead.”^[16] Thomas Price’s role was expanded from leading in prayers to also preaching the sermon.

Though the resolution had near unanimous support from Virginia’s government, such support was not shared by John Murray, the Fourth Earl of Dunmore. Serving as governor was a royal appointment, and Lord Dunmore’s loyalties to King George were strong. He summoned the Governor’s Council and related his intention to dissolve the Burgesses. They responded to Dunmore with silence. Disadvantages stood with either position. Affirming Dunmore would be unpopular among the citizens of Virginia, and opposing Dunmore could jeopardize their seats on the council.

Dunmore summoned the Burgesses to the upper council chamber. Adding 103 Burgesses to this room was not realistic, but it was a power move.

The Gazette reported on the meeting:

“Yesterday, between three and four o’Clock P.M. the Right Honourable the Earl of Dunmore sent a Message to the Honourable the House of Burgesses by the Clerk of the Council, requiring their immediate Attendance in the Council Chamber, when his Excellency spoke to them as follows: Mr. Speaker, and Gentlemen of the House of Burgesses, I have in my hand a paper, published by order of your House, conceived in such terms as reflect highly upon his Majesty and the Parliament of Great Britain; which makes it necessary for me to dissolve you, and you are dissolved accordingly.”^[17]

This event is but one of many where royal authority was used to dissolve representative houses in the colonies, resulting in “official” local rule by royal appointees instead of elected representatives. This became one of the many grievances against the king in the Declaration of Independence: “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.”^[18]

Though the House of Burgesses was dissolved, the former members continued to hold the day of prayer and fasting on June 1 with prayers for Massachusetts. Before that happened, they would gather in Raleigh Tavern and set in motion events which would lead to the Continental Congress. Before leaving Williamsburg they would also ironically host a previously scheduled ball to welcome Lady Dunmore to the city. This day of prayer and fasting and the drama surrounding it is an essential link in the chain of events leading to the American Revolution. I plan to examine this further in another post.

Let us Give Ourselves to Repentance and Prayer

As the Day of Prayer and Fasting was opposed by Dunmore and mocked by John Randolph, Robert Carter Nicholas wrote a defense for the day. Instead of it being the mere skipping of a meal as caricatured by Randolph, it was a true call to humble repentance before the Lord.

“We should be extremely careful to examine our hearts; to endeavor at a reformation of whatever may be found amiss; to repent heartily of all our sins and to prepare our minds for the reception of the influences of his good Spirit. Can any means be better adapted to this end, than withdrawing our attention for a season, from the business and cares of the world, and mortifying all our corrupt affections by fasting and prayer?”^[19]

Prayer and repentance were coupled together, for repentance was essential for one’s prayers to be heard, as the psalmist wrote, “If I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened. But truly God has listened; he has attended to the voice of my prayer. Blessed be God, because he has not rejected my prayer or removed his steadfast love from me!” (Psalm 66:18–20). If there was to be a day of prayer, such intercession should be preceded by repentance.

We can observe significant discontinuity today as contemporary calls to prayer are often uncoupled from repentance. We have become a spiritually divided nation. Prayers in response to tragedy are often treated with contempt by those who seek to use such crises as a means of advancing political agendas. Expressions of prayer are easily assumed to be disingenuous and rejected as mere platitudes. While charade deserves rebuke, it is an indictment upon our nation when there is scorn for prayerful intercession because salvation is believed to be found in one’s policy proposals instead of in the Lord. America needs to awaken to the severity of the spiritual crisis of our own day. Let us humble ourselves and pray that God would mercifully intervene and bring our nation to true repentance and faith in our Savior Jesus Christ.

^[1] Estimated population of colonial Virginia in 1770. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, bicentennial ed. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1975).

^[2] Virginia’s 1609 charter claims extended to the Mississippi River. See the Second Charter of Virginia (23 May 1609), Avalon Project, Yale Law School, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/va02.asp.

^[3] Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in Paul Leicester Ford, ed., The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Federal Edition, vol. 1 (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904), 11–12.

^[4] Address of the House of Burgesses to Governor Robert Dinwiddie, in H. R. McIlwaine, ed., Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1752–1755, 1756–1758 (Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1909).

^[5] Samuel Davies, Religion and Patriotism the Constituents of a Good Soldier: A Sermon Preached to Captain Overton’s Independent Company of Volunteers, Raised in Hanover County, Virginia, August 17, 1755 (Philadelphia: James Chattin, 1755), 3.

^[6] Jefferson, Autobiography, in Ford, Works of Thomas Jefferson, 1:11–12.

^[7] John Rushworth, Historical Collections of Private Passages of State, 8 vols. (London, 1659–1701), available at British History Online, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/series/rushworth-private-passages-state.

^[8] Rushworth, Historical Collections, vol. 1, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/rushworth-papers/vol1/pp650-662.

^[9] Rushworth, Historical Collections, vol. 4, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/rushworth-papers/vol4/pp1-45.

^[10] Purdie and Dixon’s Virginia Gazette (Williamsburg), 26 May 1774.

^[11] Jefferson, Autobiography, in Ford, Works of Thomas Jefferson, 1:12.

^[12] Paul K. Longmore, “‘All Matters and Things Relating to Religion and Morality,’ The Virginia Burgesses’ Committee for Religion, 1769 to 1775,” Journal of Church and State 38, no. 4 (Autumn 1996): 775–97, at 778–80.

^[13]Brent Tarter, Virginia’s Forgotten Founder: The World of Robert Carter Nicholas (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2026), 132–33.

^[14] Jefferson, Autobiography, in Ford, Works of Thomas Jefferson, 1:12.

^[15] Robert L. Scribner, ed., Revolutionary Virginia: The Road to Independence, vol. 1, Forming Thunderclouds and the First Convention, 1763–1774 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1973), 94. See the same volume for the pamphlet exchange between John Randolph and Robert Carter Nicholas.

^[16] Purdie and Dixon’s Virginia Gazette (Williamsburg), 26 May 1774.

^[17] Purdie and Dixon’s Virginia Gazette (Williamsburg), 26 May 1774..

^[18] Declaration of Independence (4 July 1776)

^[19] Robert Carter Nicholas, Considerations on the Present State of Virginia Examined ([Williamsburg], 1774), answering John Randolph, Considerations on the Present State of Virginia (1774).

This coming Sunday, September 13, I will begin to teach new Sunday School class on the Protestant Reformation. I look forward to walking through this period of church history in the months ahead. But before we get there, it’s good to consider why the study of church history is important for the Christian.

1. Church history bears witness to the faithfulness of Christ.

Christ has declared that he will build his church, and “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18). These words are true, and the church continues to be built as new believers come to faith in Christ. Church history is the story of the work of Christ through the church in the work of the Great Commission. The preaching of the Gospel has gone out to the nations, passing down through time and generations until it has come to us. We should know this story, and the Protestant Reformation is a critical inflection point as the church is reformed by the Word of God.

2. We have a family tree of faith and church history is the story of our family.

Since the founding of the church by Christ and the apostles (Eph 2:20), many brothers and sisters have been added to the church. We have received “a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions” (Mark 10:30). We should get to know our brothers and sisters from the Protestant Reformation, among whom are Martin and Katharina Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, William Tyndale, Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley, John Knox, and Marie Durand.

3. Church history gives us examples to follow.

“Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith” (Heb 13:7). We should learn from those who have led and taught the church in past ages. Observing their testimony and perseverance in times of suffering and tribulation should encourage and inspire us to be faithful. The courage of Protestant martyrs inspires and encourages us to be faithful in the present.

4. We have a theological inheritance.

Pastors and theologians have guarded the truth with creeds and confessions, and we have a rich heritage of truth that has been passed down to us. We are blessed by the theological labors of the past and we stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us. We should understand the richness of our theological heritage as expressed in the five Solas of the Protestant Reformation.

5. Church history is essential in an age of dishonesty.

We live in an age of revisionism where there is great dishonesty and misunderstanding about the history of the church. When it comes to the Protestant Reformation, misrepresentations describe it as a revolt that splintered a united church, and a movement that broke away from its historical roots. It is important to have a solid grasp of true history and not be led astray by false teachers who seek to discredit Protestant Christianity. We must know the truth of history so we can reject and repudiate bad readings and fabrications about the bride of Christ.

6. Church history strengthens our confidence in the faith once delivered to the saints.

What trials has the church overcome through the ages? How did the Protestant Reformers peel away traditions and return to the teachings of the New Testament? How did this recovery of the Gospel bring transformation to the world? It is important that we equip ourselves with this history so that we might better understand our faith.

7. Church history increases our thanksgiving.

When we observe God’s gracious providence, the power of the Scriptures through the last two thousand years of church history, and the sufferings of our brothers and sisters for the sake of the gospel, it is right that we respond with thanksgiving and praise to God.

If you’d like to do some reading about the Reformation, the following titles are a good place to start:

• Why the Reformation Still Matters by Michael Reeves and Tim Chester

• Rescuing the Gospel: The Story and Significance of the Reformation by Erwin W. Lutzer

• 2,000 Years of Christ’s Power: Renaissance and Reformation by Nick Needham

If you would like to review our last two years of church history classes, we looked at Early Church History in 2024, and Medieval Church History in 2025. Both of these are available in Occoquan Bible Church’s media library. Some of these class sessions are particularly helpful in understanding the corruption of Roman Catholicism and the stories of the early reformers which lead us into the Protestant Reformation.

Please pray for this new class to be edifying and encouraging, and that the Lord would be glorified.

Blessings in Christ,

Ben

Did he really banish snakes from Ireland? Before you dismiss this myth, remember that truth is often embedded in old stories. A literalistic reading of myths like this often miss the meaning of the story. It can be rightly said that Patrick’s preaching of Christ defeated the darkness of paganism in Ireland and displaced the old gods.

Celtic Paganism

What’s this about snakes? Druids were associated with serpents. You can see this imagery still on runes carved into pagan ruins. Such images were common in Celtic paganism. They were polytheistic, and observed spiritual and supernatural realities in the sun, moon, trees, and rocks. Groves of trees, ancient ruins, stone circles, and tops of hills were described as “thin” places where the veil separating the physical and spiritual world would be lifted.

Tacitus records some details about the Celtic peoples’ paganism and human sacrifices in his reporting on Roman wars in his Annals of Imperial Rome.

“On the shore stood the opposing army with its dense array of armed warriors, while between the ranks dashed women, in black attire like the Furies, with hair dishevelled, waving brands. All around, the Druids, lifting up their hands to heaven, and pouring forth dreadful imprecations, scared our soldiers by the unfamiliar sight, so that, as if their limbs were paralysed, they stood motionless, and exposed to wounds. Then urged by their general’s appeals and mutual encouragements not to quail before a troop of frenzied women, they bore the standards onwards, smote down all resistance, and wrapped the foe in the flames of his own brands. A force was next set over the conquered, and their groves, devoted to inhuman superstitions, were destroyed. They deemed it indeed a duty to cover their altars with the blood of captives and to consult their deities through human entrails.”

From Scotland to Ireland

Contrary to popular belief, Patrick was not Irish, though he is called the “apostle to Ireland.” He was born in Scotland, in Alcluyd, which is modern-day Dumbarton, c. 390. I highly recommend that you read Patrick’s Confession for a first hand account of his life and ministry. Some excerpts are below:

I, Patrick, a sinner, a most simple countryman, the least of all the faithful and most contemptible to many, had for father the deacon Calpurnius, son of the late Potitus, a priest, of the settlement of Bannavem Taburniae; he had a small villa nearby where I was taken captive. I was at that time about sixteen years of age. I did not, indeed, know the true God; and I was taken into captivity in Ireland with many thousands of people, according to our deserts, for quite drawn away from God, we did not keep his precepts, nor were we obedient to our priests who used to remind us of our salvation. And the Lord brought down on us the fury of his being and scattered us among many nations, even to the ends of the earth, where I, in my smallness, am now to be found among foreigners.

And there the Lord opened my mind to an awareness of my unbelief, in order that, even so late, I might remember my transgressions and turn with all my heart to the Lord my God, who had regard for my insignificance and pitied my youth and ignorance. And he watched over me before I knew him, and before I learned sense or even distinguished between good and evil, and he protected me, and consoled me as a father would his son. After I reached Ireland I used to pasture the flock each day and I used to pray many times a day. More and more did the love of God, and my fear of him and faith increase, and my spirit was moved so that in a day [I said] from one up to a hundred prayers, and in the night a like number; besides I used to stay out in the forests and on the mountain and I would wake up before daylight to pray in the snow, in icy coldness, in rain, and I used to feel neither ill nor any slothfulness, because, as I now see, the Spirit was burning in me at that time.

Therefore, indeed, I cannot keep silent, nor would it be proper, so many favours and graces has the Lord deigned to bestow on me in the land of my captivity. For after chastisement from God, and recognizing him, our way to repay him is to exalt him and confess his wonders before every nation under heaven.

After escaping slavery in Ireland, he returned to his homeland, was reunited with his family, and trained for ministry. He then returned to Ireland to bring the gospel to those who had previously enslaved him.

Letter to Coroticus

Patrick’s second surviving work is his Letter to Coroticus. This letter is a rebuke of the villainous king Coroticus whose soldiers had massacred some of his church members and taken others away into slavery. Patrick wrote to pronounce excommunication on those soldiers, as well as to call for the release of his church members. We do not know the outcome of this story.

Confronting Paganism at Slane Hill

A pagan festival was held at Tara, and during this festival, no fires would be kindled elsewhere, until the High King Laoghaire of Ireland lit a flame on this pagan hill. One writer from the 600s recounted: “The custom was that whoever lit a fire before the king on that one night of the year – Easter’s Eve – would be put to death.” Patrick saw this as an opportunity to confront paganism, and on Saturday evening before Easter Sunday, he lit an offending bonfire on Slane Hill which was easily visible to those at Tora from ten miles away. The king sent his soldiers to seize Patrick, and after an interview and hearing of Christ, he granted him permission to preach in that area.

It’s a bit of trivia, but Slane Hill is also the name of the ancient Irish melody used for our hymn Be Thou My Vision.

Life and ministry in Ireland was fraught with danger. Patrick wrote “daily I expect to be murdered or betrayed or reduced to slavery if the occasion arises. But I fear nothing, because of the promises of Heaven; for I have cast myself into the hands of Almighty God, who reigns everywhere.”

Other times he was robbed and imprisoned. “They seized me with my companions, and that day most avidly desired to kill me. But my time had not yet come. They plundered everything they found on us anyway, and fettered me in irons; and on the fourteenth day the Lord freed me from their power, and whatever they had of ours was given back to us for the sake of God on account of the indispensable friends whom we had made before.”

Patrick’s Theology

Read the following excerpts of Patrick’s Confession and you will see one who believed in salvation by grace, and one who affirmed the Nicene Creed and the doctrine of the Trinity.

On Grace

“I know for certain, that before I was humbled I was like a stone lying in deep mire, and he that is mighty came and in his mercy raised me up and, indeed, lifted me high up and placed me on top of the wall. From there I ought to shout in gratitude to the Lord for his great grace in this world and forever, that the mind of man cannot measure.”

On the Trinity

For there is no other God, nor ever was before, nor shall be hereafter, but God the Father, unbegotten and without beginning, in whom all things began, whose are all things, as we have been taught; and his son Jesus Christ, who manifestly always existed with the Father, before the beginning of time in the spirit with the Father, indescribably begotten before all things, and all things visible and invisible were made by him. He was made man, conquered death and was received into Heaven, to the Father who gave him all power over every name in Heaven and on Earth and in Hell, so that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and God, in whom we believe. And we look to his imminent coming again, the judge of the living and the dead, who will render to each according to his deeds. And he poured out his Holy Spirit on us in abundance, the gift and pledge of immortality, which makes the believers and the obedient into sons of God and co-heirs of Christ who is revealed, and we worship one God in the Trinity of holy name.

On Pagan Worship, Eternal Life, and Judgment Day

For the sun we see rises each day for us at [his] command, but it will never reign, neither will its splendor last, but all who worship it will come wretchedly to punishment.

We, on the other hand, shall not die, who believe in and worship the true sun, Christ . . . but will abide for ever just as Christ abides for ever, who reigns with God the Father Almighty and with the Holy Spirit before the beginning of time and now and forever and ever. Amen.

Love for Ireland

Patrick loved Ireland and spend the remainder of his life on that island. He prayed that he would be allowed to stay with the church in Ireland, and that he would finish well: “May it never befall me to be separated by my God from his people whom he has won in this most remote land. I pray God that he gives me perseverance, and that he will deign that I should be a faithful witness for his sake right up to the time of my passing.”

An Ireland Freed from Paganism

Patrick is believed to have died on March 17, 461. When we celebrate St. Patrick’s Day, let us remember God’s work of grace to save the people of Ireland from paganism. Patrick marveled at this grace: “How is it that in Ireland, where they never had any knowledge of God but, always, until now, cherished idols and unclean things, they are lately become a people of the Lord, and are called children of God?”

On Christmas Day in 1412, Jan Hus penned a letter from exile to encourage the saints in Prague. This letter was a delight to discover earlier this year, and it is a rich meditation for Christmas. I will offer some brief background followed by the complete text below. I pray that Hus’ call from December 25, 1412 will reach through the ages to encourage your heart to rejoice in our Savior with a “mighty joy.”

If you are unfamiliar with the story of Jan Hus and how his ministry in Bohemia and subsequent martyrdom helped to prepare the way for the Protestant Reformation, I invite you to listen to this biographical lesson from earlier this year.

Jan Hus’ pastoral ministry in Prague ended abruptly with exile in October of 1412. Papal opposition to Hus and his teaching led to the threat of interdict against all of Prague which would suspend all church services in the city should he remain. To prevent this from happening, Hus left his beloved congregation and embraced self-imposed exile. He moved to Southern Bohemia where he was sheltered by barons who also objected to the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church. There Hus continued to serve the church with his writings until his betrayal and martyrdom in 1415.

Unable to be present with his congregation at Bethlehem Chapel, Hus wrote this letter to call them to a “mighty joy” in Christ on Christmas Day. These words of encouragement provide a small window into what it might have been like to sit under his preaching.

Letter to the People of Prague, December 25, 1412

My very dear brothers,
Although I am now separated from you in body, not being perhaps worthy to preach to you any longer the word of God, nevertheless the love with which I bear towards you urges me to approach and address you in a few words.

This is the day, dearly beloved, on which the angel of the Lord said to the shepherds—“Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy that shall be to all people.” And immediately, a multitude of the heavenly host were heard to cry out,—“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will toward men.”

Knowing that, dearly beloved, rejoice that today God is born a man, in order that there may be glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good-will toward men.

Rejoice that today the infinitely Mighty is born a child, that there may be glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will toward men.

Rejoice that today a Reconciler is born to reconcile man to God, that there may be glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will toward men.

Rejoice that today He is born to cleanse sinners from their sin, to deliver them from the devil’s power, to save them from eternal perdition, and to bring them to eternal joy, that there may be glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will toward men.

Rejoice with great joy that today is born unto us a King, to bestow in its fulness upon us the heavenly kingdom, a Bishop to grant His eternal benediction, a Father of the ages to come, to keep us as His children by His side for ever: yea, there is born a beloved Brother, a wise Master, a sure Leader, a just Judge, to the end that there may be glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will toward men.

Rejoice, ye wicked, that God is born as a Priest, Who hath granted to every penitent absolution from all sins, that there may be glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will toward men.

Rejoice that today the Bread of Angels—that is, God—is made the Bread of men, to revive the starving with His Body, that there may be peace among them, and on earth, peace, good-will toward men.

Rejoice that God immortal is born, that mortal man may live forever.

Rejoice that the rich Lord of the Universe lies in a manger, like a poor man, that he may make us rich.

Rejoice, dearly beloved, that what the prophets prophesied has been fulfilled, that there may be glory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace, good-will toward men.

Rejoice that there is born to us a Child omnipotent, and that a Son is given to us, all-wise and gracious, that there may be glory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace, good-will toward men.

Oh, dear friends, ought there to be but a moderate rejoicing over these things? Nay, a mighty joy!

Indeed, the angel saith: I bring you good tidings of great joy, for that there is born a Redeemer from all misery, a Savior of sinners, a Governor of His faithful ones; there is born a Comforter of the sorrowful, and there is given to us the Son of God that we may have great joy, and that there may be glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good-will toward men.

May it please God, born this day, to grant to us this goodwill, this peace, and withal this joy!

Jan Hus

Thomas Doolittle (1630-1707) is a lesser known Puritan and Nonconformist who is worthy of rediscovery, and we would do well to learn from his example of faithfulness and his love for Jesus in turbulent times.

Early Life

Born in Kidderminster, Worcestershire, Doolittle grew up and came to faith under the preaching of Richard Baxter. While working as a lawyer’s assistant, he was required to copy documents on the Lord’s Day. This brought about a crisis of conscience which resulted in him leaving his employment and ending his prospects of a legal career, but he did so in order to give the day to worship the Lord.

Education, Marriage, and Beginnings of Pastoral Ministry

Baxter encouraged him to consider pastoral ministry, and at age 17, he enrolled at Pembroke College in Cambridge where he went on to complete two theology degrees. At age 23, he got married, began his first pastorate at St. Alphage, London Wall, and began work on his second degree at Cambridge. Over the next nine years Doolittle continued in ministry, finished school, he and his wife Mary had three children, and Mary was pregnant with their fourth.

From the Pulpit to the Boarding School

A political crisis followed Oliver Cromwell’s death in 1658. Cromwell’s son Richard was unable to serve effectively as Lord Protector and went into exile, and Charles II returned to and took his father’s throne in 1660. The Clarendon Code pivoted the Church of England away from Reformed theology and congregationalism, and restored episcopacy. On August 24, 1662, the Act of Uniformity was passed by Parliament and Charles II. This stripped away religious liberty that had previously been enjoyed due to the English Civil War and Cromwell. Clergy were required to submit to the Book of Common Prayer and other dictates from Parliament and the king.

After prayerful consideration, Doolittle, along with over 2,000 pastors throughout England, refused to submit their theology and ministry to the state. Christ alone is King over the Church. This event is known as the Great Ejection. For Doolittle, this meant not only the loss of his employment, but it also put himself, his pregnant wife, and their three children out of their home which had been attached to the church.

With financial support from others, he opened a new home as a boarding school. Preaching without a license would result in arrest. Persecution from the state continued with the Conventicle Act in 1664, which prohibited the gathering of five or more persons who were not part of the same household for worship.

Plague, Fire, and Persecutions

In 1665, the plague struck. Doolittle and his family survived the plague. Most clergy appointed after the Great Ejection fled their places of ministry. The crisis created a vacuum, and Thomas Vincent, one of the teachers who worked in his boarding school, went into London and preached publicly and boldly throughout the epidemic. Many Nonconformists followed his example, and the state declined to persecute them during this tumultuous season.

The following year, in 1666, London burned. Convicted of the need for faithful churches, he partnered in the construction of a meeting house to hold a new church in London, where he and Thomas Vincent pastored together. The congregation grew, and they moved to a larger meeting house. London was being rebuilt, the times of crises had passed, and persecution restarted. Midnight on a Saturday, soldiers broke down his door to arrest him for preaching, and he escaped over a wall into a neighbor’s house.

Vincent and Doolittle refused to heed a warning from the mayor of London, and continued to preach. Word spread that soldiers were coming to arrest Doolittle at the next worship service, and a friend insisted on preaching in his place. Soldiers barged into the worship service, announcing, “Stop, in the King’s Name.” At this, the preacher cried out, “In the name of the King of kings, do not disturb his worship.” The soldiers were commanded to open fire, and the preacher escaped in the commotion. The pulpit was pulled down, and the doors barred. Gathering for worship would once again return to secret meetings.

In 1672, Charles II granted an “indulgence” that allowed for Doolittle to begin public preaching once more. He relocated his family and began pastoral ministry once more, only to have this freedom rescinded. This was followed by another two moves and the confiscation of his family’s possessions.

Return to London

Persecution ended following William and Mary’s Glorious Revolution of 1688. The Act of Toleration was passed in 1689, allowing Doolittle to return to the meeting house that he and Vincent had opened in London. He pastored there until his death in 1707.

Doolittle’s career is not marked by a lengthy ministry in any one place, or by any bestselling title. Instead, his ministry career was marked by great difficulty in a turbulent period and he is little known today. You may, however, be familiar with some of his students, among whom were Matthew Henry and Edmund Calamy.

Love for Jesus

About twenty published works survive from Doolittle’s ministry. His writings are very practical and evangelistic with a focus on spiritual life, family life, and evangelism. As a starting point, I recommend Love to Christ Necessary to Escape the Curse at his Coming (1693)1 If the full text is a bit much, I recommend you read through the excerpted “Motives to Love Jesus” posted at A Puritan’s Mind.

Read this excerpt below:

This holy love therefore being the choicest, chief love — supposes Christ to be the choicest, and the chief good.

That he is a good Savior, a good Redeemer, a good Lord and Master; a good excelling, transcending all inferior . . . good; good! not only good, but best — best in himself, and best for us!

And because he must be loved with such a love, as that we are willing at his call to part with all other good for his sake — therefore he is looked upon, and loved as a universal good.

Whereas riches, honors, friends, and all things of this world are but particular good — no one thing is good for all things. Food and drink are good to satisfy your hunger and thirst — but not to clothe you. Clothes are good to cover you, but not to feed you, etc.

But the soul whose love is fixed upon Christ, sees and says:

In poverty, Christ will be my riches,

in disgrace, Christ will be my honor,

in bonds and imprisonment, Christ will be my liberty,

in pain, Christ will be my comfort,

in death, Christ will be my life,

in the loss of all things, Christ will be better to me than the enjoyment of all these things!

He who does not love Christ as an incomparable object — does not love him as he ought.

“Whom have I in Heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever!”

Doolittle knew these realities quite well. Though he had lost much for the sake of Christ, he rejoiced to love Jesus. May the same be true for us.

If you know a little about church history, you’re probably familiar with Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the Castle Church door in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. Many churches will remember this event as a catalyst for the Protestant Reformation and celebrate October 31st as Reformation Day. As Protestants, this is a day for which we should give thanks to the Lord. And as we remember this day, we do not want to forget the saints and events that led up to this moment.

A Century Before Wittenberg

In February of 1395, followers of John Wycliffe, known as the Lollards, presented The Twelve Conclusions to Parliament and Richard II and posted it on the doors of Westminster Abbey and St. Paul’s Cathedral in London. This document decried the moral corruption of Roman Catholicism and called for repudiation of false Roman Catholic doctrines.

The Lollards were preachers of Wycliffe’s teachings, being derisively called “lollards,” meaning mumblers. They were mocked for their preaching and reading of Scriptures. Instead of rejecting this derogatory nickname, they adopted it for themselves as they preached to the common people in English.

Unlike many of the Lollards who would suffer persecution, Wycliffe did not die in flames as a heretic but had passed away a decade earlier. Though the Roman Catholic Church sought to destroy him, he survived multiple attempts of prosecution as powerful friends and allies shielded him and interfered with trial proceedings at St. Paul’s Cathedral (1377), Lambeth Palace (1378), and the Blackfriars Council (1382). Among his supporters were Edward III, John of Gaunt, Joan of Kent, Richard II, and Anne of Bohemia. Wycliffe final years were given to completing the first full English translation of the Bible and to training preachers for the people of England. He died of a stroke on December 31, 1384.

The Twelve Conclusions has been translated from Middle English and published in English Historical Review in 1907.1 It can also be found on Harvard’s Geoffrey Chaucer Website (Chaucer moved in some of the same circles as Wycliffe and is reported to have attended one of his trials).

I encourage you to read The Twelve Conclusions below and consider the reforms and correction that Wycliffe’s followers sought to bring to the church:

We poor men, treasurers of Christ and his Apostles, denounce to the Lords and the Commons of the Parliament certain conclusions and truth for the reformation of the Holy Church of England, the which has been blind and leprous many years by the maintenance of the proud prelacy, borne up with flattering of private religion, the which is multiplied to a great charge and onerous to people here in England.

The First Conclusion: State of The Church

When the Church of England began to dote in temporality after her stepmother, the great Church of Rome, and churches were slain by appropriation to diverse places. Faith, Hope, and Charity began for to flee out of our Church. For Pride with his sorry genealogy of deadly sins challengeth it by title of heritage. This conclusion is general and proved by experience, custom, and manner, as you shall after hear.

The Second Conclusion: The Priesthood

The Second Conclusion is this: Our usual priesthood, the which began in Rome feigned of a power higher than angels, is not the priesthood the which Christ ordained to his Apostles. This conclusion is proved: for the priesthood of Rome is made with signs, rites, and bishops’ blessings, and that is of little virtue. nowhere ensampled in the Holy Scripture, for the bishops ordinals in the New Testament be little of record. And we can not see that the Holy Ghost, for any such signs, gives any gifts, for he and his noble gifts may not stand with deadly sin in no matter person. The corollary of this conclusion is that it is full uncouth to many that be wise to see bishops play with the holy ghost in making of their orders, for they give crowns in characters in stead of white harts, and that is the livery of Antichrist, brought into Holy Church to color idleness.

The Third Conclusion: Clerical Celibacy

The Third Conclusion, sorrowful to hear, is: That the law of continence annexed to priesthood, that in prejudice of women was first ordained, induces sodomy in Holy Church; but we excuse us by the Bible, for the suspect decree that says we should not name it. Reason and experience prove this conclusion. For delicious meats and drinks of men of Holy Church will have needful purgation or worse. Experience for the privy assay of such men is that they like not women. The corollary of this conclusion is that the private religions. beginners of this sin, were most worthy to be annulled but God, for his might, of privy sin send open vengeance.

The Fourth Conclusion: Transubstantiation

The Fourth Conclusion that most harms the innocent people is this: That the sacrament of bread induces all men but a few to idolatry, for they ween that Christ’s body, that never shall out of heaven, by virtue of the priest’s word should be essentially enclosed in a little bread, that they show to the people. But would God that they would believe that the Doctor Evangelicus says in his Trialogue, quod panis materialis est habitudinaliter corpus Christi. For we suppose that on this wise may every true man and woman in God’s law make the sacrament of the bread without any such miracle. The corollary of this conclusion is that if Christ’s body be endued with everlasting joy, the service of Corpus Christi made by Friar Thomas is untrue and painted full of false miracles, and that is no wonder, for Friar Thomas that same time, holding with the Pope, would have made a miracle of a hen’s egg, and we know well that every lie openly preached turns itself to villainy that ever was true and without lack.

The Fifth Conclusion: Exorcisms and Hallowings

The fifth conclusion is this: that exorcisms and hallowings, made in the church, of wine, bread, and wax, water, salt, oil and incense, the stone of the altar, upon vestment, miter, cross, and pilgrim staffs be the very practice of necromancy rather than of the holy theology. This conclusion is proved thus: For by such exorcisms creatures be charged to be of higher virtue than their own kind, and we see no thing of change in no such creature that is so charmed but by false belief, the which is the principal of the Devil’s craft. The corollary of this, that is the book that charmeth holy water spread in Holy Church were all true, us thinks verily that holy water used in holy church should be the best medicine to all manner of sickness. Cuius contrarium experimur.

The Sixth Conclusion: Clerics in Secular Offices

The sixth conclusion that maintaineth much pride is: that a king and a bishop all in one person, a prelate and a justice in temporal cause, a curate and an officer in worldly service, make every realm out of good rule. This conclusion is openly showed, for temporality and spirituality be two parts of Holy Church and therefore he that hath taken him to the one should not meddle him with the other, quia nemo potest duobus dominis servire. Us thinketh that hermaphrodite or ambidexter were a good name to such men of double estate. The corollary is that for we, procurators of God, for this cause pursue to this Parliament that all manner of curates, both high and low, be fully excused of temporal office and occupy them with their cure and naught else.

The Seventh Conclusion: Prayers for the Dead

The Seventh conclusion that we mightily affirm is: that special prayers for dead men’s souls made in our church, preferring one by name more than another, this is the false ground of alms deeds, on the which all alms houses in England be wickedly grounded. This conclusion is proven by two skills. One is for prayer meritorious and of value should be a work proceeding from high charity, and perfect charity accepts no persons, quia diliges proximum tuum, etc. Wherefore us thinks that the gifts of temporal goods to priests and to alms houses is the principal cause of special prayers, the which is not far from simony. Another skill for special prayer made for men damned to everlasting pain is to God greatly displeasing, and though it be doubt, it is lightly to true Christian people that the founders of the alms houses for their venomous donation be for the most part passed the broad way. The corollary is the prayer of value s[ringing out of perfect charity should embrace in general all those that God would have saved and leave their merchandise now used for special prayers made to mendicants and possessioners and other souls’ priests, the which be a people of great charge to all the realm maintained in idleness, for it was proved in a book that the king heard that an hundred of alms houses sufficed to the realm and thereof should fall the greatest increase possible to temporal part.

The Eighth Conclusion: Pilgrimages

The eighth conclusion needful to tell the people beguiled is the pilgrimage, prayers, and offerings made to blind roods and deaf images of tree and stone be near kin to idolatry and far from alms deeds. And though this forbidden imagery be a book of errors to the lewd people, yet the image used of Trinity is most abominable. This conclusion God openly showeth, commanding to do almsdeeds to men that be needy. for they be the image of God in a more likeness than the stock of the stone, for God sayeth not Faciamus lignum ad ymaginem et similitudinem nostram aut lapidem, but faciamus hominem etc. For the high worship that clerks call latria longeth to the godhead alone and the lower worship that is called dulia longeth to man and to angel and to lower creatures. The corollary is that the service of the Rood, done twice every year in our church, is fulfilled of idolatry, for if the Rood tree, nails, and the spear, and the crown of God should be so holy worshipped, then were Judas’ lips, whoso might them get, a wonder great relic. But we pray thee, pilgrim, us to tell when thou first offerest to saints’ bones enshrined in any place, whether relieves thou the saint that is in bliss or the alms house that is so well endowed. For men be canonized, God knows how, and for to speak more in plain, true Christian men suppose that the points of that noble man that men call Saint Thomas, were no cause of martyrdom.

The Ninth Conclusion: Confession

The ninth conclusion that holdeth the people low is, that the articles of confession that is said necessary to the salvation of man, with a feigned power of absolution enhanceth priests’ pride, and giveth them opportunity of calling other than we will not say. For lords and ladies be arrested that for fear of their confessors, that they dare not say a truth, and in time of confession is the best time of wooing and of privy continuance of deadly sin. They say that they be commissaries of God to deem of every sin, to foul and cleanse whomso they like. They say that they have the keys of heaven and of hell, they may curse and bless, bind and unbind at their own will, in so much that for a bushel of wheat or twelve pence by year they will sell the bliss of heaven by charter of clause of warranty, ensealed with the common seal. This conclusion is seen in use that it needeth none other proof. Correlarium: The Pope of Rome that feigneth him high treasurer of holy church, having the worthy jewel of Christ’s passion in his keeping, with the deserts of all hallows of heaven, by which he giveth the pardon a pena et a culpa. He is a treasurer most banished out of charity, since he may deliver the prisoners that be in pain at his own will, and make himself so that he shall never come there, Here may every true Christian well see that there is much privy falseness hid in our church.

The Tenth Conclusion: War, Battle, and Crusades

The tenth conclusion is that manslaughter by battle or law of righteousness for temporal cause or spiritual with out special revelation is express contrary to the New Testament, the which is a law of grace and full of mercy. This conclusion is openly proved by example of Christ’s preaching here on earth. the which most taught to love and to have mercy on his enemies. and not for to slay them. The reason is of this, that for the more party, there men fight, after the first stroke charity is broken; and who so dyeth out of charity goth the high way to hell. And over this, we know well that no clerk can find by scripture or by reason lawful punishment of death for one sin and not for another. But the law of mercy, that is the New Testament, forbade all manslaughter: in euangelio dictum est antiquis. Non occides. The corollary is: it is an holy robbing of poor people when lords purchase indulgences a pena et a culpa to them that helpeth with his host. and gathereth to slay the Christian men in far lands for good temporal, as we have seen. And knights, that run to heathenness to get them a name in slaying of men, get much maugré of the King of Peace; for the meekness and sufferance our belief was multiplied, and fighters and manslayers Jesu Christ hateth and menaceth. Qui gladio percutit, gladio peribit.

The Eleventh Conclusion: Female Vows of Continence and Abortion

The eleventh conclusion is shameful for to speak: that a vow of continence made in our church of women, the which be fickle and imperfect in kind, is cause of bringing in of most horrible sin possible to man kind. For though slaying of children ere they be christened, abortion, and destroying of kind by medicine be full sinful, yet knowing with themselves [i.e., having intercourse with] or [either] unreasonable beast or creature that beareth no life passeth in worthiness to be punished in pains of hell. The corollary is that widows and which as have taken the mantle and the ring, deliciously fed, we would they were wedded for we can not excuse them from privy sins.

The Twelfth Conclusion: Arts and Crafts

The twelfth conclusion is that the multitude of crafts not needful used in our church nourisheth much sin in waste, curiosity, and disguising. This showeth experience, and reason proveth, for nature with a few crafts sufficeth to need of man. The corollary is, since Saint Paul sayeth, we having our bodily food and clothing, we should hold ourselves satisfied, us thinketh that goldsmiths and armourers and all manner crafts not needful to men, after [according to] the Apostle, should be destroyed for the increase of virtue. For though to these crafts named were much more needful in the Old Law, the New testament hath voided these and many others.

This is our embassy, that Christ has commanded us to pursue, at this time most acceptable for many causes. And though these matters be here shortly knit they be in another book longly declared, and may another more, all in our language, the which we would were communed to all true Christian men.

We pray God of his endless goodness reform our church, all out of joint, to the perfections of the first beginning.

Amen.

The Lollards’ call to reform in 1395 was a courageous word against the corruption of Rome. Though Parliament and Richard II took no action in response to this document, Richard had been favorable toward Wycliffe, and Roman Catholic persecution against the Lollards struggled to get traction during his reign.

Things changed when Henry IV came to power, and the Roman Catholic Church brought severe persecution against the Lollards in England and elsewhere. In 1401, Henry IV called for the burning of heretics. In 1415, the Council of Constance in Germany declared Wycliffe and his followers to be heretics. This would bring about the martyrdom of Jan Hus of Bohemia, who was burned on July 6, 1415.

In 1418, Wycliffe’s body was exhumed at Lutterworth, his bones burned, and his ashes cast into the Swift.

The words of Thomas Fuller describe this event well:

They burnt his bones to ashes and cast them into Swift, a neighboring brook running hardby. Thus this brook hath conveyed his ashes into Avon, Avon into Severn, Severn into the narrow seas, they into the main ocean. And thus the ashes of Wicliffe are the emblem of his doctrine, which now is dispersed the world over.2

Rome’s efforts to stamp out dissent failed. The Waldensians, a movement about 150 years older than Wycliffe, continued to survive despite multiple military campaigns. Wycliffe’s teaching rippled through generations, and the Lollards would continue in England with their influence spreading to universities across Europe, and to the Netherlands and Bohemia. Though Jan Hus is burned in 1415, the Hussites in Bohemia would successfully defend themselves against multiple crusader armies sent by the Pope.

When Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses to the church door at Wittenberg, he joined this growing chorus for reform and fidelity to Scripture. Many are the voices who have sought the good of the church through history. May the “God of endless goodness” continue to reform and purify his church.

For those of you who don't know me, my name is Ben Purves, and I have decided to start a personal blog on church life and church history. This writing extends from my ministry at Occoquan Bible Church in Woodbridge, VA. This blog will be thematically focused on church life and church history for the edification of the local church, and I will be writing with my brothers and sisters at OBC in mind. Clarior e tenebris (more brightly from darkness) is a Latin motto that has been used by the Purves clan for centuries, and I have taken the liberty of using it to title this blog. It is my prayer that the writings posted here will display the light of Christ and serve the good of his church.

Writings on Church Life

I am thankful for the blessing of fellowship with my brothers and sisters at Occoquan Bible Church. It has been my joy to serve there since 2008, and the fellowship we share is a precious gift. I currently provide pastoral oversight for the Member Care and Community Groups ministries. As the Lord allows, I plan to post about local church membership and fellowship as I give thought to these areas of church life in day-to-day ministry.

Writings on Church History

In addition to this, I plan to write semi-regularly about church history. Church history bears witness to the faithfulness of Christ as he builds his church through the ages (Matt 16:18). It is the story of our family of faith and it gives us many examples of brothers and sisters who have loved and served our Lord Jesus Christ. The study of church history reveals the riches of our theological heritage and how the light of the gospel has shone in darkness through the ages. It is right that as we study history that we respond with thanksgiving for the goodness of God's providence.

I enjoy the study of church history, and I am thankful for the opportunity to teach a multi-year Sunday School series from the early church to present day. I will use this blog to post materials for further study. Last year’s class looked at early church history, and this year we just finished an overview of medieval church history, moving from Nicaea to the Fall of Constantinople. If all continues as planned, upcoming years will include the Protestant Reformation (2026), the Puritans (2027), early American church history (2028), and modern to contemporary church history (2029).

The church does well to avail herself of the wisdom and counsel of faithful brothers and sisters from the past. For example, I have written previously about the relevance of John Newton’s pastoral letters and sermons in engaging contemporary issues. His pastoral counsel is invaluable in applying of the doctrine of liberty of conscience to questions of inoculation and vaccines. In addition, his critique of the 1784 performance of Handel’s Messiah at Westminster gives us much to think about when it comes to the performance of sacred music today.

For the Good of the Church

My DMin research thesis at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary focused on pastoral ministry during the Great Plague of London (1665). In surveying the literature of that period, I came across an open letter to the “fugitive pastors”who fled London to escape the plague. The letter rebuked them for forsaking their congregations and called them to return to their pastoral duty, as those who shepherd must “love to live to the good of the church.”1 Instead of separating from the sheep in times of danger, shepherds should love to spend their lives for the good of the church. Thomas Vincent illustrates this well, and he provides a courageous example of one who preached in London throughout the plague years. As we look back at recent memories of COVID, we observed all too painfully how churches suspended the assembly of the saints and pastors neglected their calling to care for the flock. Pastors must not be hirelings who serve in pastoral ministry for their own good, but they must imitate the chief shepherd by spending their lives for the good of the church.

Love and care for the church should likewise be a defining character trait for every church member (1 Cor 12:14-26). Every part of the body is to love and edify one another so that together we become more like Christ (Eph 4:15-16). We should love to love the church. In today’s individualistic consumer approach to the church, too many are driven by self-love and give little consideration to loving the church. The bride of Christ is shamefully treated like a commodity. Voices are quick to speak poorly about Christ’s bride, and body parts are all too willing to be amputated or dis-membered in the name of self-interest. Instead, we must take to heart the love that Christ has for his church. Christ “loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5:25) and he has obtained her for himself by his precious blood (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 1:18-19). The fellowship we share in our Lord is of inestimable worth, and this gift of grace is to be treasured. So then, let us “love to live to the good of the church.”

This blog exists to encourage the saints toward that end. May the Lord grant us grace that we might “love to live to the good of the church.”

Share