STUDIES IN THE WESTMINSTER SHORTER CATECHISM

Q. 67. Which is the sixth commandment?

A. The sixth commandment is, Thou shalt not kill.

Q. 68. What is required in the sixth commandment?

A. The sixth commandment requireth all lawful endeavors to preserve our own life, and the life of others.

Scripture References: Exodus 20:13; Eph. 5:29; Matt. 10:23; Ps. 82:3, 4; Job. 29:13.

Questions:

1. What is the meaning of the word “kill”in this question?

The meaning of the word “kill” is to commit murder. The correct rendering of the Hebrew here is “Thou’ shalt do no murder”. This would mean the unjust taking of life.

2. What does the sixth commandment require in reference to our own lives?

It requires that we use all lawful endeavors to preserve it.

3. What are these lawful endeavors?

The Larger Catechism teaches: that this commandment requires “the just defense thereof against violence; – a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labour, and recreation.” (Q. 135)

4. What does the sixth commandment require in reference to others?

The Larger Catechism teaches: “By resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any.” (Q. 135)

5. What does the commandment mean by “lawful endeavors” toward ourselves and others?

By “lawful endeavors” it means a “sober” use of them as the Larger Catechism states it. We need such things as food, drink, recreation, labor-these are all an important part of human life. We need to be equally careful in our action towards others. In all areas we need to be certain our actions are consistent with the Word of God. Love, as presented in The Word, should be our basis of action.

6. Does this commandment speak only of the body?

No, this commandment is also speaking of the soul. There should be, on our part, a careful avoiding of sin and an equally careful and deli gent use of the means of’ grace.

THE SOBER LIFE

This devotional on the sixth commandment is one that I, as a busy minister of the Gospel, should take to heart even as I write it. And I pray that I, and you, might do so, all to the glory of God. Intemperance on the part of the saved is one of the most flagrant of sins. It seems that the more dedicated the believer is, there is a danger of breaking the sixth commandment by committing an evangelical form of suicide. Let me be very explicit here in what I mean by “an evangelical form of suicide”. There is the terrible temptation, used time and time again by Satan, for the believer in Christ to burn out his life for the Lord in a way that is not consistent with the whole counsel of God. There is actually here a form of self murder.

The born again believer is a person who must realize at all times that he is to be a good steward of what God has given him, realizing that his body is the temple of the Holy Ghost. It is a strange thing but the very believer who would not think of indulging in the gross forms of intemperance will tum right around and indulge in a so-called lesser form. He will not drink intoxicating beverages, but he will try to burn the candle at both ends. He will not attend parties that last far into the night, but he will overeat or try to live without exercising his body, keeping it in shape that he might have the stamina to do what God wants him to do when God wants him to do it. In these areas he is very inconsistent.

The Lord has brought to my mind the past few days that possibly the error here is that the dedicated believer might be looking upon the work of the Lord as an idol, that here we have a form of idolatry. Be assured that I am not advocating slothfulness or laziness in the work of our Lord. I am simply wondering if sometimes we forget the teaching of Titus 2:12, forgetting that the word “soberly” means “a constant reign on passions”. Need it be said that “passions” include our burning desire to serve Him? May God help us to be certain we walk in the Spirit and be sober, sensible in regarding how we spend our time. Looking back, do we take one day out of seven?

Published By: The SHIELD and SWORD, INC.
Dedicated to instruction in the Westminster Standards for use as a bulletin insert or other methods of distribution in Presbyterian churches
The Shield and Sword, Inc.
Vol. 5 No. 1 January, 1966
Leonard T. Van Horn, Editor.

“The Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants” by Elisha Williams (Mar. 30, 1744)

The great grandson of several New England families (John Cotton’s among them), Elisha Williams (1694–1755) graduated from Harvard in 1711. After a brief career of teaching and tutoring in 1722 he became the pastor of a congregational church in Wethersfield, Connecticut, prior to becoming and serving as the Yale rector from 1726-1739. His abilities as a scholar show why Yale was attracted to him, and his acumen shines through in this essay. After 1739, he ended his time at Yale, and some believed he was interested in serving in the Governor’s chair. After his Yale tenure, he served in the Connecticut legislature (1740-1749) and even temporarily as a Connecticut Supreme Court Judge—a pretty uncommon role for a pastor. A year before his death, he served in the Albany Congress with Benjamin Franklin to begin to plan for an American union. This sermon or essay was likely a reaction to a 1742 statute (in a climate of Revivalism) that prohibited pastors from preaching outside of their own pulpit. In what follows, one finds a learned and lucid articulation of the role of government and its interface with religion. Moderns would do well, at least, to be familiar with this.

This message is both one of the earliest and one of the lengthiest of the genre. Delivered a generation prior to military conflicts, this was not a typical sermon (although it is often associated with such because of its overt religious orientation). Williams was attempting to address the challenging relationship of church and state (“the extent of the civil magistrate’s power respecting religion” in his words). Mutually affirming the sole authority of Scripture, while also aware of abuses from an improper union of church and state, Williams set out to defend this proposition: “The more firmly this is established in our minds; the more firm shall we be against all attempts upon our Christian liberty, and better practice that Christian charity towards such as are of different sentiments from us,”

First, he addressed the Origin and End of Civil Government. Williams believed that reason led to certain conclusions (and in this tract he frequently cited “Mr. Lock” as the authority). Among them, humans had a natural freedom defined as: “This natural freedom is not a liberty for every one to do what he pleases without any regard to any law; for a rational creature cannot but be made under a law from its Maker: But it consists in a freedom from any superiour power on earth, and not being under the will or legislative authority of man, and having only the law of nature (or in other words, of its Maker) for his rule.” Flowing from this was the right to property, the right to elect leaders, and also the need for government and constitutions.

Williams’ segue to his second topic is: “Hence then the fountain and original of all civil power is from the people, and is certainly instituted for their sakes; or in other words, which was the second thing proposed, The great end of civil government, is the preservation of their persons, their liberties and estates, or their property.”

The third focal point is: “What liberty or power belonging to man as he is a reasonable creature does every man give up to the civil government whereof he is a member. Some part of their natural liberty they do certainly give up to the government, for the benefit of society and mutual defence (for in a political society every one even an infant has the whole force of the community to protect him), and something therefore is certainly given up to the whole for this purpose.” He identified what is freely given up in order to have good government under two heads: “1st. The power that every one has in a state of nature to do whatever he judgeth fit, for the preservation of his person and property and that of others also, within the permission of the law of nature, he gives up to be regulated by laws made by the society, so far forth as the preservation of himself (his person and property) and the rest of that society shall require.” Secondly, “the power of punishing he wholly gives up, and engages his natural force (which he might before employ in the execution of the law of nature by his own single authority as he thought fit) to assist the executive power of the society as the law thereof shall require.”

Returning to the central question of the government’s duty toward religion, Williams asserted: “Should a government therefore restrain the free use of the scriptures, prohibit men the reading of them, and make it penal to examine and search them; it would be a manifest usurpation upon the common rights of mankind, as much a violation of natural liberty as the attack of a highwayman upon the road can be upon our civil rights.” Nevertheless, there was not to be creedal coercion by the civil governor; each citizen (assumed to be a believer) retained the right of private, independent judgment. Later Williams will deduce that “the civil authority has no power to make or ordain articles of faith, creeds, forms of worship or church government.” To do such would be to establish religion; and these explicit limitations should be allowed to define the originalist meaning of “establishment.” In an extended comment, he sets forth this view:

But here you will say, ‘Tho’ they have no authority to establish a religion of their own devising, yet have they not authority to establish a pure religion drawn out of the sacred scriptures, either by themselves or some synodical assemblies, and oblige their subjects upon (at least) negative penalties to receive the same[?]’ This I shall endeavour fairly to consider when I have observed, that if by the word establish be meant only an approbation of certain articles of faith and modes of worship, of government, or recommendation of them to their subjects; I am not arguing against it. But to carry the notion of a religious establishment so far as to make it a rule binding to the subjects, or on any penalties whatsoever, seems to me to be oppressive of Christianity, to break in upon the sacred rights of conscience, and the common rights and priviledges of all good subjects. For let it be supposed as now pleaded, that the clergy or a synodical assembly draw up the articles and form of religion, agreeable in their judgment to the sacred scriptures, and the reception of the same be made binding by the civil authority on their subjects; It will then follow, That all such establishments are certainly right and agreeable to the sacred scriptures.

He continued to maintain that it was impossible “that any can have right or authority to oblige Christians to believe or practice any thing in religion not true or not agreeable to the word of God: Because that would destroy the sacred scriptures from being the only rule of faith and practice in religion to a Christian. If the sacred scriptures are his rule of faith and practice, he is oblig’d and that by God himself, to believe and practice accordingly.” With impressive clarity, he asserted:

No man therefore, or order of men, can have any right or power to oblige the Christian to believe or do any thing in religion contrary to, or different from, what God has obliged him: The position of the one is the removal of the other. This then is certain, that if this proposition be true, that a humane religious establishment is a rule binding to Christians, or that the civil authority have power to oblige their subjects to receive them; then they are always right and agreeable to God’s word; but the latter is not true; therefore the proposition is false. Humane establishments in matters of religion, carry in them no force or evidence of truth. They who make them are no ways exempt from humane frailties and imperfections: They are as liable to error and mistake, to prejudice and passion, as any others. And that they have erred in their determinations, and decreed and established light to be darkness, & darkness to be light, that they have perplexed the consciences of men, and corrupted the simplicity of the faith in Christ, many councils and synods and assemblies of state are a notorious proof. . . . If therefore the civil authority has a power to make a religious establishment binding to the subjects; those six articles [ed. from Henry VIII in 1540] were true, tho’ they contained abominable absurdities, and amazing falshoods; and the people were obliged to believe them, and those who suffered for disbelieving them suffered justly.

Sounding a note that would be amplified a few decades later, this preacher affirmed that, “Every society ought to be subject only to its own proper legislature.” On the flip side of that autonomy, no ruler could coerce the conscience of religious subjects, for “The ground of obedience cannot be extended beyond the ground of that authority to which obedience is required.”

Williams showed his Protestant heritage, affirming an idea popularized centuries earlier by Beza, by Mayhew shortly thereafter, and others, namely “that every law not contrary to a superior law is to be obeyed.” In this fashion, submission was limited.

Since this piece is so long, there is much more that can be profitably read. Thus, we are happy to commend this piece of early American political theology to readers. Find it available in Ellis Sandoz, Political Sermons of the American Founding Era (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998); or it is online at: http://consource.org/document/the-essential-rights-and-liberties-of-protestants-by-elisha-williams-1744-3-30/.

by Dr. David W. Hall, Pastor
Midway Presbyterian Church
Powder Springs, Georgia

Image source: Title page of sermon by Elisha Williams, as displayed on the Princeton University Digital Library, at http://pudl.princeton.edu/objects/q811kk37n

First up today, we want to recognize the anniversary date for the following PCA churches organized [particularized] on this day, in the year indicated. Nearly one-third of all PCA churches pre-date the 1973 formation of the PCA, and for most of those churches, we do not presently know their exact date of organization. Typically it is the newer churches where we have that information. Please let us know if we missed a church’s anniversary date and we’ll add it to our list for future use. In some cases here we are using the date when the church came into the PCA, rather than when it was organized.

Christ Presbyterian Church, Clarkesville, GA [North Georgia Presbytery], organized on this day in 2002.
Orlando Korean Presbyterian Church, Orlando, FL [Korean Southeast Presbytery], was organized on this day in 2011.

As well, we would remember our Fathers and Brothers in the Faith, those who have gone before us:

The Rev. Donald J. MacNair died on this day, March 3rd, in 2001. Born in 1922 and educated at Rutgers University and Faith Theological Seminary, his first pastorate was with the BPC church in Coatesville, PA. Answering a call to serve The Covenant Presbyterian Church in St. Louis, he oversaw the relocation of that church and helped to design its new building. From 1964-1982, Rev. MacNair served as the head of National Presbyterian Missions (NPM), the church planting arm of the RPCES. While it was Dr. Edmund P. Clowney who came up with the idea of the Joining & Receiving method of merger, it was Don MacNair who was widely recognized as the architect of J&R and who worked tirelessly to bring about the reception of the RPCES into the PCA in 1982. In effect, he worked himself out of a job, since the PCA already had in place a director for its Mission to North America, NPM’s counterpart. Not one to sit around, Dr. MacNair then formed Churches Vitalized, a ministry to struggling churches. Both the Donald J. MacNair manuscript collectionand the records of Churches Vitalized are preserved at the PCA Historical Center. The latter collection is awaiting processing at this time.

Also on this day, the Rev. Robert James Ostenson, one of the founding fathers of the PCA, died on March 3, 2008. Born in 1922, he prepared for the ministry at Fuller Theological Seminary (BD, 1953) and was later awarded the Doctor of Divinity degree by Belhaven College in 1969. He was ordained by Mississippi Presbytery in 1953 and installed as the pastor of the Woodville and Gloster, MS churches, where he served for three years. At the time of the formation of the Presbyterian Church in America, he was serving as the pastor of Granada Presbyterian Church in Coral Gables, FL., 1965-1974. In his final pastorate, he returned to serve that church again, from 1987-1989.

And on this day, March 3, 1993, the Rev. John Galbreath Armes passed away. Born in 1918, his father was Roland K. Armes, a stalwart Presbyterian and a leader in the Bible Presbyterian Synod. John received his education at Hampden-Sydney College and Faith Theological Seminary before licensure and ordination by the Philadelphia Presbytery of the BPC. Rev. Armes served as a chaplain in the U.S. Navy, 1944-46 and was Assistant General Secretary of the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions from 1946-51. Leaving that post, he served as a foreign missionary in Kenya from 1951-1982. He was honorably retired in 1984 by the Northeast Presbytery of the PCA.

Image sources:
1. Portrait photograph of the Rev. Donald J. MacNair, from the MacNair manuscript collection.
2. Portrait photograph of the Rev. John G. Armes, from The Independent Board Bulletin, 14.1 (January 1948): 8.
All digital scans by the staff of the PCA Historical Center.

Words to Live By:
“Therefore let us also, seeing we are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12:1, ASV)

An Answer to the Charge of Being Unloving

There is a relevant editorial in the March 2, 1936 edition of The Presbyterian Guardian.  Historically minded readers will recognize this magazine as the voice of conservative leaders who were at that time still members of the Presbyterian Church, USA.  However, their remaining time there was but short, for in that year, trials and suspensions were taking place at an alarming rate for no other charge other than refusing to desist from the support of an Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions.  J. Gresham Machen was still alive and writing vigorously for the defense of the Christian faith.  Others were taking their stand for the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

On the editorial page of that issue (Volume 1, Number 11), H. McAllister Griffiths writes in defense of the need to expose modernism in the church at large.  Specifically, he answers why such an exposé is not unloving.  Listen to his words, which even today are apt in addressing the errors of today, both inside and outside the church:

“Why then do we present the facts concerning modernism . . .?  Only because it is our duty.  We find no happiness in the betrayals of which we must tell.  No one in his right mind could gloat over them, or be other than sorrowful.  But — if we love the souls of men we must warn them.  We must warn a sleeping church, largely uninformed about the nature of its official boards.  And finally, if we care anything about the honor of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the place due His Holy Word, we are under a solemn obligation to speak.

“This speaking, let it be understood, is in love. But what, exactly, is speaking in love?  Is it to speak lovingly?  Yes—in part.  But there is more to it than that.  We speak most in love when the motive that prompts us is love, and when the end desired is the supreme good of the one addressed.  The most loving words to a blind man approaching an unsuspected precipice would be ‘Stop! Stop! Stop where you are!’  What would you think of anyone who criticized the speaker of those words because he ‘didn’t have a good spirit,’ did not speak ‘lovingly,’ and who advised the blind man to go on, paying no attention to such an un-Christian fellow?

“(We see the church moving) on toward the precipice. The ground will feel solid beneath its feet until it gets to the edge. After it steps over it will be too late.  That is why we cry ‘Stop!’ now. And the cry of those who would save is the most loving cry in the world, even if unadorned with honeyed words.”

The Presbyterian stalwarts for the faith back in the 1930’s were praying and working for the elimination of unbelief in the Presbyterian church.  As we know now from history, such was not to be.  And those who were standing for the faith once delivered unto the saints were expelled from the church.

Words to Live By: The apostle Paul wrote 2000  plus years ago that all true Christians are to “take no part in the  unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.”  Ephesians 5:11 (ESV)