A Tragedy of Speed
by Rev. David T. Myers

It seems every generation experiences at least one major catastrophe which, for that generation, defines our nation’s character and conduct. That tragedy then can be seen to offer spiritual lessons about life in general.

Back in the early nineties of the last century, most of our readers can remember what they were doing when the Twin Towers in New York City were destroyed by two planes under the control of Islamic terrorists.

Before that, many of our readers can relate exactly where they were when an assassin killed President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas in the early part of the nineteen sixties.

In 1912, an unthinkable catastrophe happened on April 14 when an ocean liner named the Titanic sunk while on her maiden voyage, with the loss of over a thousand of her passengers. The ship was supposed to be unsinkable, with one construction expert going so far as to make the foolish claim that God Himself couldn’t sink her. But it did sink when it struck an iceberg. And as you might expect, all over this land ministers took to their pulpits to reflect on this terrible loss of life.

One such minister was the Presbyterian pastor of Washington Heights Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C., the Rev. William D Moss. The latter preached on the tragedy, using a text from Psalm 29:3 “The voice of the Lord is upon the waters.”

His message spoke of the common responses of blaming this and that for this terrible tragedy. Was the cause the builders who constructed the great ship? Was it an Old World government that failed to properly govern the laws for ships in a new century? Could business corporations be held responsible, when they vie with other corporations for supremacy of the ocean? Are there individuals who should be held responsible, such as the president of the company, or the captain of the great vessel herself? Even back then, people were quick to blame other people.

In the studied conclusion of this particular Presbyterian minister, the loss of this great ocean liner ultimately came down to a matter of speed, the necessity of traveling faster and faster from one location to another. There was no stopping or slowing down, even as the great vessel entered into an area of icebergs. After all, nothing could sink her, or so they thought.

And then the Rev William D. Ross spread out the sin of speed in people’s lives, speaking to the spiritual needs of his own congregation, sparing no one, even including the teaching elders of many a congregation in our land in his aim. Ross’s words particular regarding pastors provide a terrible description of many ministers of our age as well. Consider his words:

“The minister of religion who thinks more of members than individual souls, who makes speed to add names to a church register, caring less that they also be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life; anxious that respectable individuals be chronicled in his yearly report; and caring less to how dividends are raised or to what object they are contributed; content when the wheels of ecclesiastical machinery go smoothly around, even if tradition usurps the place of the Cross in homes and hearts under his care; who is ambitious merely for his own church and denomination and hesitates not to have success through the depletion of other religious institutions about him – that man is an individual who has also claimed that he has looked upon Calvary! And he is the land equivalent in daily life of this tragedy on the ocean.”

Other callings in one’s life receive the minister’s application as well in words equally convicting. You can read the entire sermon online, for those of our readers who are interested [though this is a rather poor scan of the document and somewhat difficult to read]. But let us, who look upon unthinkable catastrophes in life—and this is our Words to Live By— remember there are no accidents within the framework of God’s sovereign rule over earth. He either decrees or permits them for His own glory and our good. We do well to heed them in our lives, for His glory and our good. In all things seek to make the Lord your God the center of your life, and all else will fall into its proper place.

While still new to the pastorate, and not yet thirty years old, it was on this day, April 12, 1797, that the the Rev. Samuel Miller delivered a discourse in New York City, before the Society for the Manumission of Slaves. [For those unfamiliar with the term, manumission is the act of freeing a slave.] Only an excerpt of this discourse, the fifth of Miller’s published works, is presented below, but a link has been provided in the title for those who would like to read the entire discourse. Would that Miller’s words had gripped early American society to conviction and action, to the eradication of evil! For one practical example of manumission in that same era, in which Reformed Presbyterians freed their slaves and at great personal cost, read chapter four of the Memoir of the Rev. Alexander McLeod.

Image : Pictured at right, the Rev. Dr. Samuel Miller, a portrait roughly contemporaneous with the time of the following discourse.

Words to Live By: Remember this!—Individuals and nations are alike in this, that sin is not easily rooted out. Once it takes hold, it can be a most difficult thing to remove it, and like old injuries, the scars that remain constantly remind us of our sin. Far better to stop sin at its first rising, before it takes root.

A Discourse, delivered April 12, 1797, at the Request of and Before the New-York Society
for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, and Protecting such of them as have been or may be Liberated.
by Samuel Miller, A.M., one of the ministers of the United Presbyterian churches
in the city of New-York, and Member of said Society.
New-York: Printed by T. and J. Swords, No. 99 Pearl-street, 1797.

. . . That, in the close of the eighteenth century, it should be esteemed proper and necessary, in any civilized country, to institute discourses to oppose the slavery and commerce of the human species, is a wonderful [i.e., a thing to be wondered at] fact in the annals of society! But that this country should be America, is a solecism only to be accounted for by the general inconsistency of the human character. But, after all, the surprise that Patriotism can feel, and all the indignation that Morality can suggest on this subject, the humiliating tale must be told—that in this free country—in this country, the plains of which are still stained with blood shed in the cause of liberty,—in this country, from which has been proclaimed to distant lands, as the basis of all our political existence, the noble principle, that “ALL MEN ARE BORN FREE AND EQUAL,”—in this country there are slaves!—men are bought and sold! Strange, indeed! that the bosom which glows at the name of liberty in general, and the arm which has been so vigorously exerted in vindication of human rights, should yet be found leagued on the side of oppression, and opposing their avowed principles!

Much, indeed, has been done by many benevolent individuals and societies, to abolish this disgraceful practice, and to improve the condition of those unhappy people, whom the ignorance or the avarice of our ancestors has bequeathed to us as slaves. Still, however, notwithstanding all the labours and eloquence which have been directed against it, the evil continues; still laws and practices exist, which loudly call for reform; still MORE THAN HALF A MILLION of our fellow creatures in the United States are deprived of that which, next to life, is the dearest birth-right of man.

To deliver the plain dictates of humanity, justice, religion, and good policy, on this subject, is the design of the present discourse. In doing this, it will not be expected that any thing new should be offered. It is not a new subject; and every point of view in which it can be considered has been long since rendered familiar by the ingenious and the humane. All that is left for me is, to bring to your remembrance principles which, however well known, cannot be too often repeated; and to exhibit some of the most obvious arguments against an evil which, though generally acknowledged, is still practically persisted in.

And here I shall pass over in silence the unnumbered cruelties, and the violations of every natural and social tie, which mark the African trade, and which attend the injured captives in dragging them from their native shores, and from all the attachments of life. I shall not call you to contemplate the miseries and hardships which follow them into servitude, and render their life a cup of unmingled bitterness. Unwilling to wound your feelings, or my own, by the melancholy recital, over these scenes I would willingly draw a veil; and confine myself to principles and views of the subject more immediately applicable to ourselves.

That enslaving, or continuing to hold in slavery, those who have forfeited their liberty by no crime, is contrary to the dictates both of justice and humanity, I trust few who hear me will be disposed to deny. However the judgment of some may be biassed by the supposed peculiarity of certain cases, I presume that with regard to the abstract principle, there can be but one opinion among enlightened and candid minds. What is the end of all social connection but the advancement of human happiness? And what can be a more plain and indisputable principle of republican government, than that all the right which society possesses over individuals, or one man over another, must be founded either upon contract, express or implied, or upon forfeiture by crime? But, are the Africans and their descendants enslaved upon either of these principles? Have they voluntarily surrendered their liberty to their whiter brethren? or have they forfeited their natural right to it by the violation of any law? Neither of these is pretended by the most zealous advocates for slavery. By what ties, then, are they held in servitude? By the ties of force and injustice only; by ties which are equally opposed to the reason of things, and to the fundamental principles of all legitimate association.

In the present age and country, none, I presume, will rest a defence of slavery on the ground of superior force; the right of captivity; or any similar principle, which the ignorance and the ferocity of ancient times admitted as a justifiable tenure of property. It is to be hoped the time is passed, never more to return, when men would recognize maxims as subversive of morality as they are of social happiness. Can the laws and rights of war be properly drawn into precedent for the imitation of sober and regular government? Can we sanction the detestable idea, that liberty is only an advantage gained by strength, and not a right derived from nature’s God. Such sentiments become the abodes of demons, rather than societies of civilized men.

Pride, indeed, may contend, that these unhappy subjects of our oppression are aninferior race of beings; and are therefore assigned by the strictest justice to a depressed and servile station in society. But in what does this inferiority consist? In a difference of complexion and figure? Let the narrow and illiberal mind, who can advance such an argument, recollect whither it will carry him. In traversing the various regions of the earth, from the Equator to the Pole, we find an infinite diversity of shades in the complexion of men, from the darkest to the fairest hues. If, then, the proper station of the African is that of servitude and depression, we must also contend, that every Portuguese and Spaniard is, though in a less degree, inferior to us, and should be subject to a measure of the same degradation. Nay, if the tints of colour be considered the test of human dignity, we may justly assume a haughty superiority over our southern brethren of this continent, and devise their subjugation. In short, upon this principle, where shall liberty end? or where shall slavery begin? At what grade is it that the ties of blood are to cease? And how many shades must we descend still lower in the scale, before mercy is to vanish with them?

But, perhaps, it will be suggested, that the Africans and their descendants are inferior to their whiter brethren in intellectual capacity, if not in complexion and figure. This is strongly asserted, but upon what ground? Because we do not see men who labour under every disadvantage, and who have every opening faculty blasted and destroyed by their depressed condition, signalize themselves as philosophers? Because we do not find men who are almost entirely cut off from every source of mental improvement, rising to literary honours? To suppose the Africans of an inferior radical character, because they have not thus distinguished themselves, is just as rational as to suppose every private citizen of an inferior species, who has not raised himself to the condition of royalty. But, the truth is, many of the negroes discover great ingenuity, notwithstanding their circumstances are so depressed, and so unfavourable to all cultivation. They become excellent mechanics and practical musicians, and, indeed, learn every thing their masters take the pains to teach them.* And how far they might improve in this respect, were the same advantages conferred on them that freemen enjoy, is impossible for us to decide until the experiment be made.

[*Having been, for two years, a monthly visitor of the African School in this city, I directed particular attention to the capacity and behaviour of the scholars, with a view to satisfy myself on the point in question. And, to me, the negro children of that institution appeared, in general, quite as orderly, and quite as ready to learn, as white children.]

Aristotle long ago said—“Men of little genius, and great bodily strength, are by nature destined to serve, and those of a better capacity to command. The natives of Greece, and of some other countries, being naturally superior in genius, have a natural right to empire; and the rest of mankind, being naturally stupid, are destined to labour and slavery.”* [*De Republica, book 1, chap. 5, 6.] What would this great philosopher have thought of his own reasoning, had he lived till the present day? On the one hand, he would have seen his countrymen, of whose genius he boasts so much, lose with their liberty all mental character; while, on the other, he would have seen many nations, whom he consigned to everlasting stupidity, show themselves equal in intellectual power to the most exalted of human kind.

Again—Avarice may clamorously contend, that the laws of property justify slavery; and that every one has an undoubted right to whatever has been obtained by fair purchase or regular descent. To this demand the answer is plain. The right which every man has to his personal liberty is paramount to all the laws of property. The right which every one has to himself infinitely transcends all other human tenures. Of consequence, the latter can never be set in opposition to the former. I do not mean, at present, to decide the question, whether the possessors of slaves, when called upon by public authority to manumit them, should be indemnified for the loss they sustain. This is a separate question, and must be decided by a different tribunal from that before which I bring the general subject. All I contend for at present is, that no claims of property can ever justly interfere with, or be suffered to impede the operation of that noble and eternal principle, that “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights—and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

These principles and remarks would doubtless appear self-evident to all, were the case of the unhappy Africans for a moment made our own. Were it made a question, whether justice permitted the sable race of Guinea to carry us away captive from our own country, and from all its tender attachments, to their own land, and there enslave us and our posterity for ever;—were it made a question, I say, whether all this would be consistent with justice and humanity, one universal and clamorous negative would show how abhorrent the principle is from our minds, when not blinded by prejudice. Tell us, ye who were lately pining in ALGERINE BONDAGE! [i.e., enslavement in Algeria. For several centuries Algeria was the primary base of the Barbary pirates]. Tell us whether all the wretched sophistry of pride, or of avarice, could ever reconcile you to the chains of barbarians, or convince you that man had a right to oppress and injure man? Tell us what were your feelings, when you heard the pityless tyrant, who had taken or bought you, plead either of these rights for your detention; and justify himself by the specious pretences of capture or of purchase, in riveting your chains?

. . . But higher laws than those of common justice and humanity may be urged against slavery. I mean THE LAWS OF GOD, revealed in the Scriptures of truth. This divine system, in which we profess to believe and to glory, teaches us, that God has made of one blood all nations of men that dwell on the face of the whole earth. It teaches us, that, of whatever kindred or people, we are all children of the same common Father; dependent on the same mighty power; and candidates for the same glorious immortality. It teaches us, that we should do to all men whatever we, in like circumstances, would that they should do unto us. It teaches us, in a word, that love to man, and a constant pursuit of human happiness, is the sum of all social duty.—Principles these, which wage eternal war both with political and domestic slavery—Principles which forbid every species of domination, excepting that which is founded on consent, or which the welfare of society requires.

[Dr. Miller’s discourse continues on at some length. To read the rest of it, please follow the link embedded in the title at the top of the page.]

Be Ready Always

The day of the debate had brought a crowd of Presbyterian elders to the sanctuary of the Fourth Presbyterian Church on that day of April 11, 1933.  The topic was “Modernism on the Mission Field.”  And the two individuals engaging in the debate were two “heavies” on opposite sides of the issue.

Dr. J. Gresham Machen was the recognized leader of the conservatives in the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.  Founder and president of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, he was still a member minister of the New Brunswick, New Jersey Presbytery, though he had tried unsuccessfully to transfer to the Philadelphia Presbytery.  Against him was Dr. Robert Speer, present head of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.

Dr. Machen began his presentation with a proposed overture from the Presbytery of New Brunswick to the General Assembly of 1933.  The first two of four parts are the key ones, which I will quote word for word from the April 1933 Christianity Today article, and sum up the other two.

Point 1 of his overture was: “To take care to elect to positions of the Board of Foreign Missions only persons who are fully aware of the danger in which the Church stands and who are determined to insist on such verities as the full truthfulness of Scripture, the virgin birth of our Lord, His substitutionary death as a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, His bodily resurrection and His miracles, as being essential to the Word of God and our Standards, as being necessary to the message which every missionary under our church shall proclaim.”

In essence, this first proposition simply summed up the Declarations of the General Assembly’s five fundamentals which were considered as essential for the Church, its boards, and its ministers.  It specifically repudiated the denials of the same by the Auburn Affirmation in 1924.

Proposition 2 of the proposed overture sought to “instruct the Board of Foreign Missions that no one who denies the absolute necessity of acceptance of such verities by every candidate for this ministry can possibly be regarded as a candidate to occupy the position of Candidate Secretary.”

This proposition addressed the important place which the Candidate Secretary has in ascertaining the theological convictions which each missionary candidate has to serve on the Foreign Field.  In other words, in people such as Pearl Buck, who was openly denying the exclusiveness of the gospel of Christ, it is obvious that the Candidate Secretary had “missed the boat” in approving her as being a missionary to China.

The third proposition summed up that those who held that the tolerance of opposing views was  more important than an unswerving faithfulness in the proclamation of the Gospel as it is contained in the Word of God, show themselves to be unworthy of being missionaries of the cross.

This proposition was aimed at those who had accepted the fundamental viewpoint of the book, “Rethinking Missions,” that denied the exclusivity of the gospel.

The last proposition sought to warn the Board of the great dangers lurking with union enterprises in view of wide-spread error.

Dr. Speer for his part of the “debate” simply dismissed each of the overture propositions.    When the vote was taken on Dr. Machen’s proposed overture, it was voted down by the Presbytery of New Brunswick, with a majority voting in favor of confidence in the Board of Foreign Missions.  Dr. Machen, Rev. Samuel Craig, and Dr. Casper Wistar Hodge asked that their names be recorded in dissent of the motion.

For a fuller account of the debate, click here.

Words to Live By:  We are always called upon to stand faithfully for the gospel.  The results on this earth may be not what we have hoped for, but the results in the General Assembly of heaven are what counts for time and eternity.

STUDIES IN THE WESTMINSTER SHORTER CATECHISM
by Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn

Q. 75. What Is forbidden In the eighth commandment?

A. The eighth commandment forbiddeth whatsoever doth, or may, unjustly hinder our own or our neighbor’s wealth or outward estate.

Scripture References: I Timothy 5:8; Ephesians 4:28; Proverbs 21:6; II Thessalonians 3:7-10.

Questions:

1. What does this commandment teach the believer regarding his behavior?

This commandment teaches that the believer is forbidden any part of the area of theft regarding himself and others.

2. How could a believer steal from himself?

A believer could steal from himself by being idle when he should be at work; by not making use of the blessings that God has given him; by being wasteful of the material things God has given him.

3. What is the more direct teaching of this commandment?

The more direct teaching is the believer stealing from others.

4. What does the teaching contained in this commandment mean by stealing from others?

Stealing from others could be in the area of defrauding others in buying or selling; in the area of stealing money, a person’s name and reputation, and God Himself in not giving to Him what rightfully belongs to Him; extortion and all oppression (especially of the poor and afflicted).

5. Can theft be committed against the church?

Yes, it can be committed against the church either by simony or sacrilege.

6. What is simony?

This is a reference to Simon Magus in Acts 8:18, 19 who attempted to buy spiritual power for money. This could be done today, for example, in the case of a man who bought or sold in reference to a church and made profit.

7. What is sacrilege?

Sacrilege is the taking away of anything which has been dedicated to a sacred use. (Prov. 20:25; Mal. 3:8).

WILL A MAN ROB GOD?

Usually when this question is asked the mind focuses immediately on man’s responsibility to give of his tithes and offerings to God. Certainly, it does have to do with this portion of man’s responsibility. A man, a believer in Jesus Christ, can rob God in this way and many do in not being faithful in their giving habits to the church of Jesus Christ. However, a man can rob God in many other ways and do so while being very faithful in the giving of money, in his monetary stewardship responsibilities.

How else can a man rob God? He can rob God by forgetting the admonition in the Bible to keep holy the Sabbath Day. He can rob God in this way by only giving God a part of the day, congratulating himself
on attending church in the morning and then using the rest of the day for himself. This robs God of His due and makes him worse than many heathens who give one whole day each week to their false gods.

A believer can rob God by the wrong use of his body. He can call upon the body beyond the limits of endurance, be careless of the care of the body. A believer can rob God of the service he should be performing. God calls upon his children many times for tasks that must be accomplished. But many times because of wrong use of time and energy in other pursuits the believer is not ready physically for the testing time when it comes.

A believer can rob God by not allowing the grace of God to work in Him as the Lord would have it work. God so desires that we make use of that grace, that power of the Holy Spirit. But we so many times block it by our sin, by our preoccupation with self in our lives. And then we are, in effect, robbing God.

When a believer robs God, he is hindering his own “outward estate” for he is stealing from himself, from what God would give him in his life, all to the glory of God. He is not putting to full use the providence of God in his life. God has so much for all of His children. When we rob Him we are really robbing ourselves and our relationship is not what it should be to Him. We must learn to live Matt. 6:33 in order that we may never rob Him.

Published By: The SHIELD and SWORD, INC.
Vol. 5 No.6 (June 1966)
Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn, Editor

“The Dangers of Our National Prosperity; And The Way To Avoid Them”
by Samuel Wales (May 12, 1785)

Samuel Wales (1748-1794), a son of the manse, graduated from Yale, began his ministry at the age of 21, and later served as the pastor of the First Congregational Church in Milford, CT. Although his life was fairly short, in addition to being a pastor, he also taught at Yale. Epilepsy forced his early retirement, and he was disabled within a year of delivering this stirring sermon. He was known for his oratory, brilliance, and abilities; this sermon also shows his wisdom.

This sermon, based on Deuteronomy 8:11-14, was preached to the Connecticut General Assembly about nine years after the Declaration of Independence. It calls on God’s people to remember the Cause of any blessings. He believed that this OT passage applied to all people and particularly to those in America, who had recently seen an historic victory. Wales wishes to warn against presumptiveness or thinking that citizens are self-made.

The first half of the sermon seeks to identify temptations that come with prosperity. The second half wishes to “exhibit, in a very concise manner, that line of conduct which we ought to pursue, in order to secure through the divine favour the continuance of those blessings which we now enjoy.” From the outset, he affirmed: “Indeed never should it be forgotten that all the measures of civil policy ought to be founded on the great principles of religion; or, at the least, to be perfectly consistent with them: otherwise they will never be esteemed, because they will be contrary to that moral sense of right and wrong which God has implanted in the breast of every rational being.”

While extolling the greatness of God’s deliverance, notwithstanding, he noted that “security in happiness is not the lot of humanity.” Still the largest fear is the “want of religion.” Sounding like Calvin a few centuries earlier, he warned: “When we are favoured with a profusion of earthly good, we are exceedingly prone to set our hearts upon it with an immoderate affection, neglecting our bountiful Creator from whom alone all good is derived. We bathe and bury ourselves in the streams, forgetting the fountain whence they flow.”

This wise preacher noted:

We are much more inclined to murmur at God’s justice in adversity than to acknowledge his goodness in prosperity; more ready to view God as the author of evil than as the author of good. In the distresses of the late war, though they were most evidently brought upon us by the instrumentality of men, we were nevertheless much more ready to impute them to the hand of God, than we now are to acknowledge the same hand in the happiness of peace, and the other rich blessings of his providence and grace. When our wants are very pressing, we are willing, or pretend to be willing to apply to God for relief. But no sooner is the relief given than we set our hearts upon the gift, and neglect the giver; or rather make use of his own bounty in order to fight against him.

He stood with Moses in warning people not to forget the Lord or to love the creature more than the Creator. “Scarcely a prosperous period in their history can be pointed out,” he noted, “which was not followed by a decay of piety, and a corruption of morals.” The sermon then cites numerous OT examples of this, with Wales applying the OT to his audience: “Is it not a sad truth, that since the commencement of the late war, and especially since the restoration of peace, the holy religion of Jesus, that brightest ornament of our world, is, by many less regarded than it was before? And are not the sacred institutions of the gospel more neglected and despised? Are not the friends of Christianity treated with more disregard?”

Of the “evils which may be called symptoms and effects of irreligion,” he cited:

• Injustice to the best and most deserving friends of our country. This second evil, fueled by poor examples influenced others to be immoral: “And if our public conduct may be adduced by knaves and sharpers, as an example and pretext of injustice, will it not have a greater tendency to promote this evil than all our laws will have to prevent it? Too many are there of that smooth-speaking class of people, who mean to get their living out of others; who, whenever they can run into debt, consider it as so much clear gain.”
• Lack of true patriotism, which he defined as “a real concern for the welfare of our whole country in general.” “Genuine patriotism of the best kind,” Wales preached, “is peculiar to those only who are possessed of a principle of true virtue.” He elaborated on this: “That want of patriotism, of which we speak, produces very different effects in persons who are in different situations of life. It is nearly the same thing with selfishness. It often leads the ambitious and aspiring to seek their own promotion by very improper means. It leads them into a mad pursuit of low popularity, to the violation of honour and honesty and to the neglect of the public good.”
• Disrespect for civil rulers. While “Tyranny and despotism are undoubtedly very great evils,” Wales warned that “greater still are the dangers of anarchy.”
• Luxury and extravagant spending.

Wales realized that “Human nature is the same in every age, and similar causes will produce similar effects.”

The first remedy suggested by Wales to the General Assembly was that they identify these vices above and seek both to avoid them and to turn from them, not forgetting what the Lord had done.

Second, these people were to “use our best endeavours to promote the practice of virtue and true religion.” While distinguishing that America was not a theocracy, nor that every nation should follow all the Mosaic statutes, nevertheless, true religion was still critical: “The practice of religion must therefore be considered as absolutely essential to the best state of public prosperity, it must be so, unless we may expect happiness in direct opposition to the constitution of nature and of nature’s God. ‘Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.’ This is the course of nature, this is the voice of heaven, this is the decree of God.”

Third, Wales urged his audience to pray for outpourings of the Holy Spirit.

As a fairly young preacher himself (aged 37), he sagaciously called: “Young states are like young men; exceedingly apt, in imagination, to anticipate and magnify future scenes of happiness and grandeur, which perhaps they will never enjoy. It has lately become very fashionable to prophesy about the future greatness of this country; its astonishing progress in science, in wealth, in population and grandeur.”

His sentiment climaxes with this paragraph:

So, although we have gained that for which we most ardently wished, an happy period to the late war, yet we can by no means be certain but that some far greater evils are now before us. We may be over-run and ruined both for time and eternity by a torrent of vice and licenciousness, with their never-failing attendants, infidelity and atheism. We may be left to destroy ourselves by intestine divisions and civil wars: or we may be visited with such sickness and pestilence as would soon produce a far greater destruction than any war of what kind soever. God has many ways, even in the present world, to punish the sins both of individuals and of nations. He has ten thousand arrows in his quiver, and can always direct any or all of them unerring, to the victims of his wrath. No possible concurrence of circumstances can screen us from the notice of his eye or the power of his hand. Never, never, can we be secure but in the practice of true virtue and in the favour of God.

This sermon totaled nearly 10,500 words length. Readers may wish to consult a printed version, which is available in Ellis Sandoz, Political Sermons of the American Founding Era (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998). Moreover, an online version is posted at: http://consource.org/document/the-dangers-of-our-national-prosperity-and-the-way-to-avoid-them-by-samuel-wales-1785-5-12/.

By Dr. David W. Hall, Pastor
Midway Presbyterian Church