STUDIES IN THE WESTMINSTER SHORTER CATECHISM

Q. 73. Which is the eighth commandment?

A. The eighth commandment is, Thou shalt not steal.

Q. 74. What is required in the eighth commandment?

A. The eighth commandment requireth the lawful procuring and furthering the wealth and outward estate of ourselves and others.

Scripture References: Exodus 20:15; II Thess. 3:10-12; Rom. 12:17; Prov. 27:23; Prov. 13:4; 20:4. Phil. 2:4.

Questions:
1. What is the main subject matter of this commandment?

The main subject matter of this commandment is the wealth and outward estate of ourselves and others.

2. May we use any means to acquire our wealth and outward estate?

No, our means must be consistent with the Word of God, our means must be lawful in the sight of God.

3. What means would we consider to be consistent with the Word of God?

Means that are consistent with the Word would be labor and industry in some honest calling in the sight of God (Eph. 4:28).

4. Could you name some lawful means that would be consistent with the Word of God?

Some lawful means would be:
(1) Asking God to lead us to a calling that would be His will for us (1 Cor. 7:20, 24);
(2) Praying that we will do our task in a way that is well-pleasing in His sight, in an honest and decent way (Rom. 12: 17);
(3) Endeavoring to live in a sober way before the Lord, not wasteful (Titus 2:12);
(4) Being always diligent in our work (Prov. 13:11);
(5) Remembering always that we have a duty towards others, a duty to have a public spirit (l Cor. 10:24).

5. What would be a good rule to remember when we are dealing with the wealth and outward estate of others?

A good rule to remember is found in Matt. 7:12.

6. What is our duty toward the poor in this commandment?

Our duty toward the poor is to relieve them whenever possible for such is the way of charity and is to the glory of God (Prov. 19:17).

CONTENTMENT
Whenever we consider what is required in the eighth commandment and pray for the ability to fulfill it to the glory of God, we are brought face to face with the whole concept of contentment. To fulfill the requirement of this commandment and to avoid the sin of the commandment, the believer must learn to be content with the estate that God has given him. The Bible tells us in Hebrews 13:5: ” … and be content with such things as ye have … ” It is indeed good advice for us and will help us to avoid the breaking of the eighth commandment. John Owen tells us that this “contentment is a gracious frame or disposition of mind, quiet and composed; without
(1) Complaining or repining at God’s providential disposals of our outward concerns;
(2) All envy at the more prosperous conditions of others;
(3) Fears and anxious cares about future supplies; and,
(4) Desires and designs of those things which a more plentiful condition than what we are in would supply us withal.”

As believers we should make a real study of contentment. And when we think of contentment, we should remember that all we really need is what God would have us have in order to reach heaven in His time. This does not mean that we should not show forth all effort in what we have to do in fulfilling our responsibilities on this earth. God has given us six days out of seven in which to do this and we should make full use of our time. The difficulty with many believers is that they want too much. They want to go beyond what is good for them. There is an amazing verse in I Tim. 6:8 – “And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.” And the Apostle goes on and points out the dangers facing the rich, those who are captured by the love of money. The believer is told to flee such things and to follow after the way of righteousness.

The question was once asked a group of doctors and ministers, “From where does much of the despondency, depression arise in your opinion?” Their answer was that much of it came from a desire after worldly things that are not good for a person to have. Indeed it is not for the believer, such is very plain in the Word of God. Paul’s secret of happiness is very obvious in Phil. 4: 11.

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.5 (May 1966)
Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn, Editor

“The Mediatorial Kingdom and Glories of Jesus Christ” by Samuel Davies (May 9, 1756)

Allusions to Reformation themes abounded in early American sermons. The Waldensians, the eradication of the French Huguenots, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli were all referred to in Samuel Davies’ 1756 sermon, “The Mediatorial Kingdom and Glories of Jesus Christ.”

The Calvinist college at Princeton, where Edwards had once presided and where James Madison would later be educated, became a hive for anti-hierarchical theory. A line of distinguished presidents contributed to Princeton’s reputation as an educational laboratory for Calvinistic republicanism. Samuel Davies (1724-1761) assumed that presidency in 1759. Taking the helm of this strategic college shortly after the death of the college’s third president, Jonathan Edwards, Davies straddled the watersheds of the Great Awakening and the Revolutionary War. His political Calvinism, which apparently fit well with that of Jonathan Witherspoon, is evident in his sermon, “God the Sovereign of all Kingdoms.” Davies maintained that “the Most High is the sole disposer of the fates of kingdoms” because of his divine perfections. Argued Davies: “How shall this [goodness] be displayed in this world, unless he holds the reins of government in his own hands, and distributes his blessings to what kingdom or nation he pleases? . . . His power is infinite, and therefore the management of all the worlds he has made, is as easy to him as the concerns of one individual.”[1] God was not a remote “unconcerned spectator” but ruled by his active providence. Active providence, by implication, led to an active citizenry.

In his 1756 “The Mediatorial Kingdom and Glories of Jesus Christ,” Davies inquired about the nature and properties of Christ’s kingship. While many honorific titles were attributed to Christ, the office of King was assigned to him in both Old and New Testaments. The regal “character and dominion of our Lord Jesus” was a theme that spanned the pages of Scripture. Of course, Davies pointed out, the rule of Christ was not an earthly one, but nonetheless all earthly sovereigns were required to submit to his sovereignty. Since Christ had “an absolute sovereignty over universal nature,” he had superiority over any earthly ruler, and no earthly ruler was absolute.

Christ’s reign was absolute and supreme; he overrules and controls all political powers, “disposes all the revolutions, the rises and falls of kingdoms and empires . . . and their united policies and powers cannot frustrate the work which he has undertaken.” Sunday after Sunday, early American congregations heard that the key difference between the reign of Christ and the reign of any human ruler was the “universal extent of the Redeemer’s kingdom.” In contrast to his universal empire, the “kingdoms of Great-Britain, France, China, and Persia, are but little spots of the globe.” The laws of Christ’s kingdom were perfect, but earthly laws were not.

Davies praised “the ever-memorable period of the Reformation” for advancing liberty and diminishing persecution. He also decried the fact that Protestants were still being tortured and persecuted in France. He reminded Americans to appreciate, among the noble witnesses of God, the precursors to the Reformation, including Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the martyrs from France. While he lamented the lack of piety in his own day, he also noted in one sentence two phrases that would be yoked in the Declaration of Independence twenty years later: “The scheme of Providence is not yet completed, and much remains . . . [one day] the time shall be no more; then the Supreme Judge, the same Jesus that ascended the cross, will ascend the throne, and review the affairs of time.”

In his 1758 “Curse of Cowardice,” Davies preached another classic political sermon, this time to the Hanover (Virginia) County Militia from the OT. That sermon began by enumerating a list of grievances (including reference to “rapacious” hands and the “usurpation [by] Arbitrary powers”). Sermons like this commonly itemized civil governors’ moral violations of covenants. At the same time, Davies also reminded his listeners that, in the outworking of his Providence, God occasionally brought people to war. To fail to respond because of cowardice was to beg for the curse on Meroz described in Judges. It was a line of reasoning made previously in Stephen Marshall’s sermon to the British Parliament (1641). American political sermons, thus, were not novel—they stood on the shoulders of a long line of Puritans and other Reformers who intensely applied Scripture to their own times.

Davies exhorted soldiers in 1758 to turn to religion in order to keep themselves “uncorrupted in the midst of Vice and Debauchery.” They were to acknowledge God’s Providence in all situations. In language similar to that used later in congressional proclamations, Davies reminded his listeners that they walked before the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. He concluded by calling for “A THOROUGH NATIONAL REFORMATION” that would begin with individual listeners.

Davies articulated the common view of depravity embraced by the early Princetonians, i. e., that sinners were inactive, listless, insensible to the things of God, and utterly unable to quicken themselves. He preached, “The innate depravity and corruption of the heart, and the habits of sin contracted and confirmed by repeated indulgences of inbred corruption, these are poisonous, deadly things that have slain the soul; these have entirely indisposed and disabled it for living religion.” As a good Calvinist, Davies traced this sinful nature to Adam’s fall.

Davies’ Diary from that period mentions two figures central to this period. Years before he assumed the presidency of Princeton, Davies knew of Witherspoon, whose “Ecclesiastical Characteristics,” a “Burlesque upon the highflyers under the ironical name of Moderate Men,” had caused a stir in 1754. Davies liked the work and compared its humor to that of Dean Swift. Also, Davies read Montesquieu’s The Spirit of Laws in December 1753 and called it “an ingenious Performance with many new and valuable Sentiments.”[2] The seeds of Calvinistic politics were watered by many gardeners.

Davies, one of those gardeners, exhorted his Princeton students, including future signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush, that the union of “public spirit” and religion made a man useful. These two components of human life were inseparable. He charged Rush and others: “Public spirit and Benevolence without Religion is but a warm Affection for the Subjects to the Neglect of the Sovereign, or a Partiality for the Children in Contempt of their Father who is infinitely more worthy of Love. And Religion without Public Spirit and Benevolence is but a Sullen, Selfish, sour and malignant Humour for Devotion unworthy that sacred name.”[3]

Davies also influenced Patrick Henry, who listened to his preaching from age eleven to twenty-two. Henry, whose own oratory bears striking resemblance to that of Davies, based his stirring cadences on what he had certainly heard Davies assert (as Buchanan and Rutherford had earlier)—namely, that the British constitution was “but the voluntary compact of sovereign and subject.”[4]

Davies’ sermons mentioned above may be found at: http://consource.org/document/the-mediatorial-kingdom-and-glories-of-jesus-christ-by-samuel-davies-1756-5-9/. His “Mediatorial Kingdom and Glories” is available in Ellis Sandoz, Political Sermons of the American Founding Era (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998).

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

[1] Cited in Morton H. Smith, Studies in Southern Presbyterian Theology (Jackson, MS: Presbyterian Reformation Society, 1962), 51.

[2] The Reverend Samuel Davies Abroad, The Diary of a Journey to England and Scotland, 1753-1755, George W. Pilcher, ed. (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1967), 40.

[3] Cited in John Kloos, “Benjamin Rush’s Public Piety,” American Presbyterians 69:1 (Spring 1991), 51. The original was a 1760 “Religion and Public Spirit, A Valedictory Address.” Another of Davies’ students was the Rev. John Lathrop, who spread the Calvinistic-Princetonian views from the pulpit of Boston’s Old North Church beginning in 1768. See Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1928), 112.

[4] C. H. Van Tyne, “Influence of the Clergy, and of Religious and Sectarian Forces, on the American Revolution,” American Historical Review, vol. 19 (1913-1914), 49. Davies’ son (William Davies) was head of the war department of Virginia during Patrick Henry’s life. See William Wirt Henry, Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence, and Speeches (1891, rpr. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1993), vol. 2, 134.

 A Question of Jurisdiction

It seemed to be a mere administrative matter between presbyteries.  Anyone who has been a member of these this lower court in Presbyterian churches has gone through such changes dozens, if not hundreds of times.   A teaching elder has changed ministries.  In so doing, he had come under the spiritual oversight of a different presbytery.  So he requests a change in his presbytery membership.  That usually is a normal administrative move which has little, if any, controversy to it.  But this case in the year 1935 was not a normal time, nor was the individual who sought to change his connection a normal teaching elder.

John Gresham Machen was the leader of the conservative wing of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.  For decades as a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, he had been a member of the New Brunswick Presbytery, of New Jersey.  Princeton Seminary, as everyone knows, is located in Princeton, New Jersey.  The new independent seminary with which Dr. Machen was associated with after 1930, namely, Westminster Theological Seminary, was located then in the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  And so it was logical that Dr. Machen wished to change his membership from a presbytery in New Jersey to one in Pennsylvania.  And indeed such a change was made, with a vote of 78 in favor and 48 in opposition to such a move.

The question can be asked, why was there such a large number of negative votes for what was seemingly an administrative move?  Usually these votes get passed by a unanimous vote.  Remember the times.  Dr. Machen was not just a seminary professor, but also the president of the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions, after 1933. The increasing liberal denomination could abide, at least on the surface, with an independent seminary.  There were already those within the confines of Presbyterianism.  Union Theological Seminary was an independent seminary, still sending its graduates into the Presbyterian Church.  But the creation of a conservative mission board reached right into the local Presbyterian churches themselves, with money going away from the denominational missions board into this independent board.  So thus the Mandate of 1934 from the General Assembly sought to put a stop to the Independent Board, Dr. Machen, and all those who supported it.  The Presbytery of New Brunswick was a more favorable presbytery to do that, to try Dr. Machen for disobedience to the Mandate.  His transfer to the Philadelphia Presbytery is the fly in the ointment.

In the midst of all this, in the midst of the trial of Dr. Machen, the Presbytery of Philadelphia on April 1, 1935, votes 66 – 32, to adopt a memorial to the Synod of New Jersey that John Gresham Machen is under the jurisdiction of the Presbytery of Philadelphia.  However, the Presbytery of New Brunswick has already  appointed a Judicial Commission of seven members who ruled that the jurisdiction issue of Dr. Machen and his attorney, will not be handled by the commission.  As in other dates on this historical devotional, which relate the facts of this trial, the presbytery of New Brunswick finds Dr. Machen guilty, with his appeals to the higher courts  denied for redress.  He is suspended from the Presbyterian ministry.

Words to Live By: The apostle Paul reminds us in 1 Thessalonians 2:4 that those entrusted with the gospel should speak “not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts.” (ESV)  God, not man, is the One whom we must endeavor to please in all things.

Note: The photos shown in the second image relate to the beginning of Dr. Machen’s trial, whereas the article in today’s post has to do with the end of that trial and its subsequent appeal.