New Blog: The Presbytery Inn

Be sure to check out a new blog by my friend Devan Meade: The Presbytery Inn. It is a place where good theology is "on tap." It combines edifying articles, book reviews, quotes with good beer. The description says it all:

The Presbytery Inn. A bar and guest house for those of a Confessional Presbyterian persuasion. If you like to talk about Turretin while drinking an Oatmeal Stout, this is the place for you. Feel free to stretch your legs, take a walk around the establishment, and note that there are many dusty corners and small nooks in this creaky old inn. We find those places that have been the most lived in are the ones that provide the greatest rest. And, indeed, the one who called us before the foundation of the world, is the one in whom we find our greatest rest. This website is intentionally confessional, subscribing to the original Westminster Confession of Faith.

Not Only For Necessity, But Also For Delight and Good Cheer

John Calvin, Institutes 3.10.2:

Let this be our principle, that the use of God's gifts is not wrongly directed when it is referred to that end to which the Author himself created and destined them for us, since he created them for our good, and not for our ruin. Accordingly, no one will hold to a straighter path than he who diligently looks to this end. Now if we ponder to what end God created food, we shall find that he meant not only to provide for necessity but also for delight and good cheer. Thus the purpose of clothing, apart from necessity, was comeliness and decency. In grasses, trees, and fruits, apart from their various uses, there is beauty of appearance and pleasantness of odor [cf. Gen. 2:9]. For if this were not true, the prophet would not have reckoned among among the benefits of God “that wine gladdens the heart of man, that oil makes his face shine,” (Ps. 104:15 p.). Scriptures would not have reminded us repeatedly, in commending his kindness, that he gave all such things to men. And the natural qualities themselves of things demonstrate sufficiently to what end and extent we may enjoy them. Has the Lord clothed the flowers with the great beauty that greets our eyes, the sweetness of smell that is wafted upon our nostrils, and yet will it be unlawful for our eyes to be affected by that beauty, or our sense of smell by the sweetness of that odor? Did he not so distinguish colors as to make some more lovely than others? What? Did he not endow gold and silver, ivory and marble, with a loveliness that renders them more precious than other metals and stones? Did he not, in short, render many things attractive to us, apart from their necessary use? 

Biblical Separation

J.G. Vos, "The Separated Life," in John H. White, ed., The Book of Books: Essays on the Scriptures in Honor of Johannes G. Vos, pp. 103-104:

Science is never infallible; it cannot bind the conscience; therefore, the individual Christian must judge of the statements of science, and the statements of science must not judge the Christian. To deny this means to make science, instead of God, the lord of the conscience. No alleged "findings" of science can be formulated into an authoritative list of harmful things or acts. The relation between the sufficiency of Scripture as the standard of faith and conduct and the problem of the separated life must be summarized as follows:

1. The Christian is required by God to separate from what is sinful.
2. Scripture alone can demonstrate that a given course of conduct is sinful.
3. Natural revelation cannot be regarded as a fuller revelation than Scripture, or as coordinate with Scripture in any sense whatever.
4. It is possible that science or experience may show that certain conduct is harmful.
5. Science or experience can never show that anything is sinful.
6. Scripture teaches that what is really harmful is ordinarily sinful.
7. The decision whether science or experience shows that a particular conduct is harmful must be made by the individual concerned, not by other persons.
8. Church assemblies may not issue authoritative regulations based in whole or in part on any other standard than Scripture.

To depart from these principles is to deny the sufficiency of Scripture as the standard of faith and conduct and to elevate experience or science to the position of an additional authority coordinate with Scripture.

Charlie Chaplin Fan

D.G. Hart, Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America, pp. 164, 207:

The final issue that split fundamentalist and traditionalist Presbyterians concerned personal morality. In [James Oliver] Buswell's estimation this was the proverbial straw that would break the camel's back. Those in the church who sided with him, Buswell wrote (in what turned out to be his last letter to Machen), were concerned about reports that Westminster students used liquor in their rooms "with the approval of some members of the faculty." The use of alcohol, even in the celebration of the sacrament, he added, was "far more likely" to divide the church than "any question of eschatology." Buswell and other fundamentalists in the church were also "shocked" by leaders of the new denomination who defended "the products of Hollywood," a "useless,...waste of energy." Machen never responded to Buswell but his opposition to Prohibition provides a clue to his views on alcohol. In addition to opposing the expanded powers of the federal government that the Eighteenth Amendment granted, Machen also thought the Bible allowed moderate use of alcohol. This was also the position of the majority of faculty at Westminster who came from ethnic churches were the idea of total abstinence with American evangelicalism was foreign. As for Buswell's reference to Hollywood, Machen did enjoy going to the movies and commented favorably on Charlie Chaplin but did not make any remarks about film in his published writings.10

10. Buswell to Machen, December 4, 1936, MA. On Machen's fondness for movies, see, for example, his letters to his mother, May 14, 1913, March 11 and August 23, 1914, MA.

The Wisdom of Solomon

Jim West, Drinking With Calvin and Luther, pp. 49-50:

A Lutheran and a Calvinist were wrangling about the ownership of a barrel of wine in a public warehouse, which contained some of the sweetest vintages in all Germany.

Both claimed that the priceless commodity was theirs, that the grapes had been grown in their vineyard and that the wood for the barrel was also taken from the trees on their respective properties.

They took their dispute before a local magistrate who was adamantly opposed to alcoholic beverages and had no appreciation for a priceless old wine. When the magistrate first heard the case, he mentally related the litigants and their claims to the two women who wanted Solomon to adjudicate their squabble over who was the biological mother of the living child. This story of Solomon gave him his grand plan: "If I threaten to take an axe to the wine barrel, and promise to give one half to the Calvinist and the other half to the Lutheran, the true owner will cry out, 'No! Give the barrel to him; it's his!' And the other will say, 'Divide the barrel with the axe; that's only fair.' Also, I will kill two birds with one stone -- ruining the devilish wine with one swing of the axe."

So, imagining that he was the reincarnation of Solomon and that his name would become famous in prohibitionist circles forever, the teetotaling judge pronounced his verdict.

"I command that the wine barrel be halved with an axe, and be divided between the Calvinist and the Lutheran."

So, he sat back smugly and waited for the rightful owner to humble himself before the bench, anticipating that the rightful owner would urge him to give the whole vintage to his antagonist.

To the utter surprise of the judge, both the Calvinist and the Lutheran rushed forward, and implored, "No, no, give the barrel to him; the wine is his!"

Tyranny of Experts

J. Gresham Machen had much to say about the "tyranny of experts." In a world where morality sways like a pendulum based on the results of the latest scientific study, one may grasp his meaning. I have collected a few quotes by him and another famous "J.G." (Vos) which reflect the Reformed interest in setting free the conscience from a "implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience" to the "doctrines and commandments of men" and affirming its Christian liberty to be bound by God alone, being informed and regulated by his word (WCF Chap. 20). In an age of passive submission to "experts" whose rulings are treated as authoritative on all sorts of subjects and which have come to bind the consciences of men as to what is moral and what is not, it is refreshing to consider the counter-cultural affirmations of Machen and Vos who have challenged conventional wisdom.

J.G. Machen, Mountains and Why We Love Them (1933):

What will be the end of that European civilization, of which I had a survey from my mountain vantage ground—of that European civilization and its daughter in America? What does the future hold in store? Will Luther prove to have lived in vain? Will all the dreams of liberty issue into some vast industrial machine? Will even nature be reduced to standard, as in our country the sweetness of the woods and hills is being destroyed, as I have seen them destroyed in Maine, by the uniformities and artificialities and officialdom of our national parks? Will the so-called "Child Labor Amendment" and other similar measures be adopted, to the destruction of all the decencies and privacies of the home? Will some dreadful second law of thermodynamics apply in the spiritual as in the material realm? Will all things in church and state be reduced to one dead level, coming at last to an equilibrium in which all liberty and all high aspirations will be gone? Will that be the end of all humanity's hopes? I can see no escape from that conclusion in the signs of the times; too inexorable seems to me to be the march of events. No, I can see only one alternative. The alternative is that there is a God—a God who in His own good time will bring forward great men again to do His will, great men to resist the tyranny of expert and lead humanity out again into the realms of light and freedom, great men, above all, who will be messengers of His grace. There is, far above any earthly mountain peak of vision, a God high and lifted up who, though He is infinitely exalted, yet cares for His children among men.

J.G. Machen, The Necessity of the Christian School (1933) [republished in Education, Christianity, and the State (1987), pp. 67-68]:

It is true, the attack upon liberty is nothing new. Always there have been tyrants in the world; almost always tyranny has begun by being superficially beneficent, and always it has ended by being both superficially and radically cruel. But while tyranny itself is nothing new, the technique of tyranny has been enormously improved in our day; the tyranny of the scientific expert is the most crushing tyranny of all. That tyranny is being exercised most effectively in the field of education. A monopolistic system of education controlled by the State is far more efficient in crushing our liberty than the cruder weapons of fire and sword. Against this monopoly of education by the State the Christian school brings a salutary protest; it contends for the right of parents to bring up their children in accordance with the dictates of their conscience and not in the manner prescribed by the State.

J.G. Machen, "The Claims of Love," in God Transcendent (1949):

For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good; but me ye have not always. Mark 14:7

Here in one of the most unforgettable, characteristic words that Jesus ever uttered, our Lord actually contrasts the service of the poor with the service of Him. “Ye have the poor with you always,’ he said, ‘and whensoever ye will ye may do them good; but me ye have not always.’ We have not Jesus always with us in the sense in which the woman had Him with her at Bethany; we cannot pour any precious ointment upon His head. But in a higher better sense we have Him with us still. And surely we must not neglect the privilege of communion with Him.

Certainly I am not advocating neglect of external service. Without that it is quite impossible that we should be true disciples of Jesus. It is a poor and untrue religion which leaves the hungry in distress. But we shall perform such services all the better if we take time also to commune with Jesus Himself. Do you think that the Christian life is concerned only with philanthropy; do you think that activity in social service is all that our Lord Desires? Oh no, my friends. Those things are absolutely necessary to the Christian, but they are not all that is necessary. If we are true Christians, we shall not neglect those things; but we shall also take time to go into our closet and close the door; and there, with the world shut out, with even our service forgotten for the moment, we shall think no longer of what we do but of what our Savior has done, and we shall pour out upon Him, with an abandon like that of the woman at Bethany, our gratitude and love and praise.

…In these words to the woman at Bethany our Lord sets us free from the oppressive tyranny of the efficiency expert…

J.G. Vos, The Bible Doctrine of the Separated Life (1936):

Moreover, those who wish to introduce science as an additional authority always speak as if it were a very simple matter to ascertain what science has to say on any particular question. They always speak as if somewhere there were a sort of scientific pope who could utter ex cathedra the final, united, unquestionable voice of science. They seem to presuppose that the voice of science can be heard, speaking with authoritative accents, by simply consulting a few volumes in the public library. The truth is, however, that “science” is an abstraction. There is in the world today no such thing as the voice of science; there are only the voices of a multitude of scientists, and they are anything but agreed among themselves. Now who is to decide which of these many voices is to be accepted as the authoritative voice of science? One scientist, a professor in a great university, states that years of research have failed to demonstrate that a certain practice shortens life. Another scientist, of equal scientific standing, maintains the contrary position. Who is to decide which represents the authoritative voice of “science”? All too often those who wish to place science alongside of Scripture as a standard of faith and conduct wish at the same time to be the judges of what is science; those who hold certain views they regard as scientists; all others they reject as being prejudiced or otherwise untrustworthy. Can any pope or church assembly decide just what kinds of science — the opinions of just which scientists — are authoritative and therefore, along with Scripture, binding on the conscience of man? No, in matters of science every person must decide for himself. And even if certain scientific theories are believed to be true, they cannot be binding on the conscience. We must beware of the sin mentioned in the Larger Catechism, no. 105, of “making men the lords of our faith and conscience.” All human authority, however expert or learned, is fallible, and therefore cannot bind the conscience. Science may show that certain things are harmful to the body, but science can never show that anything is sinful. Scripture alone can show that anything, for example a particular course of conduct, is sinful. It is true that the light of nature, or the moral law written on the heart of man (Rom 2:14-15), shows that certain acts, such as murder, are wrong; but the light of nature does not tell us anything about morality in addition to what is revealed in Scripture; Scripture is a fuller revelation than natural revelation and includes all of the latter and much besides; therefore when Scripture does not declare or imply that a certain practice is sinful, we cannot turn from Scripture to natural revelation for fuller light on the matter. (In this connection it may be remarked that the modernist notion that all human knowledge and science is a divine revelation in the same sense that Scripture is a divine revelation, is utterly false and destructive. Natural revelation is a provision of God by which the heathen, who do not have the light of Scripture, may know something of His power, divinity and moral law. It is insufficient for salvation, but leaves men without excuse and provides a standard by which those who lived and died without the light of special revelation shall be judged. Rom. 1:18-20; 2:12-16.)
...
Someone may object that opium and marihuana, for example, are not indifferent, but sinful in themselves. We have already shown that no material thing can be sinful in itself. Now if opium, marihuana or any other particular material substance is to be regarded as an exception to this principle, the problem is raised as to what authority is competent to decide which substances are exceptions to the principle that no material things can be sinful in itself. There is, no doubt, general agreement among Christian people that such substances as opium and marihuana, for example, are so dangerous and harmful that they should not be used at all. This general agreement is, however, no proper ground for church judicatories authoritatively pronouncing such substances sinful in themselves, or declaring their use to be sinful per se. The Word of God, not the so-called Christian consciousness, is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct. What authority is competent to determine the harmfulness and on this basis to infer the inherent sinfulness of the use of a particular material substance, withal making this inference binding on the consciences of the Lord’s people? Are church judicatories qualified to issue authoritative pronouncements on such matters? By what right does a synod or assembly composed of ministers and elders decide questions concerning the physiological action and toxic properties of various narcotic drugs? If we grant to ecclesiastical bodies the right to decide concerning opium and marihuana, do we not thereby concede the entire principle that the church may legitimately decide for its members concerning the use of things indifferent? And if so, could we consistently object, for reasons of principle, if a church judicatory were to enact a rule prohibiting the use of tea or coffee? We are far from holding that it is legitimate for Christians to use dangerous drugs. What we are contending for is not license to use poisonous drugs, but freedom under God to decide for ourselves what material substances we ought to leave alone. We would keep the consciences of Christian people free from what Dr. Machen called “the tyranny of the experts.” We maintain that the individual Christian, and not the church, must pass judgment on the pronouncements of experts concerning such things, so far as questions of morality are concerned. We are far from holding that it is “all right” to use opium, marihuana or a great many other material substances, but if the question as to the sinfulness of the use of these things is to be decided for us by a synod or pope, then our freedom of conscience is destroyed and our soul reduced to bondage to the commandments of men. If the thing is indifferent in itself, whatever it may be, then the individual Christian, not the church, has the God-given right to decide ethical questions concerning its use. We fully agree with the general opinion of Christian people that such substances as opium and marihuana should not be used at all, except possibly by a physician’s orders; but we claim the God-given right to make this decision ourselves, and not to have it made for us by an ecclesiastical judicatory. The conscience of each and every one of the Lord’s people is enlightened by the Holy Spirit; to require Christian people to accept ecclesiastical regulations on such matters is akin to the “implicit faith, and absolute and blind obedience” which is required by the Church of Rome.

Smoke, Smoke, And Again I Say, Smoke!

B.M. Palmer, The Life and Letters of James Henley Thornwell, pp. 496-497:

Theological Seminary, September 24, 1861
Dearly Beloved Sister Adger:

My sympathies have been greatly moved by the piteous accounts I have received of your keen and manifold sufferings, in that most important of all organs to a woman, “the human face divine.” I know how to feel for the sufferer, especially for such a sufferer as the wife of a friend who has no rival in my heart.

My own experience has led me to recognize the fact that one effect of our afflictions is to disarm us of capricious and idle prejudices, and to reconcile us to what we once abhorred. In my own case, this principle has been most signally illustrated. At one time in my life, sheep, blackberries, and tea were my utter abominations; and I marveled how any human being could reconcile himself to the use of such monstrous articles of diet. But I was brought low. I had either to starve, or to feed on sheep with the voracity of an ancient patriarch or Jew; and I finally came to believe that even a Christian man might make dainties of the fruit of briers, the offspring of the fold, and the leaf from China. My prejudices are all gone; and I sit down to these abominations with as much composure as I would encounter ham, plum pudding, or roast beef. After giving up my prejudices, I began to mend.

Now, it has occurred to me that there is a proud place in your heart, which requires to be humbled. You have some unaccountable prejudices, from which it behooves you to be delivered; and my interest in your carnal comfort prompts me to deal very freely with you on this most delicate subject.

I have no doubt that if you would open your mind to liberal views of that most delectable of all weeds, the tobacco plant, your sufferings might be greatly relieved, and greatly modified. Just reflect upon it as a balm which nature has kindly provided for aching teeth or agonized jaws. Let me advise you, as you prize your comfort, to provide yourself with a clean pipe and a short stem, and set upon the goodly process of inhaling the exquisite fragrance.

There is no sight more truly venerable than that of a mother in Israel, in the chimney corner, with her children about her, refreshing their senses with gales of incense as sweet and cheering as the tones, which proceed from her mouth. It is the very picture of dignified repose. The very idea of neuralgia to such a matron would be a contradiction in terms. Only try it. I never have tooth-ache, jaw-ache, or any other face ache. The reason, perhaps, is that I have no absurd prejudices against “kind nature’s sweet restorer,” a genuine article of tobacco.

How delightful it would be, if you could overcome your antipathies, to visit sister Adger, of a moonlight night, at her hospitable mansion, and join with her in the calm, quiet, dignified composure which the blended fumes of the pipe and cigar would so freely and completely signalize!

My dear, suffering sister, smoke, smoke, and again I say, smoke! It will do you good. Once begin, and you will need no arguments to persevere. The odour of a good conversation and the odour of tobacco sweetly harmonize, and form exquisite incense.

But enough. We all want to see you very much. I think your husband needs looking after; and the worse feature in his case is, that he does not want you to come home. Lizzie, I suspect, is doing pretty much what the boy shot at. The truth is, your presence, provided your face is smooth, would work marvels. But my paper is out. Be sure to smoke, and let us hear no more of neuralgia.

As ever,
J.H. Thornwell

Abstinence in Moderation

Jim West, Drinking With Calvin and Luther, pp. 214-215:

A Reformed minister was asked to lunch with three other ministers with whom he was not familiar. He arrived at the restaurant early, and while waiting, unthinkingly ordered a bottle of cabernet sauvignon.

When the other three ministers arrived he had already imbibed half a glass and heartily asked if they would like to partake of the Lord's "tender mercies." The three of them respectfully declined, but the Reformed minister could tell by their countenances that they were more than a little dismayed.

"Do the three of you have a problem with wine?" he asked.

One minister said that he believed that all alcoholic beverages were sinful and that Rome would have to melt into the Tiber before a drop ever touched his lips. The second indicated that because of the widespread abuse of alcohol that he had made a decision never to drink. He indicated that he was also concerned about the world's perception of him -- it was unconscionable that a minister of the Gospel should ever be associated with wine. The third minister said that the sole reason for his abstinence was that he did not want to offend the other two.

"Well, then," said the Calvinist, "I guess I am in an embarrassing spot. I wouldn't even want to offend the man who is afraid that he might offend. What would you have me do?"

"Why don't we all drink to abstinence?" said the teetotaler. "I'll order some water and we'll drink to abstinence."

They all heartily agreed, even the Calvinist. When the water arrived, and the glasses were filled, each took his turn.

"Here's to abstinence," said the first minister.

"To abstinence," seconded the second.

"To abstinence," toasted the third.

Then the Calvinist refilled his glass with the cabernet, lifted it to his lips, and declared: "Yes, indeed, to abstinence -- may it always be practiced with moderation!"

Hops, Reformation, Bays, and Beer

A 13th-century law in the city of Augsburg, Germany stated that:

The selling of bad beer is a crime against Christian love.

There are interesting ties between the appreciation of beer in England and Germany, and the Reformations in both of those countries. I don't wish to make too strong a connection between beer and Reformation, but the history, while fuzzy, is worth pondering over a pint.

It was in 1516, that the Reinheitsgebot, the German or Bavarian Beer Purity Law, which required that beer be made only with water, barley and hops, was promulgated. A year later, Martin Luther, by the grace of God, initiated the Reformation at Wittenberg.

Although some reference this rhyme to events in 1520 (and it is to be conceded that hops had been in use in England for quite some time prior), this saying is generally identified with events in the year 1524:

Hops, reformation, bays, and beer, / Came into England all in one year.

Henry Buttes, Dyets Dry Dinner (1599):

Heresie and beere came hopping into England both in a yeere.

Sir Richard Baker (author of meditations upon select psalms), Chronicle of the Kings of England from the Time of the Romans' Government unto the Death of King James (1643), p. 298:

About his [Henry VIII's] fifteenth year [1524] it happen'd that diverse things were newly brought into England, whereupon this rhime was made: Turkeys, Carps, Hopps, Piccarel, and Beer, Came into England all in one year.

Daniel Defoe, A tour thro' the whole island of Great Britain, divided into circuits or journies (1724-1726, 1768 ed.), Letter 2, Part 1, p. 34:

Here [Maidstone, England] likewise, and in the country adjacent, are great quantities of hops planted, and this is call'd the Mother of Hop Grounds in England; being the first place in England where hops were planted in any quantity, and long before any were planted at Canterbury, tho' that be now supposed to be the chief place in England, as shall be observ'd in its place: These were the hops, I suppose, which were planted at the beginning of the Reformation, and which gave occasion to that old distich:

Hops, Reformation, bays, and beer,
Came into England all in a year.

Samuel Smiles, The Huguenots: Their Settlements, Churches, and Industries in England and Ireland (1868), p. 94:

It is also supposed, though it cannot be exactly ascertained, that the Protestant Walloons [French-speaking Huguenots from Flanders] introduced the cultivation of the hop in Kent, bringing slips of the plant with them from Artois. The old distich --

"Hops, Reformation, Bays, and Beer,
Came into England all in one year" --

marks the period (about 1524) when the first English hops were planted.

Moreover, the White Horse Tavern in Cambridge, England is generally considered to the birthplace of the Cambridge wing of English Puritanism.

Samuel T. Logan, Jr., The Pilgrims and Puritans: Total Reformation for the Glory of God:

By 1526, regular (rather subversive) theological discussions were being conducted in the White Horse Tavern in Cambridge. Participants included such future luminaries as Thomas Bilney, Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley, and Thomas Cranmer. Every one of the four was later martyred.

Unfermented Wine

Rev. A.M. Wilson, Preface, The Wines of the Bible (1877):

Having been a teetotaller for more than thirty years, his [the author's] personal habits, associations, and sympathies have all been in favour of the unfermented theory; but the facts encountered in the present investigation have constrained him reluctantly to conclude that so far as the wines of the ancients are concerned, unfermented wine is a myth.

Charles Spurgeon, Charles Spurgeon's book review of The Wines of the Bible: an Examination and Refutation of the Unfermented Wine Theory by the Rev. A. M. Wilson. (reviewed 1877, The Sword and the Trowel, p. 437):

'UNFERMENTED wine' is a non-existent liquid. Mr. Wilson has so fully proved this that it will require considerable hardihood to attempt a reply. The best of it is that he is a teetotaler of more than thirty years' standing, and has reluctantly been driven 'to conclude that, so far as the wines of the ancients are concerned, unfermented wine is a myth.' While total abstainers are content to make no assault upon the cup used at the Lord's table, they work harmoniously with all who seek the welfare of their fellow men; but when they commence warfare upon that point they usually become more factious than useful: everything is then made subordinate to their one idea, and the peace of the church is disregarded. It is well, therefore, that one of themselves should protest against carrying a principle to extremes, and best of all that he should do so by showing that the theories which have been advanced are utterly untenable. We wish the utmost success to the abstinence cause, and, therefore, trust that there will be no pressing of the question of unfermented wine at the Communion, for it will not promote the cause, and will create much heartburning, and, worst of all, it will be contrary to the Divine precedent. The question is not necessary to the temperance movement, and we wish it had never been raised. Mr. Wilson has written the thick volume now before us to settle the matter, and we believe that he establishes beyond reasonable debate that the wines of the Bible were intoxicating, and that our Lord did not ordain jelly or syrup, or cherry juice to be the emblem of his sacrifice.

Good Wine Needs No Bush

When it comes to painting a picture with words, few Puritans can equal the skill of Thomas Watson. It is interesting to note the many ways he refers to wine in his word pictures. He speaks of the "wine of glory," the "wine of the gospel," and God's "promises dropped into the soul like wine."

I like this one from The Godly Man's Picture (as found inThe Sermons of Thomas Watson, p. 518):

A godly man doth not indulge himself in any sin. Though sin lives in him, yet he doth not live in sin. Every man that hath wine in him, is not in wine.

Jim West elaborates on one particular reference which is perhaps not so clear to 21st century readers in Drinking With Calvin and Luther, p. 71:

In a more obscure reference from The Godly Man's Picture, one of his most enduring works, Watson writes, "If there is wine in the house, the bush will be hung outside, and where there is a principle of godliness in the heart, it will vent itself at the lips; the bush will be hung up." The explanation for the figure is that in Watson's day, a bush was a branch of a tree that was hung out as a sign for a tavern. When the "bush custom" was eventually discontinued, Englishmen hung a coronated frame of wood as a tavern sign. The English thus coined a proverb: "Good wine needs no bush."

Live Soberly, Righteously, Godly

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; (Titus 2.11-12)

Thomas Taylor, An Exposition of Titus, pp. 190-191:

Doct. 2. Where the gospel brings salvation to any person, it looks for return of some recompense, namely that it be entertained with sobriety, righteousness, and godliness, which are the three graces which go hand in hand, every one looking at another.

Sobriety keeps the house, and moderates the mind at home; righteousness looks forth and gives every man his due abroad; piety looks up to God and gives Him His right. Sobriety preserves, and is content with its own state and portion. Righteousness preserves, and is content that other men enjoy their estate and portion. Piety preserves, and is willing that God's part be reserved unto him.

Again, sobriety must go before, as a nurse of the other two; for he who deals not soberly cannot deal justly, but deprives men of their due. Righteousness without godliness is but atheism, and a beautiful abomination; and piety without righteousness is but hypocrisy. How absurd it is to be precise in dealing with man, and careless how wickedly we deal with God!

Now as sobriety is listed first, as the nurse of the two latter, so piety is listed last, as the mother of the two former; for where it is lacking, neither of the former can commend a man unto God. Therefore none of these three may be forgotten, for they jointly contain all the rules of Christian life.

In each we will observe two points, its proper work and the rules by which it may be practiced.

1. First, of sobriety. Its proper work is to moderate the mind, and contain it in due compass, both in all the affections of the soul and the actions of life unto which it turns itself. This will appear in things outward and inward.

(a) First, in the inward gifts of the mind, it teaches three things.

(i) To be wise to sobriety, and not to presume above that which is written. It does not allow us to pry into the ark, as the Bethshemites did to their cost, neither in inferior things to meddle with curious arts and sciences; but it exercises itself in things which not only have a show of wisdom, but which are profitable, yea necessary.

(ii) To contain and content itself with its own measure of gifts, to know their own bounds and keep within them. The portion of grace, which is given according to the measure of the gift of Christ, it acknowledges with thankfulness, but does not arrogate that which he has not. This would be to run over the measure, and Christ gives no gift which is not in the measure of it. We have a singular precedent of sobriety in the apostles themselves. "We rejoice not in things outside our measure, nor stretch ourselves beyond our measure, nor boast of things outside our measure" (2 Cor. 10:13,14).

(iii) As it teaches a man to know himself, so it teaches him not to despise another, although he has not received the like measure (1 Cor. 4:6); it does not swell against another, for itself has nothing but what it received. It does not eny those whom God has made superiors, since the wisdom from above is pure, peaceable, not judging and not avenging (James 3:17).

(b) In outward things, it is a moderator, as may appear in things concerning a man's calling, estate, pleasures, and things indifferent.

(i) It forces a man to abide in his calling, but not as drudge unto it; it will not allow the heart to be oppressed with the cares of this life, no more than with surfeiting and drunkenness. It curbs the restive desire of increasing wealth, and so both gives freedom to the duties of the general calling, and fences from being too much wrapped and entangled in the duties of the particular calling.

(ii) In his estate, this virtue of sobriety settles a man in a quiet comfort and contentment, for it teaches him to lack and to abound, and puts into his hand the benefit of contentment in all states. If want comes, he who was rich can rejoice in being made low (James 1:9); he is taught to be empty as well as full. Again, if prosperity befalls him, and the world comes upon him, this prosperity does not puff him up; he can use the world as not using it. This excellent grace hedges his heart, and will not allow it to be greedy in its desires.

(iii) In the pleasures and delights of this life, in which a number have become as filthily drunk as others in beastly quaffing. Prove the heart with joy, and bid it take pleasure in earthly things; it can say of laughter. "You are madness," and to joy, "What do you do?" (Eccl. 2:1) It does not allow a man to pour out his heart to pleasure, nor to become a lover of pleasure more than of God.

(iv) In things indifferent, as meat, drink, apparel, sleep, etc., it keeps within compass. It does not look at the wine in the cup; it drinks for strength, and not for drunkenness; to make a man more fit for his calling, not duller and heavier. In apparel it shuns pride, lightness, and idleness, and reduces to comeliness and decency, and inward decking rather than outward. Its attire not only becomes holiness, but also agrees with the calling, custom of the country, example of the graver sort of our rank, and the right ends of apparel. Sobriety causes sleep to be seasonable and moderate, and does not allow a man to sleep until he is clothed in rages. In marriage, it holds from being drowned in carnal delight, but moderates the affection as though he were free from a wife (1 Cor. 7:29). Thus the excellence of this grace is shown.

Nature and Grace

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 4, pp. 435-437:

Thus the church exists in the midst of the world with an origin, essence, activity, and purpose of its own. While in every respect it is distinct from that world, it never stands apart from or alongside the world. Various schools of thought in Christianity have indeed construed the church and the world as existing in an absolute ethical antithesis to each other, equating creation and re-creation with sin and grace. But these schools, however powerful they may have been now and then, have nonetheless never controlled the history of Christianity and could only lead a sectarian life alongside the churches. Apart from these schools, there are only two ways the relationship between the church and the world can be defined, the Roman Catholic and the Protestant way, the supernatural and the ethical way. Rome does not view the natural as sinful in the manner of Anabaptism and thus does not advocate avoidance and separation, but it does teach that the natural is of a lower order, easily becomes the cause of sin, and therefore needs the restraint of the supernatural. Just as the image of God as a supernatural image is added to "the natural man," so grace is mechanically added to nature from above, the church to the world, the higher to the lower morality. Those who want to live according to the ideal of Rome have to become ascetics, suppress the natural, and devote themselves totally to religion. Those unable to do this obtain the necessary space for the natural and find in the supernatural the boundary that marks the limit of space.

The relationship between the church and the world that Protestantism adopted as true was very different. It replaced the quantitative, supernaturalist antithesis with an ethical one. The natural was not of a lower order but in its kind was as sound and pure as the supernatural, inasmuch as it had been created by the same God who revealed himself in the re-creation [of the world] as the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. Only it had been corrupted by sin and therefore had to be reconciled and renewed by the grace of Christ. Grace, accordingly, serves here not to avoid, to suppress, or to kill the natural, but precisely to free it from its sinful corruption and to make it truely natural again. True, in applying these principles Luther stopped halfway, left the natural untouched, and restricted Christianity too severely to the domain of religion and ethics. But Calvin, the man of action, who came after Luther and could therefore compare or constrast himself to Luther, continued the work of reformation and tried to reform all of life by Christianity. "Avoidance" is the cry of the Anabaptists; "ascesis" that of the Roman Catholics; "renewal" and "sanctification" that of the Protestant, especially of the Reformed, Christian.

This last view is, without doubt, the richest and most beautiful. There is only one God, after all, both in creation and in re-creation. The God of creation and of the Old Testament is not lower than the God of the re-creation, than of the Father of Christ, than the God of the new covenant. Christ, the mediator of the new covenant, is also he by whom God created all things. And the Holy Spirit, who is the author of regeneration and sanctification, is the same as he who in the beginning hovered over the waters and adorned the heavens. Creation and re-creation, therefore, cannot be contrasted in terms of being lower and higher. They are both good and pure -- splendid works of the one Triune God. Moreover, while it is true that the sin that entered the world has corrupted everything -- not only the spiritual life, the ethical-religious life, but also the whole of the natural life, the body, the family, society, the whole world -- yet that sin is not substantial or material but "formal" and hence not identical with the created world but dwelling in and attached to the created world and can, therefore, always be separated and removed from it by the grace of God. Substantially and materially the creation after the fall is the same as before the fall: it remains a work of God and is therefore to be honored and acclaimed. To regain that fallen world, God introduced the forces of grace into his creation. Neither is grace a substance or matter, enclosed in Word or sacrament and distributed by the priest, but a renewing and transforming force. It is not per se supernatural but only bears that character on account of sin and hence has it, in a sense incidentally and temporarily, for the purpose of restoring the creation.

This grace is distributed in a twofold form: as common grace with a view toward restraining [evil] and as special grace with a view to renewing [the world]. Both have their unity in Christ, the king of the realm of power and grace. Both are directed against sin; both ensure the connectedness between creation and re-creation. Neither has the world been left to itself after the fall, nor deprived of all grace, but it is sustained and spared by common grace, guided and preserved for special grace in Christ. Separation and suppression, accordingly, are impermissable and impossible. Humans and Christians are not two separate entities. The creation is incorporated and restored in [the process of] re-creation. Persons who are born again are substantially no different from what they were before regeneration. Incorporated into the church, they nevertheless remain in the world and must only be kept from the evil one. Just as Christ the Son of God took a full human nature from the womb of Mary and, having that nature, did not regard anything human and natural as strange, so the Christian is nothing other than a reborn, renewed, and hence, a truly human person. The same people who are Christians are and remain in the same calling with which they were called; they remain members of a family, members of a society, subjects of the government, practitioners of the arts and sciences, men or women, parents or children, masters or servants, and so forth.

Pipe Aria and Coffee Cantata

Today's Friday entertainment from Virginia is for Huguenots comes in the form of two compositions by J.S. Bach in tribute to the pleasures of pipe tobacco and coffee.

First, the Coffee Cantata [Schweigt stille, plaudert nicht ("Be still, stop chattering"), BWV 211], which is a comic opera, as the title indicates. One may read the text in English here and more about the piece here. And now, for your listening pleasure, a portion of the Coffee Cantata:



Finally, the Pipe Aria is a composition that appears in Bach's Noten-Bchlein vor Anna Magdalena Bach ("Little Notebook for A.M.Bach") of 1725 as Erbauliche Gedanken eines Tobackrauchers: Sooft ich meine Tobackspfeife" ("Edifying Thoughts of a Tobacco-Smoker: Whenever I take my good pipe"). There is some uncertainty as to the author of the text, and a portion may be derived from another source; but Bach is a known poet, the theme is one that Bach appreciated, and the musical composition is certainly Bach's. There are various English translations, several of which are here provided for comparison, along with a peformance of BWV 515a (in G minor). One version ends: "On land, at sea, at home, abroad / I smoke my pipe and worship God." Enjoy!

Edifying Thoughts of a Pipe Smoker (Version 1)

Whene'er I take my pipe and stuff it
And smoke to pass the time away
My thoughts, as I sit there and puff it,
Dwell on a picture sad and grey:
It teaches me that very like
Am I myself unto my pipe.

Like me this pipe, so fragrant burning,
Is made of naught but earthen clay;
To earth I too shall be returning,
And cannot halt my slow decay.
My well used pipe, now cracked and broken,
Of mortal life is but a token.

No stain, the pipe's hue yet doth darken;
It remains white. Thus do I know
That when to death's call I must harken
My body, too, all pale will grow.
To black beneath the sod 'twill turn,
Likewise the pipe, if oft it burn.

Or when the pipe is fairly glowing,
Behold then instantaneously,
The smoke off into thin air going,
'Til naught but ash is left to see.
Man's fame likewise away will burn
And unto dust his body turn.

How oft it happens when one's smoking,
The tamper's missing from it's shelf,
And one goes with one's finger poking
Into the bowl and burns oneself.
If in the pipe such pain doth dwell
How hot must be the pains of Hell!

Thus oer my pipe in contemplation
Of such things - I can constantly
Indulge in fruitful meditation,
And so, puffing contentedly,
On land, at sea, at home, abroad,
I smoke my pipe and worship God.

Edifying Thoughts of a Pipe Smoker (Version 2)

Whenever I pick up my tobacco-pipe,
Stuffed with good tobacco
For pleasure and pastime,
It gives me a sad impression -
And leads to the conclusion
That I resemble it in many ways.

The pipe was made from clay and earth
And so was I.
One day I will be earth again -
It often falls from the hand
And breaks before you know,
My destiny is the same.

The pipe is usually not colored;
It remains white. So therefore,
One day when I am dying
My body will turn pale.
Once buried it becomes black, just like
A pipe that has been used for a long time.

When the pipe is lit,
One sees the smoke disappear instantly
In the free air,
Leaving nothing but ashes behind.
The glory of all mankind is consumed
And the body turns to dust.

So often it happens while smoking,
That the stuffer is not handy,
And instead the finger is used,
Then I wonder when I burn myself,
If the ashes make such pain
How hot will it be in Hades?

Since such is the case,
From my tobacco I can always
Erect enlightening thoughts.
Therefore, in comfort I smoke
On Land, at sea and at home
My little pipe, with devotion.

Edifying Thoughts of a Pipe Smoker (Version 3)

As oft I fill my faithful pipe,
To while away the moments glad,
With fragrant leaves, so rich and ripe,
My mind perceives an image sad,
So that I can but clearly see
How very like it is to me.

My pipe is made of earth and clay,
From which my mortal part is wrought;
I, too, must turn to earth some day.
It often falls, as quick as thought,
And breaks in tow, -- puts out its flame;
My fate, alas! is but the same!

My pipe I color not, nor paint;
White it remains, and hence 'tis true
That, when in Death's cold arms I faint,
My lips shall wear the ashen hue;
And as it blackens day by day,
So black the grave shall turn my clay!

And when the pipe is put alight
The smoke ascends, then trembles, wanes,
And soon dissolves in sunshine bright,
And but the whitened ash remains.
'Tis so man's glory crumble must,
E'en as his body, into dust!

How oft the filler is mislaid;
And, rather than to seek in vain,
I use my finger in its stead,
And fancy as I feel the pain,
If coals can burn to such degree,
How hot, O Lord, must Hades be!

So in tobacco oft I find,
Lessons of such instructive type;
And hence with calm, contented mind
I live, and smoke my faithful pipe
In reverence where'er I roam, --
On land, on water, and at home.