https://americanreformer.org/2024/07/samuel-davies-colonial-presbyterian-patriot/
My eye was drawn to the locales mentioned in the opening paragraph. They are well known to me as my family has made a point of visiting these places for historical reference - and they're not too far away from where we live.
Samuel Davies (1723-1761) is also a name well known to me from my days spent in OP and PCA circles. He is a titan in American Presbyterianism but to be honest I hadn't give Samuel Davies a lot of thought in quite a few years. So by this point I was hooked and decided to read the article.
In every way Davies was a true patriot who believed in what would become America and loved and stood for the ideals which would come to represent the nation at the time of its founding - more than a decade after his death. It's easy enough to see what many admire him so.
Unfortunately Davies hated Jesus Christ and the Kingdom He inaugurated in the days of Roman Palestine. He represents in some respects all that is wrong with Presbyterianism when it comes to culture and questions of the sword and the coin. His rejection of the New Testament is absolute and while he may speak of a gospel, it is as foreign to him as it would be any papist.
Dunson provides an excellent theological primer on his life but as expected with The American Reformer, the conclusions are all wrong and the emphasis anti-Biblical. How could it be anything but?
In keeping with the ethos of British Imperialism, he preached war and misled God's people teaching them to take up the sword and kill - and that in doing so they would further the interests of God's Kingdom. Like so many Evangelicals and Confessionalists today, he confused the interests of Zion with a Beast-flag of a worldly kingdom-empire. And this shaped and re-cast his ethics resulting in white being black and black being white - evil being good and good being evil.
As Dunson faithfully recounts, Davies twisted Scripture in order to justify his sin and his encouragement for others to do the same. The degree of reprobation on display is remarkable to say the least and we owe Dunson a debt of gratitude for recounting this chapter of Davies' history. Let's learn from it as the spirit of Davies is alive and well and on full display among the Evangelical leadership. Like Davies, their consciences have been seared and they no longer seem able to reason in moral categories.
Like a good pimp for the British Colonies, Davies whored out the gospel from his pulpit using it to recruit men to don a uniform and commit murder or (fools that they were) to be slaughtered in a contest that was little more than a clash of Bestial powers. The meaningless of it all is further evidenced by the fact that less than a generation later these same men would (in defiance of Scripture) take up arms against their king - the one they had killed for just a handful of years earlier. Davies would have probably supported them but thankfully he had already gone to his reward.
I doubt many of today's Evangelicals would say that Davies made an idol out of politics. I think Dunson is decidedly mistaken on this point. Given the rank idolatry that is regularly on display in such 'congregations', I think his statement can be contested. There are other Evangelicals who take a tepid stance and seem disengaged, but this is not due to a lack of interest or investment in the culture or even the absence of patriotism. Rather it is because their market-inspired ecclesiology depends on numbers and as such the latitudinarian approach best suits their financial goals and therapeutic approach. They are apostate to be sure but not for any of the reasons Dunson seems to think. It is evident (at least to this writer) that he is not in a position to know!
Dunson undoubtedly exaggerates when he says that 'no one felt that way about Davies at the time'. Well, we can safely say that many of the Baptists, Quakers, Moravians, as well as the many Palatine Germans certainly did not share Davies' sentiments. There has always been a Christian witness against such distortions of New Testament religion. Additionally many of the same would have also rejected Davies approval of slavery. The fact that he preached to slaves is admirable and certainly a better testimony than many of his contemporaries, but there were a multitude of Christians that were far more faithful and consistent - and worthy of honour.
Some were undoubtedly impressed by Davies preaching but given his utter failure to connect the dots and understand the gist of New Testament ethics and the Christian calling - I must say that I doubt very much a student of Scripture would find him edifying or even able to be tolerated for that matter. Were he preaching across the street from me today I would not attend his church. At best out of morbid curiosity I might go and hear him - but not as one going to hear the Word preached.
What kind of unction could he possess? He preached about depravity - but then promoted it. Matthew 12 comes to mind about Satan's house divided against itself, and so it was with the political thought of that period that dominated Presbyterianism and much of Colonial American Christianity. The shackles of old Magisterial Reformation politicks were being shed but only to be replaced by the empiricist-driven ideals of the emerging Enlightenment. One error was being exchanged for another. The ability of someone like Davies to hold these ideas together represents to Dunson something admirable akin to the harmonics of a symphony. Rather, they represent not an example of symphonic intricacy but syncretism and fatal compromise. Davies is an interesting figure but not someone to be admired. If we would learn from him, we should learn from his errors and the tragedy that was his life. In fact his testimony is a warning and demonstrates the degree of deception that can work in the Christian heart. And additionally, how tragic that over two and a half centuries after his death, there are still blind guides promoting his sin. That's a legacy that should make all of us tremble.