TME PRESBYTERIAN(0NSTITUTIONAL(OVENANT UNiON

• ~.r 0

o

o

o

o

o

o

•o

o

April 20. 1936VOLUME 2, NUMBER 2

A Prayer of Jeremy Taylor

o eternal God, sanctify my body and soul. mythoughts and my intentions. my words and actions,that whatsoever I shall think, or speak, or do, may b~

by me designed for the glorification of Thy Name.and, by Thy blessing, it may be effective andsuccessful in the work of God, according as it canbe capable. Lord, turn my necessities into virtue;the works of nature into the works of grace; bymaking them orderly, regular, temperate; and letno pride or self-seeking, no covetousness or revenge,no little ends and low imaginations. pollute myspirit, and unhallow any of my words and actions;but let my body be a servant of my spirit, and bothbody and spirit servants of Jesus; that, doing allthings for Thy glory here, I may be partaker of Thyglory hereafter, through Jesus Christ our Lord­Amen.

o

o

~

o

22 THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN

The Changing Scene and the UnchangingWordBy the REV. J. GRESHAM MACHEN. D.D•• L1tt.D.

"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever."-Isa. 40:8.

Are We Schismatics?

W H E N oughtChristian

people to withdrawfrom a church withwhich they have beenconnected and seek tolead other people towithdraw with them?

Dr. Machen That is certainly atimely question just now. A goodmany people are earnestly consideringit in the Presbyterian Church in theU.S.A. The question of separationhas ceased to lie in the dim and in­definite future and must be settled ina very few weeks. The General As­sembly meets at the end of nextmonth. At the General Assembly thechurch's decision on the great issueof the day will probably be made.

I f the Permanent Judicial Commis­sion declares the mandate of the1934 and 1935 Assemblies to be con­stitutional or on any of the othergrounds alleged confirms the condem­nation of anyone of the members ofThe Independent Board for Presby­terian Foreign Missions or of theRev. Arthur F. Perkins or of the Rev.John J. DeWaard, and if the GeneralAssembly, sitting as a court, confirmsthis decision, then the PresbyterianChurch in the U.S.A. will have de­throned Jesus Christ and placed theword of men above the Word of God.

That is true no matter what isthought of the particular personsinvolved. If they were the most in­significant or the most unworthy per­sons in the whole church, the prin­ciple would remain exactly the same.

What shall be done by other Chris­tian people in the Presbyterian Churchin the U.S.A. after their brethrenhave thus been ejected? Shall theyremain in that church or shall theydepart?

Is Every Separation Schismatic?That question is a very serious

question indeed. It ought not to belightly answered.

Unquestionably there are times

when separation from a church or­ganization with which one has beenconnected is a sin. That sin is calledthe sin of schism. It is a very heinoussin. In saying that, I agree with thosewho denounce the Covenant Union,and who denounce the pledge, lookingto separation in the event that effortsof reform fail, which the "covenant"of the Covenant Union contains.

But if I agree with the opponentsof the Covenant Union in holding thatthere is such a sin as the sin ofschism, I think they in turn ought toagree with me when I maintain, onthe other hand, that by no meansevery separation from an existingchurch organization is the sin ofschism.

Can it be seriously held by anyonethat every separation is sinful schism?

Well, that could be held by a RomanCatholic, but I do not for the life ofme see how it can be held by anyProtestant. All Protestants have madethemselves party to a separation froman existing church organization. Arewe going to abandon the Protestantprinciple and go back to the RomanCatholic position? That is just ex­actly what we do if we hold, as manypersons seem to hold today, that "split­ting the church" is necessarily sinful.

If we are not going to take thatstep, if we are not going to abandonProtestantism and unite ourselves withthe Roman Catholic Church, then wemust inevitably admit that there aretimes when separation from an exist­ing church organization is not thesin of schism but an inescapable andvery solemn Christian duty.

The Example of the ReformationWhen does such a time for separ­

ation come? I think the example ofthe Reformation again will give usthe answer. The time for separationcomes at a time when the existingchurch organization ceases to heedthe Word of God and follows someother authority instead.

The early Protestants did not justappeal from authority in general to

some general human right of liberty.They appealed from false authorityto true authority. They appealed fromthe usurped authority of ecclesiasticalmachinery to the divine authority ofthe Holy Scriptures.

It was to the Bible as the Word ofGod that they owed allegiance. Thatis the reason why they were notschismatics when they left theChurch of Rome. That is the reason,indeed, why they would have beenschismatics if they had remained.

Here, then, is the principle of thething-it is schism to leave a churchif that church is true to the Bible,but it is not schism if that church isnot true to the Bible. In the lattercase, far from its being schism toseparate from the church in question,it is schism to remain in it, since toremain in it means to disobey theWord of God and to separate one­self from the true Church of JesusChrist.

What Is Our Present Duty?It is the latter case which will pre­

vail in the Presbyterian Church inthe U.S.A. if the Permanent JudicialCommission takes the action which itis expected to take. If that action istaken by the Permanent Judicial Com­mission at the end of next month andis then confirmed by the General As­sembly sitting as a court, some earn­est people, at very great sacrifice ofworldly goods and with bleedinghearts, will leave church buildingshallowed for them by many preciousmemories and will sever their connec­tion with a great church organiza­tion.

Why will they take that step? I willtell you. They will take that step be­cause they are convinced that if theydid not take it, if they did not departfrom the existing church organiza­tion, they would be guilty of the sinof schism. By their continuance in aplainly apostate church, they wouldbe separating themselves from thetrue Church of Jesus Christ and wouldbe unfaithful to Christ the Head.

...I

THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN

EDITORIAL

23

IF THE "MANDATE" IS DECLAREDUNCONSTITUTIONAL

M U CH has been said in recent weeks of the dutiesthat will devolve upon Christian men in the Pres­

byterian Church in the U.S.A. if and when the nextAssembly either explicitly or in effect affirms the so­called "mandate" of 1934 against the IndependentBoard. That action, we sincerely believe, will, if taken,put the word of man above the Word of God. It willinvolve an abandonment of essential Protestantism. Byit the church will have taken, officially, an apostateaction. This, we hold, will oblige consistent Christianmen and women to separate from the outward organi­zation in order to continue the true life and soul of thechurch.

But suppose that the General Assembly, sitting as acourt, does not put man's word above God's in any ofthe ways that are open to it? What would be the dutyof Christian men and women then? .

We believe that, in the first place, true Christiansshould then thank and praise God with grateful heartsthat an awful sin had been averted. No one wants achurch to sin, to betray its Lord. If the betrayal doesnot take place, we will be profoundly thankful to God.

Nevertheless this does not mean that the battle forthe faith would then be over, that all would be hence­forth well in the church. Far from it. The church ishoneycombed with Modernism, and Modernism, alliedwith an official bureaucracy, is in control. A right deci­sion at the coming Assembly would cause us to thankGod and take courage. But it would be only the firstof many steps that would have to be taken before thechurch could be considered purified.

What are some of those steps?

The Boards of the church, which have figured largelyin the discussions of the last few years, would need tobe basically reformed. This would inescapably involvethoroughgoing changes in Board and staff personnel.

But the condition of the Boards is no isolated phe­nomenon. It merely reflects the condition of the churchgenerally. Modernism now dominates. That domination,which has steadily increased for a generation, wouldhave to be broken, and the machinery of the churchplaced in the hands of those who love the church's heri­tage. Let no one think that this could be accomplished,if at all, without a grim and long struggle. Bureaucraciesin power do not surrender upon the first bombardment.We do not mean to limit what the Holy Spirit might do.

It is, however, worthy of note that in the past one ofHis great activities has been to give weak, sinful mencourage to stand up and contend for the honor of theirLord.

The doctrinal unfaithfulness in the church, then,would have to be faced and eliminated. It is found, notmerely in high places, but in "low" places as well-inpresbyteries, sessions, congregations. Much as they aredistasteful to us all, we would have to begin an era ofheresy trials resolutely and solemnly carried throughfrom start to finish. Unless our talk of reform is onlyso much idle wind, we would not shrink from suchtrials.

In short, real reform would involve a cleansing of thewhole fabric of the church. To accomplish this, therewould have to be revealed an hitherto non-vocal evan­gelical majority in the church. Nor could anything bedone by this hypothetical and not-yet-apparent majoritywithout the divine empowerment and gracious presenceof the blessed Holy Spirit of God.

How could these things be attempted?

Only, it seems to us, by the presentation to the churchof a whole-orbed program of reform. The members ofthe Covenant Union and those who will adhere to themin this effort should engage in a nationwide attempt torestore the lost purity of the church's witness. Thechurch should be informed, so far as is humanly pos­sible, of the choices that confront it. It should be urgedto retrace its steps, back to unwavering loyalty to God'sWord as true and as supreme.

Then it would have to choose.

If the church then should say "no" to reform, in suchfashion as to demonstrate that reasonable hope of puri­fication was impossible, true Christian men and womenwould, we believe, be obliged to separate themselvesfrom an apostate organization. Who is there that canlook forward with untroubled mind to an indefinitecontinuation of the unnatural union between belief andunbelief that prevails in the church, and to all that inevi­tably accompanies such a union? May God have mercyon us, if we are so blind to the honor of Christ and thewelfare of souls now living and unborn!

Our duty, then, is to contend earnestly where Godhas put us, unless and until the church has, in either oneof the two ways described, become apostate. If andwhen this happens, a day of separation will have come.It will be tragic because of broken earthly ties, andtriumphant, because for the believer there will be noseparation from the victorious Christ.

24 THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN

An Open Letter to the Board of ForeiCJn Missionsof the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

By the REV. DONALD GREY BARNHOUSE

Dr. Barnhouse

...

April 8, 1936.The Board of Foreign Missions156 Fifth AvenueNew York City.

Gentlemen:

ON November 18, 1935, the Boardof Foreign Missions took action

which was published in The Presby­terian of November 28, 1935, relativeto my Report on my trip to the for­eign mission fields.

In that resolution,the Board as a wholewent beyond the pre­vious "Comment"which had been pub­lished in the samemagazine on N ovem­ber 21, and gave cer­tain definite assur­ance to the church,

that the Board would make public afurther report on the conditions pointedout by me in my report. In my Remarkson the Comments of the ExecutiveCouncil (The Presbyterian, N ovem­ber 21, page 8) I stated:

"I regret exceedingly that the Execu­tive Council fails to sense fully orignores the picture I have painted ant.'gives its attention to one or two brushstrokes. It must be understood that mypurpose has not been to pick out a fewcases of unbelief among our missionarieswith the thought of having them be­headed, but rather to show the existenceof a situation about which the controllingpersonnel possessed knowledge and didnot seem to be acting decisively in linewith that knowledge."

Late in February, 1936, furthercorrespondence passed between Dr.McAfee and myself. He addressed mebriefly in terms which I quote in thecourse of my answer which was sentto him under date of March 5, 1936.My letter is as follows:

"Dr. Cleland B. McAfee156 Fifth AvenueNew York City, N. Y.

"Dear Dr. McAfee:

"I want to thank you for your let­ter of February 24th in which you say

1. 'In the weeks since our first con­ference with you here in the rooms wehave been making the inquiries whichwere natural to make regarding the in­stances given in your report and we nowhave material from each of them re­garding which we would like to conferwith you' and

2. 'That the Policy and Methods Com­mittee of the Board voted an instructionto us to invite you to a conference dur­ing the week beginning March 8th,' etc.

"I wish to inform you that thedelay in acknowledging your letterwas due to the difficulty which I haveexperienced in determining how Ishould respond. The issue is such inthe church today that we need for­ward action on the part of the wholeBoard which would cause the churchas a whole to take heart rather thanto go back to that point where the'Comment' made by the ExecutiveCouncil of the Board of Foreign Mis­sions upon my report would have leftthis paramount and vital issue.

"I had imagined that the next meet­ing of the Board would be of a largerscope than your letter indicates, as Iread with a great deal of appreciationand sincere hopefulness the resolu­tion of the Board of Foreign Mis­sions passed by it subsequent to the'Comment' made upon my report byyour Executive Council, which wasas follows:

'BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVEDthat the Board of Foreign Missions ex­presses to Dr. Barnhouse its apprecia­tion of his efforts and consideration, andthat the Board of Foreign Missions againassures the Church which it representsthat it 'is and ever has been the constantaim of the Board of Foreign Missionsto prosecute its work in fidelity andloyalty to the purposes of missionaryendeavor as set forth in the Word ofGod and the standards of the Presby­terian Church, U.S.A., and further thatwe assure the church that the specialcases cited in the report of Dr. Barn­house which seemed to him to be atvariance with the Word of God andour standards, are receiving and will re­ceive our immediate and serious atten­tion with a view to either justifying orrectifying the conditions cited and thatthe results obtained from the inquiry willbe reported to the church.'

"I have already given you in myreport and in conversations what inmy opinion was a clear, concise andimpartial description of the atmos­phere surrounding and the commonrepute in which the various missionsvisited by me were locally regarded,together with that which I know tohave been the sayings, opinions orother expressions of those inter­viewed by me. There has been an ab­sence of frank recognition of theprobable accuracy of such expressionswhich my personal efforts would pre­sumptively justify their receiving,which is well illustrated by that state­ment of the Board official who wrotethe 'Comment' upon my report abovereferred to, to the effect that the'Chinese gentlemen' mentioned in myreport are 'devoted, earnest, evan­gelical Christian gentlemen,' and sowrote in the face of the stenographictestimony which I supplied that themen in question held radical anti­Christian beliefs, and I further saidin my 'Remarks' (published in ThePresbyterian on November 21, 1935)upon the aforesaid 'Comment' of theExecutive Council, namely:

'I regret exceedingly that the Execu­tive Council fails to sense fully orignores the picture I have painted andgives its attention to one or two brushstrokes. It must be understood that mypurpose has not been to pick out a fewcases of unbelief among our missionarieswith the thought of having them be­headed, but rather to show the existenceof a situation about which the controll­ing personnel possessed knowledge anddid not seem to be acting decisively inline with that knowledge.'

"I do not feel I should accept yourinvitation if the purpose of the meet­ing is to be limited solely to the con­sideration of the material which youhave received from each of the per­sons concerned unless you can, hav­ing the foregoing before you, pointout or suggest to me in what wayyou believe I can make a further con­tribution to the Board of ForeignMissions in aid of its rectifying theconditions cited and the making of

THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN 25

..

proper report thereof to the church atlarge as they promised by resolutionso to do in the event they decided torectify the conditions cited. Of course,nothing which any of these menmight write would in my opinion jus­tify the Board of Foreign Missions inpermitting the conditions cited tocontinue.

"The issue is not primarily whethercertain missionaries in the field or thecontrolling personnel are primarily atfault, but whether the Board of For­eign Missions itself will take suchaction as will be so positive and spe­cific in its nature and immediate inits effect as will convince the churchat large that there will not be andcannot be any recurrence of the con­ditions which have produced the un­fortunate situation. In my humbleopinion, the demands of those whohave the cause of true missions atheart require of the Board somethingmore than the mere passage of theresolution referred to, and that it willbe just too bad for the future of theforeign mission work and "its financialsupport should any attempt be madeto justify the past actions of the con­trolling personnel because of anywritings that may have been recentlyreceived from the particular mission­aries referred to.

"On the other hand, I shall alwaysbe very glad to be in attendance atany meeting of the Board of ForeignMissions to which I may be invited,the purpose of which is to afford tothe Board an opportunity of express­ing itself in an authoritative manneron some of the most essential andvital present issues, such as

1. 'Has the controlling personnel beenlax in the examination of candidates, tak­ing no account of the fact that certaintheological phrases are no longer suffi­cient to convey a true idea of the beliefof an applicant, permitting candidates togo to the field accepted by the Board asa whole, when on the statement of somemembers of the Board, their vote wasnot approval of a candidate as much asconfidence in the examiner?

2. 'Will the Board give the church as­surance that it will carefully examineevery union work in which we are in­volved and cut itself loose from any workor project where those with whom weare now united disagree with the stand­ards of our church?

3. 'Will the Board publicly admit thatthe weakness and unfaithfulness that isto be found in our church at home isalso to be found on the foreign field, eventhough it be with the reservation that

conditions are better abroad than athome?'

"Yours very truly,

(Siglled) DONALD GREY BARNHOUSE."

Up to the present this letter re­mains without answer, without evenacknowledgment. Does the Board in­tend to remain in silence on thesematters even after having promisedthe church the results of its inquiryor is the Board waiting for the sum­mer months when interest is at itslowest point?

It is with great heaviness of heartalso that I feel that I must call tothe attention of the church as a wholecertain information that has come tome since the writing of my report andmy "Remarks" on the "Comments"of the Executive Council. The reportelicited considerable correspondenceand editorial comment in variouspapers. I was gratified at the wide­spread use of the word "fair." Myreport was thus styled even by theo­logical liberals. Then I began to hearfrom the foreign field. Strange tosay, the major criticism of my reportfrom missionaries actively engaged inthe work of the Lord was that I hadpainted the picture better than it wasin fact. I learned also that in manyplaces in America my report wasbeing cited as a blanket justificationof all the work that was being doneby our Board on the foreign field,"with one or two minor exceptions."One letter reported to me that in alarge gathering a missionary speakersaid, "Even Dr. Barnhouse, a well­known conservative, after carefulstudy of more than a year on the for­eign field could only find four mod­ernists."

A careful reading of my reportwould have, of course, made suchconclusions impossible. I specificallystated that the four cases I broughtforward were merely those which, itappeared, had been previously knownto the Board and concerning whichno action had been taken. I concludedthe citation of these four exampleswith a phrase,

"There are other cases which existwhere there is almost unanimous testi­mony as to definite disagreements withthe doctrines of the Scriptures as ex­pressed in our Presbyterian standard. Insome cases I received the statement of

missionaries only on definite promise thatthey should not be quoted and I respectthat confidence."

I have other instances, in somecases more serious than those ad­duced in my first report. One of ourmissionaries who has spent manyyears on the field told me that if shehad a million dollars she would notgive one quarter of a cent to thework of our denomination in her par­ticular mission, (not mission stationbut mission), "because of their tol­eration of Modernism and their over­emphasis of institutional work." Yetshe had given her life to the work ofthat mission. Another missionary,working under another Board, spoketo me about his own blood brotherwho is a teacher in one of our mis­sion institutions and with great sor­row told me that this brother did nothold to the faith which they had bothbeen taught in their fine Christianhome. A woman of education and re­finement, whose daughter is a mis­sionary under our Board, said to me,"I lost all confidence in our Boardwhen they accepted my daughter as amissionary." Certainly none of thesestatements can be considered biased;the natural thing in every instancewould be exactly the opposite of thestatement made.

I would have given you furthertime for acknowledgment and replyto my foregoing letter of March 5,1936, had I not received quite recentlya letter from the Rev. Charles H.Dyke, of the American PresbyterianMission, North India, which has socompletely stunned me that I ampresently at a loss to know how bestI can further serve the missionarywork of the Presbyterian Churchotherwise than making instantly pub­lic the said letter, which I have beenauthorized by cable to do, and incor­porating it herein for whatever im­mediate and public action on yourpart you think is imperatively re­quired to meet the situation which itspublication will produce. I appreci­ate that it is a challenge to the in­tegrity and value of my report as itis also a challenge to a situation underyour charge and one which must bemet by everyone who is serving inthe name of Jesus Christ, and so metwithout consideration of how it mayaffect the prestige of anyone of us.

The following is a correct copy of

26 THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN

"Answer:

.'

Brahmin youth up to speaking to youthat he wanted to become a Christian.And knowing the base things a mod­ernist is capable of doing I littledoubt it. The person telling me thisspent some days in Allahabad shortlyafter your visit and was put in aposition to discover a good manythings. I rode with him to the Alla­habad station after Presbytery Meet­ing and was utterly heart sick fromhearing about the repercussions ofyour visit. The whole atmosphereamong the missionaries was chargedat that time with the sense of successthey felt at having carefully hiddenthe real thing from you.

"When my cousin was here I talkedover things with him and he felt thatyou ought to know what I know. Itis such sordid stuff that my heartchills in touching it. A letter datedApril 8th from E. G. Parker thepresident of our Mission reads in itsfirst paragraph, 'Dear Charles: Some­time I hope the Barnhouse ChapterwiIl be ended. I hope you retainedyour copy of the Bulletin-the lastone-where it will not do any possibleharm to our Mission, or returned itto Ferger or to me.' Under the dateApril 1, 1935, I have a yellow slipaddressed to myself containing thefollowing: 'With regard to the Mis­sion N ews Notes for March 1935 re­cently mimeographed and sent onlyto members of the Mission and theSecretary of the India Council, wewish to recall the entire issue lestthere be misunderstanding of the ap­preciation of the visit to our Missionof Dr. Barnhouse. The undersignedare responsible for the form of theNotes in which they reached you andwould ask you to return to us thecopy that was sent to you.' Signed byH. R. Ferger and E. G. Parkerthough they did not write the fol­lowing:

'Mission News Notes. March 1935.'Donald Grey Barnhouse of Phila­

delphia and Europe has departedfrom the bounds of our Mission (viafirst class compartment with his sec­retary). Our original interpretationof the purpose of his visit, namelythat it was a check upon orthodoxyor even a heresy hunt, rather thanan attempt to see Mission work andresults, we believe to have been borneout. We could all subscribe to therather broadly worded main questionof the inquisition-though scarcely to

Principal's Bungalow,Agricultural Institute, Allahabad,

20/2/36.'My dear Charles:

'I think you know my position suffi­ciently well for me to have to explain it.When we meet we can talk over Dr.Luce. All best wishes.

'Yours sincerely,(Signed) SAM HIGGINBOTTOM.'

Luce made this statement which wasburned in upon the heart of mycousin, a young man just out fromhome and beginning his missionarycareer, 'They (the American youngpeople) have too long been listeningto THIS JARGON of Incarnation,Atonement and Salvation by the bloodof Jesus.' Higginbottom not only didnot challenge or remonstrate withDr. Luce but had him address thestudents of the Agricultural Instituteon the theme, 'Adjustment to the Uni­verse.' I wrote to Mr. Higginbottomand will append his reply:

Feb. 12, 1936. Etawah, U.P.'Dear Mr. Higginbottom:

'I am writing relative to a conversa­tion which took place between yourselfand Dr. Henry Winters Luce of Shang­hai, China, (I did not know at that timethat he was now at Hartford Seminary),when he was visiting Allahabad duringthe Adh Kumbh Mela. The thing hasbeen so much on my heart that I havefelt that I must write about it. You werediscussing the young people of Americaand Dr. Luce made this statement, "Theyhave too long been hearing THIS JAR­GON of Incarnation, Atonement, andSalvation by the blood of Jesus." And theonly message Dr. Luce had for the stu­dents of the Agricultural Institute was"Adjustment to the Universe."

'The man who related the above inci­dent to me was himself deeply distressedat finding such a situation-your not pro­testing against such a blasphemous utter­ance and taking issue with Dr. Luce.

'The reporter is a capable and honestperson and his report I believe accurate.It is only fair to you, however, to hearyour version of that conversation and Iwill greatly appreciate a word from you.

'Sincerely yours,(Signed) CHARLES H. DYKE.'

"Sam Higginbottom belongs pureand simple to the modernists. If Iunderstand correctly it was in thathome where the phrase originated,'We must get off on the right foot.'They were warned that you were ona heresy hunt and deceived you well.They took their infidel books off theshelves till the 'storm was past.' Iwas told that they even went so farin Allahabad as to actually put that

the said letter of the Rev. CharlesH. Dyke:

"Rev. Donald G. Barnhouse, D.D.,Editor, Revelation,Drexel Building,Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.A.

"Dear Dr. Barnhouse:

"It has been on my heart for sometime to write you. Your report ofyour journey to the Mission Fieldshas been in my hands for some weeksand because of what I have seen incurrent periodicals there is upon mea definite compulsion of spirit towrite. The January 20th issue of THEPRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN came to uslast Lord's Day and I was deeplymoved to read about your refusal toparticipate at the Communion 'cross­finger' like with modernists, and thatin your own Church. I can't conveyto you the gratitude I felt in myheart to God for the courage it tookto do it. It helped in large part toerase some of the disappointment Iexperienced in reading your report.I felt about your report that yousomehow took a middle of the roadcourse and the more I see this situa­tion the more- I am convinced thatevery man who will be true to Godmust come clean and separate him­self. The hour is upon us with thehandwriting on the wall.

"You can better understand myfeelings about your report by the fol­lowing letters which I shall quote infull. I have never gotten over thefeeling of perplexity I experiencedthe day you were in our home andtalked about Allahabad and Mr. Hig­ginbottom. I was the more perplexedwhen you stated that you had askedhim to write for Revelation and amfrank to say that I wondered whereyour spirit of discernment had beenput while you were in Allahabad.Ichabod has long hence been writtenover the work there. On January25th, my cousin, Rev. L. R. Carnerof the Alliance Mission in Akola,Berar, visited Allahabad and over­heard Dr. Henry Winters Luce of theKennedy School of Missions and Mr.Higginbottom talking about the prob­lems of American young people. Dr.

Etawah, U.P., February 27, 1936.

"The American Presbyterian MissionNorth India

..

THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN 27

,--

some of the conclusions he drawsfrom the main premise.

'D.G.B. "Pearls of Wisdom" moreor less reliably reported to have beencast forth:

"Missionaries should do all in theirpower to uplift the Indians but shouldnot meet them socially.

"Missionaries should not let their chil­dren play with Indian children. (Biblereferences suppEed.)

"It is nothing short of criminal to sendour children away to a boarding schoolat such tender ages. They should be edu­cated at home by private tutors. (A pitywe have not all been able to find Tiffanywives and become pseudo-aristocrats.)

"This sentiment about the Fatherhoodof God (to include all men) and thebrotherhood of man is Satanic. It is notfound in the Bible. We become sons onlyby adoption. The Hindu is not a child ofGod but a child of Satan.

"An ingenious interpretation of afamous Pauline passage makes it appearthat the test of the sincerity of aBrahmin convert is to require him to eata piece of beef-steak.

"Paul was quoted extensively. 'VasChrist quoted at all?

"In the Bible we read that God mademan to have dominion over the cattleof the fields. The trouble with India isthat this has been inverted."

[Mr. Dyke's letter continues.]"On top of that we blandly lie as a

Mission by recording on our Missionminutes the fact that we appreciatedyour visit. It is heart-sickening busi­ness to write this, but I believe thatyou ought to know it. I think thatyou were far too generous in yourestimate of the orthodoxy of mission­aries and I am absolutely convincedthat you could not say of our NorthIndia Mission, 'the vast majority ofour missionary body is personally de­voted to the Lord Jesus Christ.'

"I believe with all my heart that atime of separation is just ahead andI for one want to be true at all costto myself.

"I trust that your ministry may beespecially blessed and that you willnot be found among those at the nextGeneral Assembly who only go halfway.

"With kindest regards,(Signed) CHARLES H. DYI(E."

I have been compelled instantly topublish the letter of the Rev. CharlesH. Dyke from a sense of fairness toall the church who have before themmy report and your action in respectthereto under the conviction thatnothing else would do.

On the other hand, the whole Pres-

byterian Church will certainly begreatly encouraged to behold a mis­sionary who is willing to serve withsuch courage as a witness of his faithand his fidelity to his Lord, especiallywhen that missionary by common re­pute is held in such high regard forhis spiritual integrity. God moves inHis mysterious ways, His wonders toperform.

So far as I am concerned, as I didnot go out to find heresy, but wentout to ascertain conditions withoutexpectation of meeting deception, Iwill welcome from any true mission­ary such letters as the above receivedfrom Mr. Dyke, so that everyonewill know the proper value to putupon my report, in which observa­tions I assume you concur.

It is my heartfelt wish that throughthe Holy Spirit everyone may be ledto meet heroically the task in handand that the Board of Foreign Mis­sions may so publicly and promptlyact that all Presbyterians will, with­out reserve, reach the conclusion thatthe Board recognizes the imperativetask confronting it and proposes toeliminate all causes of possible fur­ther doubt of its intention so to do.

Yours very truly,

(Signed) DONALD GREY BARNHOUSE.

The Reformed Faith and ModernSubstitutes

manifest in the progress of the dis­cussion, when the followers of Ar­minius developed their views uponthis subject more fully, and deviatedfurther and further from the doctrineof the Bible and the Reformation onthe subject of the natural state andcharacter of men." (Historical The­ology II, p. 392.)

Arminians do in general termsassert the depravity of fallen humannature. But a merely general state­ment of the fact does not touch theheart of the question. The real ques­tion is the seriousness with which thegeneral statement of the fact is takenand the willingness there is to ap­preciate all the implications of it. Ina word, it is the question of the totalityor entirety of this corruption.

Our Confession of Faith says with

Mr. Murray

By JOHN MURRAY, Th.M.

PART VTotal Depravity

TH E third of thefive points of Ar­

minianism concernsthe question of origi­nal sin or human de­pravity. In several ofthe formal statementsof the Arminian posi­tion as it bears upon

human depravity, the real import ofthat position is not readily detected.As William Cunningham points out,the controversy when it arose, espe­cially as it was conducted on theArminian side, did not give the promi­nence to this aspect of the debate.Yet, as he proceeds to show, "it reallylies at the root of the whole differ­ence, as was made more palpably

'We should like to know if RexLouch (who drove him from Cawn­pore to Agra via Fatehgarh, Etawah,Shikohabad, Mainpuri, Etah and Kas­ganj) kept a diary and also whetherhe ever got back the rupee he wasinstructed to give in Mainpuri forservants' tip.

'You will derive some satisfactionfrom the knowledge that Louch waspaid, under great protest, 3 annas amile for the use of his car. He wascharged with commercializing it, andtold that this had not been done else­where.

'Anyhow with the coming of pan­kahs, mosquitoes, sand flies andprickly heat we all need somethingnew to talk about,-and this hasbeen abundantly supplied. No newvisi­tors can be expected for some monthsnow!

'''We found you perfectly ortho­dox," he wrote to one family. Butperhaps the context should be given.The letter makes mention of the hos­pitality of the New Testament saints,then adds, "we found you perfectlyorthodox in this respect." ,

d

28 THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN

respect to our first parents and theirsin in eating the forbidden fruit:"By this sin they fell from their origi­nal righteousness, and communionwith God, and so became dead in sin,and wholly defiled in all the facultiesand parts of soul and body.

"They being the root of all man­kind, the guilt of this sin was imputed,and the same death in sin and cor­rupted nature conveyed, to all theirposterity, descending from them byordinary generation.

"From this original corruption,whereby we are utterly indisposed,disabled, and made opposite to allgood, and wholly inclined to all evil,do proceed all actual transgressions."(Confession of Faith, Chap. VI, 2,3, 4.)

"Man, by his fall into a state ofsin, hath wholly lost all ability of willto any spiritual good accompanyingsalvation; so as a natural man, beingaltogether averse from that good, anddead in sin, is not able, by his ownstrength, to convert himself, or toprepare himself thereunto." (Con­fession of Faith, IX, 3.)

These are highly compressed andsuccinct statements of total depravity,and their meaning and consequencesought to be carefully weighed. Theyare peculiarly offensive to every viewthat hangs on to any vestige of op­timism with respect to the qualitiesor potencies inherent in human natureas fallen. Indeed they must arousethe opposition and emphatic protestof every view that suspends any hopeon the autonomy of the human will.It is just because the Arminian doesin the last analysis place the determin­ing factor in the individual's salva­tion in the free choice of the humanwill, that he has taken such unre­lenting issue with the doctrine of theReformed Churches. If their doc­trine is correct, then for the Ar­mini an the hope of salvation will haveto be eliminated.

The Confession does not, of course,deny to men what we may call naturalvirtue or civil righteousness. It affirmsthat works done by unregenerate menmay, as regards the matter of them,be things which God commands, andof good use both to themselves andothers. Neither does it say that all menare equally depraved, or to put it moreaccurately it does not say that thiscorruption "whereby we are utterlyindisposed, disabled, and made op­posite to all good, and wholly inclined

to all evil" receives the same degreeof development and expression in all.What the Confession does is to setforth the teaching of Scripture withrespect to the moral and spiritualcondition of men as they stand in thepure light of the divine standard andjudgment. Judged by that norm theyare dead in sin and wholly defiled.Irresistible Grace

As is apparent from the foregoingdiscussion it is in connection with theoperations of God in His saving gracethat the implications of the affirma­tion or denial of the doctrine of totaldepravity come to light. The ques­tion here is: What is the mode ofthe divine operation of the Spirit ofGod in bringing men to faith andrepentance? All are agreed that menare saved through faith. But thedifference arises when we come toexplain the fact that, of those whoindiscriminately receive the overturesof grace in the gospel, some believeand some do not. The question is notin general terms that of grace. Ar­minians concede that men cannot besaved apart from the gracious opera­tions of the Spirit of God in the heart.The question is: What is the natureof that grace? What is the cause offaith? Why is it that some believe tothe saving of their souls and somedo not? Is that grace of God given tomen a grace that is given to all in­discriminately, or is it a grace givenonly to those who believe? Is it agrace that may be resisted, or is italways efficacious to the end in view,and therefore incapable of being frus­trated?

Arminians though exhibiting cer­tain differences among themselves areagreed that sufficient grace, whetherit be regarded as a natural possessionor a gracious bestowal, resides in all,and therefore that all men have theability to believe. The explanation ofthe fact that some believe and somedo not rests wholly in a difference ofresponse on the part of men. Thisdifference of response may be statedin terms of co-operation with, or im­provement of, the grace of God. Butin any case the explanation of thedifference lies exclusively in the free­will of man. For the difference ofresponse on the part of the believeras over against the unbeliever he isnot only wholly responsible but he,in the exercise of the autonomy thatbelongs to his will, is the sole de­termining factor. God does not make

men to differ. He operates no moresavingly and efficaciously in the manwho believes than He does in the manwho does not believe. For this indis­criminateness in the saving opera­tions of God the Arminian is exceed­ingly jealous; he demands that whatGod does for and in one He does forand in all equally. In the ultimate,then, the issue of salvation rests withthe sovereign determination of thehuman will. Men make themselves todiffer.

Now it is easy to see that, if manis thus able to co-operate with or im­prove the grace that is common to all,there must remain in man somevestige of good. Indeed, so decisivean element of ability to good survivesthat it determines the exercise ofthe most important event or seriesof events in the history of the indi­vidual. And this is exactly where theArminian position impinges not onlyupon the sovereignty and efficacy ofGod's saving grace but upon the totaldepravity of sinful man.

In magnificent contrast with thisdenial of the sovereignty and efficacyof the saving grace of God is theteaching of our Confession. It reads:"All those whom God hath predesti­nated unto life, and those only, he ispleased, in his appointed and acceptedtime, effectually to call, by his wordand Spirit, out of that state of sinand death in which they are by nature,to grace and salvation by JesusChrist; enlightening their minds spir­itually and savingly to understand thethings of God; taking away theirheart of stone, and giving unto theman heart of flesh; renewing their wills,and by his almighty power determin­ing them to that which is good; andeffectually drawing them to JesusChrist; yet so as they come mostfreely, being made willing by hisgrace.

"This effectual call is of God's freeand special grace alone, not fromanything at all foreseen in man; whois altogether passive therein, until,being quickened and renewed by theHoly Spirit, he is thereby enabled toanswer this call, and to embrace thegrace offered and conveyed in it."(Confession of Faith, X, 1,2.)

In these sections the faith that em­braces Jesus Christ to the savingof the soul is referred to the sovereignpredestination of God as its source,and to the regenerative operation ofGod in the heart as its cause. God is

THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN 29

An Open LetterFrom a Missionary Observer

sovereignly pleased to impart Hisefficacious grace, and it is the enable­ment that comes from this sovereignbestowal of the grace of the HolySpirit that leads to faith. The personeffectually called is altogether passivetherein until renewed by the HolySpirit. A new heart has been givenhim and a right spirit created withinhim by the mysterious work of theHoly Spirit; and because he has anew heart and a right spirit his re­sponse to the call of the gospel can­not but be one of loving receptionand trust. Just as the reaction of thecarnal mind cannot but be one ofenmity against God, so the reactionof the mind of the Spirit cannot butbe one of faith and trust. It is thevery nature of the new heart to trustGod as He is revealed in the face ofJesus Christ.

We have here in our Confession arather neat statement of the relationof faith to regeneration. In this realmof theological debate our position canvery readily be tested by our answerto the questions: Does God regenerateus because we believe, or do we be­lieve because God has regeneratedus? In other words what has thecausal priority, regeneration or faith?There are many evangelicals who willsay that faith is the means of regen­eration, that God regenerates thosewho believe and because they believe.They thereby, whether wittingly orunwittingly, place themselves in theArminian camp and in the most de­cided opposition to Reformed doc­trine. Logically they place themselves-perhaps with good intentions-ina position that leads to the wreck andruin of true evangelicalism.

Weare, of course, using the term"regeneration" in the restricted senseof the new birth, and in this sensethe very hall-mark of Calvinism asof Augustinianism is that faith isthe gift of God, because it proceedsfrom the regenerative operation ofthe Holy Spirit as its only cause andexplanation. God has elected His peo­ple to salvation. He has ordained thatthis salvation become theirs throughfaith. But because of the total de­pravity of their hearts and minds theycannot exercise faith; they are deadin trespasses and sins. In order tobring them to faith God implants bythe agency of the Holy Spirit a newheart and a right spirit within them,and thus effectually and irresistiblydraws them to Christ. They are made

willing in the day of God's power.By grace they have been savedthrough faith, and that not of them­selves, it is the gift of God.

The Perseverance of the SaintsIn the closest relation to the fore­

going doctrine of efficacious or irre­sistible grace is the doctrine of theeternal security of the believer. Thisdoctrine the Arrninian bluntly rejects.A true believer, he says, may be ingrace and then fall from grace andfinally perish. Such a position is inlogical coherence with his doctrineof the nature of saving grace. If thedetermining factor in the matter ofan individual's salvation is the auton­omy of his own free-will, then con­sistency would seem to be all in favorof regarding salvation as a very in­secure and mutable possession. Sal­vation in this case cannot be any morestable than that which in the finalanalysis determines it.

But it is just here that the harmonyof efficacious grace with the perse­verance of the saints comes to light.

(EDITOR'S NOTE: During the cur­rent controversy in the PresbyterianChurch in the U.S.A. over foreignmissions, various persons have attimes expressed a desire for the im­partial opinion of competent ob­servers unrelated to the parties atvariance. THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARD­IAN publishes herewith a communica­tion from the Rev. James R. Graham,Jr., of Chinkiang, Kiangsu, China. Asthe letter indicates, it was originallywritten to another publication. Sinceit has not been printed in the journalto which it was originally addressed,Mr. Graham has by cable authorizedits appearance in the columns of THEPRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN.

Of the impartiality and competenceof Mr. Graham to speak there can beno question. He is an influential andhonored missionary of the SouthernPresbyterian Church. He has no con­nection with The Independent Boardfor Presbyterian Foreign Missions.He has no connection with the Boardof Foreign Missions of the Presby­terian Church in the U.S.A. He has

The Reformed Faith recognizes thatGod it is who determines a sinner'ssalvation, and that what He beginsHe brings to perfection. Salvationrests upon the unchangeable grace ofGod. He will not forsake the workof His hands, nor make void Hiscovenant. Thus reads the Confession:"They whom God hath accepted inhis Beloved, effectually called andsanctified by His Spirit, can neithertotally nor finally fall away from thestate of grace; but shall certainlypersevere therein to the end, and beeternally saved.

"This perseverance of the saintsdepends not upon their own free will,but upon the immutability of thedecree of election, flowing from thefree and unchangeable love of Godthe Father; upon the efficacy of themerit and intercession of Jesus Christ;the abiding of the Spirit, and of theseed of God within them: and thenature of the covenant of grace; fromall which ariseth also the certaintyand infallibility thereof." (Confes­sion of Faith, XVII, 1,2.)

no relation to Westminster Theologi­cal Seminary. He is not beholden tothe ecclesiastical machine in the Pres­byterian Church in the U.S.A. He is,however, a close observer of condi­tions in that church. His estimate ofwhat has happened is worthy of care­ful study and consideration.)

Chinkiang, Kiangsu, China,

January 5th, 1936.

Dr. Samuel G. Craig, Editor,Christianity Today,The Presbyterian and Reformed Pub­

lishing Company,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

My dear Dr. Craig,Ever since the paper was started

I have been an enthusiastic and sym­pathetic reader of Christianity To­day, and have praised God for whatI considered to be the unequivocalstand you have taken for the "faithonce delivered," and have heartily ap­proved of the way that you have goneabout exposing the "modernistic" I

:

J

30 THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN

..

trends in your denomination withoutfear or favor.

Since your way and that of Mr.Griffiths forked, I have read the paperwith less zest than formerly, and Ifeel no hesitation in saying that in thecauses underlying the separation, Iconsider Mr. Griffiths' position to beentirely right and consistent and yoursto be an unworthy contradiction ofall that you have hitherto appearedto stand for. We readers who hadnever had the pleasure of knowingyou personally were coming to lookupon you as one who stood for Christ

. and His Word against all the machi­nations of an apostate ecclesiasticalhierarchy, which for shameless injus­tice rivals the Diet of Worms andthe Sanhedrin which condemned todeath the Son of God.

Now however you remind us ofOrpah of old who "went on the way"but finally, weeping, returned to thegods of Moab, from which traditionalattachment she proved unable to severherself.

In the December issue of Christian­ity Today you print under an editoriala letter from Dr. Warren R. Wardto the Board of Trustees of West­minster Seminary which, I take it,sets forth your position. Dr. Wardchides with the Board of the Semi­nary for permitting certain membersof the faculty and student body to"make common cause" with the mem­bers of the Independent Board. Butto any right thinking person whoknows the history of both institu­tions, the cause and the issue are soobviously one and the same that itwould seem that the "way-faring manthough a fool cannot err" in seeing it.Exactly the same causes impelledpractically the same individuals towithdraw from Princeton Seminaryand establish Westminster, as wereinvolved in the formation of The In­dependent Board for PresbyterianForeign Missions.

It isn't as if some group of rashinexperienced youths popped up andestablished the Independent Board.The painstaking hand of Dr. Machenwas in both, and there was maturethought and proper loyalty to the de­nomination as well as a higher loyaltyto Him Who bought us in the han­dling of both. I have followed on theone hand the cautious accuracy andthe fearless truthfulness of Dr.Machen and what Dr. J. Walter

Lowrie (the late "Saint of NorthChina" and in his latter years theChairman of the China Council)characterized as the "consecutivecrookedness" of the "vested inter­ests" of the church on the other, andmost of my information has comefrom papers edited by yourself.

The Princeton withdrawal did nottake place until every effort had beenmade to bring the issue of the amal­gamation of the boards of controland its inevitable result before thepeople of the church. Nor was theformation of the Independent Boardprecipitate. That carefully drawndocument, "Modernism and the Boardof Foreign Missions," was circulatedthrough the church and presented tothe General Assembly where it wassummarily dismissed and its factsignored, and the official Board given acoat of whitewash.

This arrogant refusal to give anycognizance. to, far less investigatewell-substantiated facts gave no rea­sonable hope of reform "from the in­side." That this disinclination to ad­mit that anything is wrong persists,is evident from the footnote of Dr.Barnhouse's report which states thatthe President of the Board took "avery strong attitude that the Boardcould not admit the existence of anyModernism on the foreign field."

It is obvious then that you are deal­ing with people who are committedto a course of political expediencyrather than one of sincerity and truth.If a man or an organization is deter­mined to deny the possibility of therebeing anything wrong with himselfor itself, where does your reformstart? Furthermore is there anything,I ask you, Dr. Craig, in the actionsof the General Assembly or subordi­nate judicatories in recent years inyour church to indicate anythingother than a headlong rush to a placeof complete domination by AuburnAffirmationists and other. enemies ofthe faith? The travesty' of NewBrunswick vs. Machen and the treat­ment of Mcintire, Buswell, Brum­baugh by their respective presbyter­ies, the persistent refusal of presby­teries to ordain fine young men forfailing to swear allegiance to everychurch agency right or wrong, whilethey accept without a qualm othercandidates who deny the essentials ofthe faith, all combine to make it ob­trusively apparent that the Presby-

terian Church in the U.S.A as faras it is articulate is so thoroughlyperforated by the termites of Mod­ernism and so thoroughly leavenedby the leaven of the Sadducees as toafford no place of rest for any truedefender of the faith.

And yet you and others say "Theyshould have gone about it differently!The thing was premature." I have de­manded of a good many "How shouldthey have gone about it then?" Todate I have received no reply. Thereis no reply. The noble men whoformed the Independent Board andare ecclesiastically immolating them­selves for the cause of true foreignmissions unsullied by the taint of thisleprosy of Modernism, have followedthe Master on a road which it ap­pears, Dr. Craig, you and Dr. Wardwon't walk. It looks a little like whenthe going gets real tough some aregoing to scurry for cover under talkabout "methods" and "prematurity"and "reform from the inside" andother nonsense that should be norefuge of a good soldier of JesusChrist.

So far from being premature, Iagree with my boyhood friend,Charlie Woodbridge, that the issueshould have been made when theAuburn Affirmationists first raisedtheir serpentine heads.

Dr. Ward speaks of secession fromthe church as if it were an unheard­of thing. Where would we be if thereformers hadn't seceded from Rome?Organizational degeneracy has occa­sioned secessions for the preservationof doctrinal purity throughout theages of the church, and with splen­did results. There han always beenthe "stay-inners" but they are not themen whose names are engraved onthe pages of history, but rather theLuthers, the Calvins, the Zwinglis,the Zinnzendorfs and the Wesleys,... I f the house catches fire you firsttry to extinguish the blaze, then whenyou are driven out on the back porchyou take as much stuff as you canand clear out, and the longer youwait the less stuff you salvage. Godgive us all courage to secede whenwe can't hold aloft the testimony ofan uplifted and risen and comingChrist.

It is my privilege to have doneevangelistic work in a good many ofthe provinces of China and to knowmany missionaries and native be-

t,

THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN 31

Study Your Bible

ligion would soon be under way. Sun­day is not a day of rigid asceticism.Rather, it should be a day of joyfulpraise and prayer to Him who lovesus and washed us from our sins in Hisown blood.

There are old Babylonian traditionsregarding the creation, the fall of man,etc., which are characterized by gro­tesque polytheism, wholly contrary tothe pure Biblical narratives. It is ut­terly false and incorrect to say thatthe first few chapters of Genesis weretaken directly or were borrowed fromthese Babylonian myths. This has beenwell demonstrated by competent schol­ars.

I. Quoted by permission of Charles Scribner'sSons from William Henry Green. "TheUnity of the Book of Genesis," 1910. p. 2.

The Generations of theHeavens and the Earth

The phrase, "These are the genera­tions of the heavens and the earth,"is to be particularly noted. It dividesthe book of Genesis into eleven greatsections. The word "generations"means offspring. Thus, this sectionwhich extends from Genesis 2: 4­4: 26 is an account of the "offspring"which the heavens and the earth pro­duced. We do well here to listen toDr. William Henry Green, who says,"These titles (i. e., these are the gen­erations of) are designed to emphasizeand render more prominent and pal­pable an important feature of the book(i. e., Genesis) the genealogical char­acter of its history. This results fromits main design, which is to trace theline of descent of the chosen race fromthe beginning to the point where itwas ready to expand to a great nation,whose future organization was al­ready foreshadowed, its tribes beingrepresented in the twelve sons ofJacob, and its tribal divisions in theirchildren." 1 Thus, we see that Gene­sis two is not a summary of Genesisone, nor is it merely a parallel accountof creation. In Genesis one the em­phasis was upon God as the creator ofthe heavens and the earth. In Genesistwo we find a particularistic account;that is, the emphasis is not upon thecreation of the universe in general,but upon the creation of man in par­ticular. The attention is here focusedupon man and the preparation of theearth for man. This chapter does notprofess to be an account of creation.Rather, it is concerned with the earthwhich God had already created.

suit being that dear, beautiful Jona­than had his body one day nailed tothe walls of Bethshan.

I believe your former friends arewilling to follow our David-Christeven to the cave of Adullam. Willyou leave them, then, and return intothe city?

With Christian love and greetings,Yours in Christ's service,

(Signed) JAMES R. GRAHAM, JR.

Westminster

Commencement

Commencement exercisesfor Westminster TheologicalSeminary will be held in theWitherspoon Auditorium, Wal­nut and Juniper Streets, Phila­delphia, onTuesday, May 12th,at eight o'clock in the evening.The address will be deliveredby the Rev. Albert B. Dodd,D.O., of China. The public iscordially invited by the Sem­inary to be present on this oc­casion.

By the REV. EDWARD J. YOUNG

Studies in Genesis 2:1-3 say that the Sabbath was institutedwith the giving of the Ten Command­ments at Mt. Sinai, for the Bibleteaches us that it was observed beforethat time, e. g., Exodus 16: 23. Thecreative week, including the seventhday, was to be the pattern for manto follow.

Since the resurrection of Christ, thefirst day of the week is the ChristianSabbath. We Christians do not beginto realize the value of this day for thepropagation of our religion. If, asidefrom attendance at the regular wor­ship services of the Church, Christianparents would use this day as a dayof Bible reading and study of theCatechism with their children, and ifthe whole family would gather aboutthe piano for the singing of the oldChurch hymns, a revival of true re-

(This page consists of extracts from thevolume by Mr. Young, entitled "Study YourBible," published by the Wm. B. EerdmansPub. Co., Grand Rapids. Mich. Price, 75c.)

V ERSE 1. The word "thus" refersto Genesis 1: 2-31. The verse

simply means: the heavens and theearth and all their host were createdjust as has been recorded in Genesis.1 : 2-31. They were definitely finishedin six days.

Verse 2. The seventh day of thecreative week is set apart by the Lordas a day of rest. The day is not herecalled the Sabbath; indeed, this worddoes not occur in the book of Genesis.From the beginning of the world untilthe resurrection of Christ, the seventhday was appointed by God to be theweekly Sabbath. It is not correct to

lievers, and I know the facts set forthby Dr. Machen and Mr. McIntire,and now by Dr. Barnhouse, to betrue. I know also that the real Chi­nese believers are getting more volubleall the time at the influx of modern­ist missionaries, and I have a feelingthat they are on the point of express­ing themselves corporately in thematter more "impolitely" than Dr.Machen has ever done. I also knowthat the young men whom I haveseen that are sent out by the Inde­pendent Board fulfill the highest ex­pectations and desires of the best ofthe Chinese Christians and evangel­ists.

It is recorded of that generous andlovable character Jonathan that heloved David as his own soul, and thathe stripped himself of his robe, hisgarments, his sword, his bow and hisgirdle and gave them to David, andthat he "spake good" of David to hisfather, the rej ected and disobedientking. He even went out to David inthe fields. But he made a fatal :mis­take as set down in the last line ofFirst Samuel 20. When David wasfinally forced into exile "Jonathanwent into the City." He returned tohis father upon whom the Spirit ofCod had already written "Ichabod."He could not bring himself to followDavid into exile and to leave histraditional background, the final re-

f

t

32 THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN

The Sunday School LessonsBy the REV. L. CRAIG LONG

Mr. Lon~

May 31, The Last Supper. Luke22:7-23.This passage deals with a subject

with full acknowledgment to God thatall that a man possesses in this lifebelongs to Him; (b) a word of com­fort to all those persons who givegifts, large or small, to God and whogive with sincere acknowledgment toGod that all of their possessions areHis. It is possible from this messageto conceive of a poor man whoseoffering is of less value in God's sightthan the identical amount when givenby another poor man; it is likewisepossible to conceive of a rich man'sgift as of greater value in God'ssight than the gift of a poor man.Christian missions will suffer untilthe rich and the poor Christians areable to cease tithing as of legal obli­gation and begin to come under thestandard established by this widowwho gave all that she had.

Luke 21: 5-9 refers to the destruc­tion of Jerusalem (an event whichtook place in 70 A.D.), and to theend of the world (an event whichshall be as complete as was the de­struction of Jerusalem). The follow­ers of Jesus could not see past theireyes. The temple, which Josephus saysrequired the labor of 10,000 ofHerod's workmen for 8 years to com­plete, was so gorgeous that even aChristian could not conceive of itsdestruction. It seemed like a perma­nent world fixture. Jesus attemptedto pronounce the destruction of theTemple so that His followers wouldbegin to live as if it had already beendestroyed. Jesus has given us plentyof evidence concerning the impend­ing destruction of this entire worldto cause true Christians to cease lay­ing up treasures upon this earth, butwe continue to disobey God. I believethat one of the most disobedient ofall conditions prevalent among Chris­tians today is the view that a longperiod of carnal splendor will be thelot of Christians upon this carnalearth. It violates such verses as Luke21: 28 and II Peter 3: 7-13. Readthese references for this lesson, thenapply Luke 21 : 34-36.

May 24, "Building for the Fu­ture." Luke 20:45-47: 21:1-9,34-36.Luke 20: 45-47 is a condemnation

of the scribes. According to Jeremiah8: 8 a scribe was a copier of the lawand other parts of Scripture. Thescribes busied themselves (a) instudying and interpreting the law(both civil and religious), (b) in be­coming well versed in historical doc­trines of the Jews, and (c) by con­ducting a school for a group of dis­ciples who gathered around eachscribe for instruction. Although theprofession was a good one it becamefull of blind guides, as far as spiritualtruth was concerned. The scribes werewell versed in the letter of the lawbut they lacked the wisdom of Godto understand it properly. They be­came, in their blindness, the chiefenemies of our Lord Jesus Christ.Their oral judgments were often ac­cepted by the common people, andtherefore it behooved Christ to de­nounce them as false prophets whosejudgment was already pronouncedagainst them. Christ's description ofthem in these verses is typical ofhypocrites everywhere.

Luke 21: 1-4 has two chief mes­sages contained in it: (a) a warningto those who give gifts to God, largeor small, but who fail to give them

There are those who will errone­ously teach this lesson as thoughverse eight were the grounds uponwhich Jesus pronounces that salva­tion has come to Zacchaeus. What istaught in one part of the Bible isnever contradicted in another part.Therefore, although the word "con­version' is not mentioned in this sec­tion, it must be assumed that wheresalvation exists, there must have beenthe hearing of the Gospel by thepower of the Holy Spirit, under theproper circumstances as guided andcontrolled by the Holy Spirit. All thisis found in this wonderful message.Men never seek Jesus except whendrawn by the secret operation of theHoly Spirit. Jesus comes to sinnerstoday by the preaching of the Wordof God.

and defensechaeus,

The secret operation of the HolySpirit is indicated by the facts: (1)that Zacchaeus was influenced so thathe "sought to see Jesus"; (2) that hewas impelled to climb up into a syca­more tree to see Jesus; (3) thatZacchacus "made haste and camedown," which was an obedience to­ward God that the natural man can­not accomplish apart from God'sgrace; (4) that the Holy Spirit wasresponsible for the joyful manner inwhich Zacchaeus received Jesus; (5)that the pledge which he made wasthe sort of pledge which the naturalman never makes except by the HolySpirit's influence.

The explanation and defense whichJesus made for visiting in the homeof a publican was of a two-fold form:(a) "today is salvation come to thishouse;" (b) "the son of man cameto seek and to save that which waslost."

When Jesus visited at the home ofZacchaeus, a publican and a reputedsinner, the tongues wagged amongChrist's enemies; they said, "He isgone in to lodge with a man that isa sinner." Christ's explanation of Hisactions is clear and simple; thereasoning is as though He had said:"Zacchaeus is a lost sinner; I cameto save lost sinners; Zacchaeus is nowa true son of Abraham (Gal. 3: 29) ;therefore, I have justified my lodgingwith Zacchaeus." Would to God thateach minister and Sunday Schoolteacher who has an obligation to ful­fill for Christ might have such a justi­fication for his presence in a pulpitor at the teacher's desk. Are you seek­ing the lost? Are your contacts re­sulting in conversions?

May 17, "Jesus Inspires Hon­esty." Luke 19:1-10, 45-48.

LU KE 19: 1-10 por-trays the conver­

sion of Zacchaeus.The two chief divi­sions of the passagedeal with: (1) thesecret operation of theHoly Spirit, and (2)Christ's explanation

for having visited Zac-

THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN 33

which ought not to be studied lightly.It has been said that Baptism is thesacrament by which a person is ad­mitted into the visible church andthe Lord's Supper is the sacramentwhich, if faithfulIy taken by theChristian, keeps him in the church.The prevailing weakness in the visiblechurch today is levity and super­ficiality concerning the Lord's Supper.

The Christian cannot properly ap­preciate the Lord's Supper unless heunderstands the Old Testament Pass­over. In I Cor. 5: 7 Paul says, "Forour passover also hath been sacri­ficed, even Christ: wherefore let uskeep the feast . . ." Christians areAbraham's seed (Gal. 3: 26-29) andeven as we claim the promises madeto Abraham so must we honor thestatutes and ordinances which Godprescribed for Abraham and for hisseed. These ordinances are bindingunless they have been abrogated. NewTestament ordinances are foundedupon Old Testament ordinances, andmust be interpreted in the light of alIScripture. The Old Testament Pass­over was a Hebrew festival held the14th day of 7th month to celebratethe exodus of Hebrew people frombondage in Egypt. It was in imitationof that last meal eaten in Egypt inpreparation for the journey, whileJehovah was passing through or overthe houses of the Hebrews and slay­ing the first-born of Egypt. The fol­lowing provisions of the Passover areimportant: (1) taking a Iamb with­out blemish; (2) killing the Iamb ateven; (3) sprinkling the Iamb's bloodon doorposts and lintels of Hebrewhomes; (4) roasting the Iamb withfire; (5) eating unleavened bread andbitter herbs; (6) eating in haste, withloins girded, shoes on and staff inhand; (7) remaining in the houseuntil morning; (8) burning alI thatremained of the feast. Exodus 12 :14made the feast a perpetualIy bindingordinance. Also: ( 1) the passovercould only be sacrificed at the centralsanctuary; (2) no uncircumcised per­son or alien could partake of the feastunder any conditions; (3) pilgrim­ages to Jerusalem to eat the feastthere became common as Messianicprophecies were passed from one gen­eration to the next; (4) Luke 22:7describes how Christ took His dis­ciples into an upper room to keep thepassover feast which was a feast intwo ways: (a) it marked the last OldTestament feast (or supper) at which

an animal sacrifice was eaten by thosewho had recognized Christ as theMessiah (Heb. 11 :23) ; (b) it markedthe last offering for sin. Since thatnight the Passover is purely a memo­rial of the death of Christ combinedwith a mystical assurance that it isalso a means of grace to those whoeat and drink the bread and wineworthily (Luke 22: 19-20); (5) ThePassover has become the foundationfeast upon which is instituted, as aperpetual ordinance, the service com­memorating the final substitutionarydeath of Christ. (a) The meal thatChrist ate with His disciples wasprobably a private celebration ofPassover, on the evening of 13thNisan; (b) Christ was crucified onthe afternoon of the 14th Nisan, atthe time when the Paschal Iambs werebeing slain. Therefore, Christ realIyeducated His disciples to the Biblicalmeaning of His impending death be­fore they would sacrifice an animalIamb. It is as if Paul is apologizingfor his non-offering of an animalIamb when he says, "For our pass­over also hath been sacrificed, evenChrist" (I Cor. 5: 7). It is what Johnmeant when he said, "Behold the Iambof God that taketh away the sin ofthe world." Our conclusion is thatthe writers of the New Testamenthad found the Messiah, and that ourappreciation and use of the Lord'sSupper ought to be guided by thefolIowing indisputable facts: (1) Ex.12: 5 is fulfilIed in I Pet. 2: 22; (2)Ex. 12: 7 is fulfilIed in I John 1: 7;(3) Passover was commanded byMoses and the Christian Passover(Lord's Supper) was commanded bythe Messiah of Moses; (4) No aliento Israel could eat the Passover. Noalien to spiritual Israel (Gal. 3: 26­29) is allowed to eat the Lord's Sup­per; (5) The Old Testament sign ofspiritual fitness was circumcision,while in the New Testament the spir­itual seed of Abraham are com­manded to be baptized as the sign oftheir public confession of Christ asSavior; the Old Testament Passoversignified deliverance from bondageand slavery to sin as does the Lord'sSupper signify that same thought bythe hand of Christ; (7) Miracles areremembered at both the Old and NewTestament sacrifices. The Lord's Sup­per is not to be eaten in a home (un­less a church is represented) ; it is asacrament of the church. It is theduty of elders to fence the Lord's

Table with enough Scripture evidenceconcerning the feast to warn and evenprevent persons from that sacredfeast whose hearts are not right withGod. I do not believe that personsunknown to the elders should bepromiscuously invited to take theLord's Supper; or that the Lord'sSupper should be 'taken by a lone in­dividual in his home beside the radiowhile a minister in-a church far awayreads the word of institution. Thechurch is polIuted today because at­tendance at the Lord's Table has notbeen restricted, in accordance withGod's Word. In many Churches thechildren are permitted to take theLord's Supper before they are in­structed in the meaning of it. Inmany places we find persons beinginvited to take the Supper who havenever in their life been baptized. Doesit not seem peculiar that Unitarian­ism should be calIed nort-Christianand yet that ministers of so-calIedorthodox Churches of Christian doc­trine should publicly invite alI per­sons who love Christ to take theLord's Supper in the Church, withoutdemonstrating in detail that the viewsheld by that visiting Unitarian arecontrary to the Christian Church doc­trine? Consider these suggestions:(1) AlI have sinned and fallen shortof the glory of God; (2) AlI sinnerswho wilI acknowledge that God isable and willing to save them bytheir simple faith in the sacrifice.made by Christ on Calvary, have theresponsibility to celebrate the Pass­over which means to them the assur­ance that they shall not die, but live i(3) The Hebrew Passover Feast,which was so carefully administeredby true servants of God until theMessiah came, has not been abrogatedbut rather has been made plain to usby Christ's institution of the Lord'sSupper. Therefore, (1) no personwho is ignorant of the doctrine ofthe substitutionary atonement is fittedto take the Supper, for he is an aliento Israel; (2) No person who stillbelieves in the hope of salvationthrough personal good works is fit,for he too is an alien; (3) Those ofus who call ourselves children ofAbraham and heirs of the promises,know that for us there is an obliga­tion to observe the Lord's Supper;(4) Willful neglect of the Lord'sSupper by Christians ought to be con­sidered a major offence in alIChurches.

34 THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN

Mr. Fr..,man

LIFT UP YOUR HEARTBy the REV. DAVID FREEMAN

"And it shall turn to you for a testi­mony." Luke 2I: I3.

EV E R since thegospel of saving

grace has been re­vealed from heaven,there have been menwho have suffered forit even with cruel tor­ments and death. Hereis how believers in

times past gave evidence of theirfaith-they "had trial of cruel mock­ings and scourgings, yea, moreover,of bonds and imprisonments; theywere stoned, they were sawn asunder;were tempted, were slain with thesword; they wandered about in sheep-

skins and goatskins; being destitute,afflicted, tormented; they wandered indeserts and mountains, and in densand caves of the earth."

Our Lord told His disciples thatpersecutions and arrests would surelycome upon them, .but that this oughtnot to dishearten, as it should turn tothem for a testimony. That is, by theirsufferings they would declare moreeffectively the truth of the Gospel,and the more abundantly would theyshow forth the power of God.

These same words are for us aswell as for all the children of Goduntil Jesus comes. Trials and adver­sities will offer new occasions toglorify our supporting God.

Should this not cause those whohave thought of Christ's religion asan easy way to heaven, to change

Iy PHIL SAINT

their minds? The road to the Celes­tial City is not without difficulties.Many shall seek to enter in and shallnot be able. Among high professors,some shall perish, and among truebelievers, some shall be saved "as byfire." "And if the righteous scarcelybe saved, where shall the ungodly andthe sinner appear?"

No, the way of Christ is not aneasy way. We should have a higherview of Christ and His religion, ifwe could enter into the conflicts ofthose who have suffered for His sake.

Rather than deny His blessed name,thousands on thousands were merci­lessly slain and tortured. Christianshave been found ready to hazard thegreatest sufferings rather than dis­own their Lord. They left this worldin torments of body, but in soul theytriumphed. To the last they declaredtheir belief in the verities of the Gos­pel. What glorious words are thesewhich fell from the lips of Polycarp,when summoned to deny Christ,"Eighty and six years have I servedhim, and he hath done me no harm:how can I revile my King, who hathsaved me?"

They could not renounce theirKing. What a testimony against ourlukewarmness and unbelief'! For howlittle will we deny Him! What littlescorn, from an unbelieving world, ittakes to make us hide our faces inshame because of Him. Do we saythat He is our Savior and that welove Him? But not as they lovedHim, surely. Theirs was a religionall in earnest. They died for it, theydied by it. Christ was their all. Wouldnot many a Christian church bethinned if to come to the Communionmeant peril or death ?

Often God lets the great andlearned fall, to show us what is inman; and holds up the timid andfeeble, to show us what is in God.

We now live in days of a mightyconflict between belief and paganism.Every suffering of disciples in for­mer days of strife ought to rebukeand stimulate us. They despised thismortal life, and deliberately threw itaway for the sake of another.

In a true religious experienceChrist is above all; there is a deepconcern for the things of God; God'sservice is the chief interest, and unionwith Christ is everything.

If to live is Christ and to die gain,then every trial will bring glory toGod.

..

THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN 35-A

Gary- Paying the Price By Phil Saint

aT LOOKSLIKE ATlMEOFTESTINGFoR «:I\RL.

~LL HESTAND ThE

~~IEST?

NEVER MIND GOING )INro ANY MORE DETAILS

OF YOUR SUPPOSEOCONVERSION-I'VE --lHEARD ENOUGH /

-we~mlr!l"~~1'Hr----~~~

l8)ETTY WORTH,SEEING THEWRITE-UP INTHE ®A2ElTE,PHONED ~ARLAND ASKED TOSEE HIM....

I TOLD GARY I-- WAS READY TO PAY

lHE PRICE I. ..WONDER ."AND THEY FORSOOK ALLAND FOLLOWED HtM ,_,­A-L-L-/T'S ONE ,1-IINGTO SING ABOUT IT,

BVT .... /.'

;- ~--.if~~~=~1

THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN

The Young People's Own PageBy LOUISE H. RIECKE

35

Miss Rieeke

TH E arrival ofSpring at Haddon­

dale Farm each yearwas like a glorioushome-coming. ForSpringtime and Had­don dale were veryhappily mated. Sun­shine, violets and

anemones seemed as much a part ofthe place as the big friendly houseand the velvety, rolling lawn.

In the early afternoon of a warmclear day in April a dozen youngpeople wandered across the meadowsand sat down on some rustic benchesat the very edge of the woods. Theplace was a veritable pool of sunlight,and one young man breathed a deepsigh of contentment and assumed theexpression of one who had found hisUtopia at last.

"You know," he said, "I believethis is the sunniest spot in the world."He parked a battered tennis-racketunder the bench and added: "I couldsit here for hours and do nothing butsoak it in."

A girl in a bright-colored sweaterdropped her racket and answeredbreathlessly: "I should think youwould need to, Don, after the wayyou've been running us ragged foran hour!"

She caught a glimpse of a tall,sturdy figure on the other side of themeadow and sang out a friendly greet­ing. Hearing her voice, Mr. BobAndrews, Haddondale's proprietor,waved a gay salute and walked ontoward the barn.

The Andrews kept open house atHaddondale winter and summer, butwhen the warm weather began thevisitors became more frequent, andat all hours cars would drive in thelong lane bringing groups of youngpeople or older folks, most of themfrom the church where the Andrews,though they were Quakers and stillmembers of the Society of Friends,were nevertheless faithful in their at­tendance and support. For Bob and

Mary Andrews never thought of Had­dondale Farm as their own. It wasthe Lord's. They had given it to Himwhen they gave themselves, and theyrejoiced that God's people seemed al­ways to find it a haven of fellowshipand rest.

An hour later Bob Andrews walkedout across the meadow again andwatched the sun slowly disappear fora time behind a huge black cloud thathad gathered with amazing rapidity.The young people on their bencheswere watching it too, so intently thatthey neither saw nor heard him ap­proach them. A cool breeze blewacross the meadow, the sun was hid­den altogether for a moment, anda young man shivered and said:"Where's our sunlight now?"

The girl in the bright-coloredsweater stood with her eyes fixedintently on the spot where the sunhad been shining in all its glory afew minutes before, and as Bob ap­proached he heard her say, half toherself and half in reply to the ques­tion: "The Lord gave, and the Lordhath taken away; blessed be the nameof the Lord!"

Some hours later when the youngguests were gone, and when Bob'swife and their son Philip had gonein the car to a neighboring town, Bobsat in the big chair by the fireplacesilently watching the embers. Strangethat she should have quoted that versewhich never failed to bring so manymemories crowding into his mind!

He shut his eyes, ten years seemedto have vanished, and he saw a smallchild dancing her happy way throughhis heart and life like a warm, lovelygleam of sunlight. Kathleen, his ownlittle daughter, Kathleen of the softblonde hair and the blue, blue eyeswho had sat so firmly ensconced uponthe throne of his heart and of Mary,his wife's. Vividly he recalled theawful day when he had heard a shrillscream and had seen her come rush­ing out of the barn with her clothesin flames. Her restless fingers had

found a match somewhere, and hadstruck it to see if it would work likematches did when grown folks struckthem.

After that there was no small Kath­leen, and life was empty and dreary.Even Philip, only two years olderthan his sister, saw and understoodthe misery in his parents' eyes, andreflected it in his own small, troubledface.

But one never-to-be-forgotten Sun­day Bob's cousin persuaded them tomiss the Friends' meeting whichseemed only to tire them and to gowith him instead to visit a Presby­terian church about six miles awaywhose pastor he had learned to knowand love. And they went-for theircousin's sake, because he wished it­and as the Word of Life was pro­claimed in simplicity, yet in the powerof the Spirit of God, they saw some­how not the one who spoke but thedear One whom he set forth, that Onewho had said: "Come unto Me ...and I will give you rest." And theycame even then, and found Him faith­ful who had promised.

As they left the church Bob turnedto his wife and said slowly, thought­fully, as though it were a new ideato him: "The Lord gave, and the Lordhath taken away . . ."

Mary rested her hand on his armand looked up at him. "Finish it,Robert," she said.

A load seemed lifted from his heart,and the hard lump went out of histhroat as he turned his face away andsaid in a voice that was intense andearnest: "Blessed be the name of theLord!"

That was ten years ago. Since thenboth joys and sorrows had come tothe Andrews' home. But ... yes, itwas true . . . Haddondale was thesunniest place in all the world, forits sunlight was His light who is theSun of Righteousness. And here Hewas not a guest; He was the Host­the Master of the house!

36 THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN

Presbytery of Philadelphia Elects"Affirmationist" as Moderator;

Standing Rules Amended

...

TH E Presbytery of Philadelphia,for generations reputed as an

evangelical stronghold, on April 6thdemonstrated that it is now domi­nated by the will of the modernist­indifferentist coalition now in powerin the church. On the third ballot itelected an outstanding modernist, Dr.George Emerson Barnes, pastor ofthe wealthy Overbrook Church and asigner of the Auburn Affirmation,over the conservative candidate, Dr.Clarence S. Long, pastor of the his­toric Third Church of Philadelphia.Final vote was 55 to 51. This is thefirst time that a signer of the AuburnAffirmation has been elected to theModeratorship of the Presbytery.Some of the votes for Dr. Long came,on the third ballot, from members ofthe middle group in Presbytery. Thefirst ballot stood, Dr. Barnes 41, Dr.Long 39, and Dr. Henry B. Boyd,pastor of the Arch Street Church, 16.The second ballot showed Dr. Barneswith 53, Dr. Long 51, and 2 ballotsspoiled.

Soon after he had taken the chairthe new Moderator had made plainthat he intended to be boss. He ruledquickly, decisively, and in the inter­ests of his party, also made vigorousspeeches when necessary in favor ofamendments to the standing rulesbased upon the report of the Assem­bly "Commission of Nine."

Rules DebatedOn April 6th the Presbytery did

the following with the proposedstanding rules:

Caucuses: The resolution banning"caucuses" was referred back to thePresbytery Committee which recom­mended it, for "further study." Mod­erator Barnes said that "everyoneknew" the difference between a cau­cus and a mere meeting of like­minded brethren for consultation andprayer. Just what it was that "every­body knew," however, remainedlocked in the Moderator's mind. Mem­bers suspected that he meant "cau­cuses" to be meetings of conserva­tives consulting and praying againstmodernists, and that the permittedgatherings would be those of modern­ists consulting and praying against

conservatives. This was indicated byprominent Auburn Affirmationist, Ed­ward B. Shaw, who said darkly that"caucuses were certain meetings heldfor a certain purpose."

Publicity: The proposed rule re­quiring that all information shouldbe given out to the press by the StatedClerk and asking the press to "co­operate" in this, remained undebated,unpassed.

Vacancy and Supply: The proposedrule setting up a committee on Va­cancy and Supply, an obvious effortto bring all vacant pulpits under or­ganization control, was severelyamended, finally passed. The amend­ments eliminated some, not all, of theobj ectionable features, made organi­zation control easier.

Presbyterial Council: The proposalfor a General Council for the Pres­bytery was debated with warmth, notvoted upon, and was the first matteron the docket at an adjourned meet­ing held on April 14th.

Thompson-Stew-art Appeal"'Referred"' to Synod

O N APRIL 6th the Presbytery ofPhiladelphia, after having been

assured that Dr. Lewis S. Mudge hadapproved the legality of the proceed­ing, voted to "refer" the judicial caseof the Independent Board member­ship of Miss Mary W. Stewart andMurray Forst Thompson, Esq., to theSynod of Pennsylvania. The commit­tee's recommendation was made byDr. William E. Jordan, chairman. Aminority report was offered by theRev. J. Norris McDowell, who con­tended that reference could only bemade, according to the Book of Dis­cipline, of "a judicial case not yetdecided." This was an appeal, not ayet-unheard case. The provisions ofthe Book of Discipline, however, didnot seem to- outweigh the verdict ofthe Stated Clerk of the General As­sembly, plus the cost of hearing theappeal, and the Presbytery, by athumping vote, "referred" the case.Two amusing features: Dr. EdwardB. Shaw voluntarily producing a"reference" he had himself drawn up

in his anxiety to see that the casewas properly dispatched (which waspolitely declined), and two of the"reasons" cited by the committee for"reference." One was, that if thecase were heard on appeal by Presby­tery it might mar the new unity andpeace now present; another that thecase ought to be referred, as it wasone on which the Presbytery "isgreatly divided."

Permanent JudicialCommission MeetsApril 15-21 in Columbus

TH E Permanent Judicial Commis­sion of the General Assembly will

meet in the Deshler-Wallick Hotel,Columbus, Ohio, from April 15th to21st. Seldom, if ever, has the Com­mission met so long before the As­sembly. Reason: the many pendingcomplaints and judicial cases, mostof them growing out of the 1934 de­liverance against the IndependentBoard.

So far as known the Commissionwill hear cases as follows:

April uith, 10 A. M.: Two com­plaints against the Presbytery ofLackawanna for erasing the name ofthe Rev. Henry W. Coray, Independ­ent Board Missionary, from its rollwithout trial on the ground that hehad "declared himself independent."

April ioth, 2 P. M.: Complaintagainst the Presbytery of Philadel­phia in the licensure of John W. Ful­ton, who refused to promise blindobedience to future Assembly decrees.This is the case in which the Penn­sylvania Synod Commission "pro­nounced" that Mr. Fulton was notordained, though his ordination wasnot before it.

April uith, 7 P. M.: Complaintsagainst the action of the Presbyteryof Donegal in resolving to license, or­dain, receive, no ministers who wouldnot pledge support of official Boards.

April i rtk, 10 A. M.: Complaint bythe then-minority in the Presbyteryof Philadelphia against the receptionof the Rev. J. Gresham Machen,D.D., in March, 1934. This complainthad been held for a year by the Synodof Pennsylvania.

April eoth, 2 P. M.: Appeals fromthe verdict of guilty by the Com­mission of the Synod of Pennsylvaniaagainst five Philadelphia ministers,four of whom are members of theIndependent Board, and one of whomis an employee. They are: (members)

THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN 37

By the REV. BRUCE F. HUNT

New Brunswick Presbytery Meets;Requests Candidates Pledge "Loyalty"

to Official Boards

Paul Woolley, Merril T. MacPher­son, Edwin H. Rian, H. McAllisterGriffiths; ( employee) Charles J.Woodbridge, General Secretary.

April erst (time uncertain): Fourcomplaints from the Presbytery of

O N APRIL 6th the Presbytery ofNew Brunswick held an ad­

journed meeting in historic MillerChapel at Princeton Seminary, forthe purpose of examining nine youngmen, all Princeton Seminary students,for licensure. Following the usual ex­aminations the Presbytery passedupon the acceptability of each, in aroll call vote. I, who am a foreignmissionary on furlough and a memberof the Presbytery, was late in arriv­ing. Since I did not have my nameon the roll as taken earlier, I was notcalled upon to vote. In view of thefact that I had not heard all the ex­aminations I did not ask to be allowedto vote, The examinations were sus­tained.

After the Presbytery had thuspassed upon the candidates the Mod­erator announced that he would pro­ceed with the licensure. After theregular constitutional questions asprescribed in the Form of Govern­ment had been asked, the followingquestion was put: "Are you willingto support the regularly authorizedBoards and Agencies of the Presby­terian Church, U.S.A., particularlythe Board of Foreign Missions ?"(The quotation may not be word forword. It is, however, exact in show­ing what was being required. The "re­quirement" is based upon a paragraphin Article 8 of the Rules of Presby­tery, adopted on September 26, 1933:"All candidates seeking licensure orordination shall be examined as totheir willingness to support the regu­larly authorized Boards and Agenciesof the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.,particularly the Board of ForeignMissions. A record of this examina­tion shall be made in the Minutes ofPresbytery.")

Six of the candidates answered in

West Jersey, one having to do witha "stay" secured by the minority inthat Presbytery which believes thatthis should have blocked the trial ofthe Rev. Carl McIntire until the com­plaint had been finally determined.

the affirmative. One of them, a Mr.Bogard, stepped forward and askedto say a few words. In effect he statedthat he could not make an unqualifiedpromise to support the Boards of thechurch in the future, but would sup­port them as long as they were trueto the Word of God as interpreted inthe Constitution of the church. ThenMr. Winn Erdman (a nephew of Dr.Charles R. Erdman, Princeton Pro­fessor, President of the Board of For­eign Missions) and a Mr. De Boesaid that Mr. Bogard's words ex­pressed their position.

Dr. C. R. Erdman then arose andasked them if they did not know thatthe church has a right to interpretits own Constitution, the implicationbeing that this replaced the right ofprivate judgment at this point.

At this juncture I felt obliged torise and to protest against the askingof this extra-constitutional question,stating that the Form of Governmenthad provided the constitutional ques­tions and that I did not believe thePresbytery had any right to add tothem.

Another member then moved thatPresbytery should proceed to the li­censure of the six who had given as­sent and that, following this, it shouldgo into executive session to considerthe cases of the remaining three. Thiswas carried. The six were licensed.Just as the spectators and candidateswere leaving, Mr. Winn Erdmanasked to make a statement. He saidthat he had received help from theBoard of Christian Education, wasunder appointment by the Board ofNational Missions, and had appliedto the Board of Foreign Missions. Hecould, he declared, support theseBoards as at present constituted, buthe could not make any blanket pledge

for the future. Then, in answer to aquestion by a member of Presbytery,he took up a position which seems tothe writer a complete repudiation ofthe principle on which he had orig­inally stood. He said that in case theAssembly should put its approval onthe Boards, where he could not, he"recognized" that the Assembly couldinterpret its own Constitution. There­fore he would, in such case, eithersubmit to the decision or get out ofthe church.

This was exactly what many mem­bers of the Presbytery had wished: aconfession that a minister is obligedto support the Boards of the churchas approved by the Assembly or "getout."

After Mr. Winn Erdman hadspoken, many members signified theirsatisfaction with his answer. TheModerator said that he would under­stand this statement to be satisfactoryto the Presbytery. I again was obligedto rise and to ask to have my dissentrecorded as the answer did not satisfyme. It was, I said, my understandingof the Constitution that even if theGeneral Assembly should pass favor­ably upon something that was con­trary to the Scriptures, as I under­stood them, I would not be lawfullybound to obey. Nor would I be obligedvoluntarily to "get out" of the churchfor not obeying. Rather it was myduty in such a case to oppose the ac­tion. I further protested on theground that the Blackstone-Kauffrothdecision at the last Assembly had de­clared such questions out of orderand unconstitutional. I asked thatthat decision be read. The request wasnot granted. I announced my inten­tion of filing a protest.

I voted against the licensure ofMr. Erdman, not because I did notrespect the stand which he tried tomake, but because I believed that hewas mistakenly induced to promise toget out of the church if he could notsupport Assembly-approved Boards. Ialso disagreed with his blanket ap­proval of the Boards as at presentconstituted.

After Mr. Erdman had been passed,the other two candidates were re­called. Again I protested the askingof the questions, to no avail. Mr.Bogard repeated that he could notpromise future unqualified support.Then, under questioning by the Mod­erator, he said that if the Assemblyshould approve of what was to him

3& THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN·

Mr. Laird Files Appeal Notice. StatesPosition to Congregation

un-Biblical he would withdraw fromthe church rather than set his per­sonal convictions against the decisionof the Assembly. The Moderator thenstated that he believed this to be satis­factory to the Presbytery. It was soestablished with but one dissentingvote. The three candidates were thenlicensed.

Following this, the minutes wereread. It was voted to instruct theclerk to expunge from the minutesall reference to the statements of thethree candidates, all reference to theexecutive session, all reference to theseparate vote on and licensure of thethree. The clerk was instructed torecord only that the nine candidateshad been duly licensed. The minuteswere then adopted as amended, withone dissenting vote.

TH E Rev. Harold S. Laird, pastorof Wilmington, Delaware's First

and Central Presbyterian Church onApril 4th announced to his congre­gation that he had filed notice ofappeal against his conviction for anoffense based upon his refusal toresign from The Independent Boardfor Presbyterian Foreign Missions.He also issued a statement explaininghis position and refuting the misrepre­sentations of his testimony as given inthe Judgment of the Special JudicialCommission of the Presbytery of New

. Castle, which convicted him. Mr.Laird's statement follows:

"On Wednesday, March 25, 1936,the Special Judicial Commission ofthe New Castle Presbytery by voteof five to one, announced to me atDover that I had been found guiltyof the charge of being disobedient tothe government and discipline of thePresbyterian Church in the U.S.A. Iwas also found guilty of the 'graveoffense' of associating myself with'men engaged in an uri-Presbyterianand un-Christian action,' referring, ofcourse, to my membership on The In­dependent Board for PresbyterianForeign Missions. My own conscienceis quite clear. I am convinced that inall this matter I have earnestly en­deavored to be true to my ordinationvows.

Covenant Union MeetingAt Home of Dr. Trumbull

ON THURSDAY, April 9th, at. the invitation of Dr. and Mrs.

Charles Gallaudet Trumbull, a groupof members and friends of the Cove­nant Union gathered in the attractiveTrumbull residence to' discuss thepresent crisis in the church, ask ques­tions, exchange ideas. Dr. Trumbull isinternationally known as editor ofThe Sunday School Times. Both heand Mr. Philip E. Howard, Presidentof that organization, are members ofthe Covenant Union.

The evening's discussion was ledby Dr. J. Gresham Machen, with theRev. Charles J. Woodbridge presid­ing. A strong chapter is expectedshortly in the Germantown area.

"About nineteen years ago I tookthe YOWS of a minister of the Presby­terian Church. At that time I prom­ised among other things 'to be zealousand faithful in maintaining the truthsof the Gospel, and the purity andpeace of the Church, whatever perse­cution or opposition may arise untome on that account.' I have en­deavored to keep this YOW with thesame zeal that I have sought to keepthe other vows. In so doing I havethat peace which is the result of anhonest effort to commend myself untoGod. Apparently in doing that I haveincurred the opposition of some men.Because of this opposition I have beensubjected to a church trial with allof its attendant embarrassments.

"The General Assembly of 193.J.,without obtaining the required ap­pro val of the Presbyteries, concludedthat ministers and elders who weremembers of The Independent Boardfor Presbyterian Foreign Missionsshould be ordered to withdraw fromthat Board or be subjected to disci­plinary action. According to the lawof the Church, as it has always beenunderstood and expressed by Dr.Charles Hodge, one of the greatestexperts on Presbyterian Law, andothers of authority, a mere deliver­ance by a casual majority at anymeeting of the General Assembly

acting in a legislative capacity is notbinding on the conscience of anyminister or member of the Church,and, furthermore, Section 7 of Chap­ter I of the Form of Government ofthe Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.provides that 'No church judicatoryought to pretend to make laws tobind the conscience in virtue of theirown authority, and that all their de­cisions should be founded upon therevealed will of God.' The action ofthe General Assembly of 1934 was,therefore, not Constitutional and notbinding upon me or any other minis­ter or member of the Church. My con­science is perfectly clear in this re­gard.

"The Independent Board developedbecause of a very widespread lackof faith in the doctrinal integrity ofsome of the members of our Presby­terian Board of Foreign Missions, asevidenced by the well-known PearlBuck Case, and the presence on thefield of others supported by thatBoard, who have not hesitated todeclare their unbelief in the full in­tegrity of the Holy Scriptures. Inaddition to this, there is also thematter of teachings destructive offaith in the Scriptures promulgatedin publications sponsored by the Boardand in schools and colleges assistedby the Board. Because of these dis­tressing things many had withdrawntheir contributions from the officialBoard long before the IndependentBoard was ever conceived.

"Many of us believed, and still be­lieve, that an agency should be pro­vided to which many sincere Chris­tians holding the Reformed Faithcould give their missionary contribu­tions in the knowledge that thosefunds would be used to preach; thepure Gospel, particularly in pioneerfields. Wholly apart from the matterof unbelief in the official Board, Ibelieve it to be the primary duty ofthe Church to teach and preach theGospel, and not to engage in the manyeducational and social welfare enter­prises which so largely characterizethe work of our Church's ForeignBoard.

"For this reason, I confess, thatfor years as a Presbyterian ministerI have found myself drawn more andmore to a growing interest in thoseindependent and undenominationalmissions whose principal concern has

THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN 39

The Presbyterian Guardian

The Presbyterian Guardian is publishedtwice a month by The Presbyteria n Con­stitutional Covenant Union, at the followingrates, payable in advance. for either oldor new subscribers in any part of the world,postage prepaid: $1.50 per year; $1.00 forseven months; JOe per copy. IntroductoryRate: Two and a half months for 25c.

Editorial and Business Offices: 1209 Com­monwealth Building, Philadelphia, Penna.

always been to preach and teach theGospel in the distant and out of theway places, rather than to educatethe masses in the great centers ofcivilization. At one time it was myprivilege to serve one of these mis­sions, the South America Inland Mis­sion, as a member of its AmericanCouncil. Noone ever questioned myright to act in such a capacity then.It was for these very same reasons,mentioned above, that with the fullknowledge of the Session of mychurch, I became a member of TheIndependent Board for PresbyterianForeign Missions. While I was inter­ested in its witness against unbeliefand for the truth, I was primarilyinterested in its great ministry ofgetting the pure Gospel to the endsof the earth in accord with our Lord'sfinal command, 'Go ye into all theworld and preach the Gospel to everycreature.' The need for this particularindependent agency was proven inthe fact that there were both livesand money which could not conscien­tiously be offered to the official Board,but which were ready to proclaimthe Reformed Faith which the Pres­byterian Church U.S.A., along withall other Presbyterian Churches, holds.

"From its beginning, the Independ­ent Board has not made any appealfor funds, but has relied entirely infaith upon the support of Christianpeople in sympathy with the Board'sobjectives. The Independent Board's

Vol. 2 APRIL 20. 1936

Editor

H. McALLISTER GRIFFITHS

Circulation ManagerTHOMAS R. BIRCH

No.2

work has been blessed and each sixmonths' period shows a phenomenalincrease in contributions to its work,and a goodly number of missionariesare laboring under its support.

"This is not a schismatic or divisivemovement, as the verdict states it is.Certainly I could have had no part init had I believed it to be such. On thecontrary, it is a testimony as wellas a protest against certain conditionsin our Presbyterian Church whichmust be purified. I am more inter­ested in the purity of our Churchthan I am in its so-called peace, forthere can be no peace without purity.God in His Word declares, 'Thewisdom that is from above is firstpure, then peaceable' (James 3: 17).

"The statement prepared by themajority members of the JudicialCommission says, 'He still encouragesmembers of his congregation to con­tribute. to the work being carried outby the official Board of Foreign Mis­sions of the Presbyterian ChurchU.S.A., and that such contributionsare increasing at present.' This is nottrue. I am not willing to suggest toany persons that they should con­tribute generally to the work of theofficial Board of Foreign Missions,and have limited my encouragementto the support of those missionariesnow representing First and CentralChurch, and in whom we have abso­lute confidence.

"This I made clear on the witnessstand, when asked by CommissionerBrown concerning my position in thismatter. I quote from the record:

MR. BROWN-YOU say that you are notsatisfied to send your contributions toForeign Missions to the Board? ...

MR. LAIRD-I am satisfied if I can sup­port those missionaries for whom Firstand Central Church was responsible be­fore I came, and those taken over by theWomen's Missionary Society. When Icame to the Church the Women's Mis­sionary Society was giving about $2300a year to the Foreign Board and theNational Board, without specifying whereit should go. And knowing what I did,I felt I would not be doing my duty as aconscientious leader if I permitted themto send that off without specifying whereit was to go. I felt that that money shouldbe sent to propagate the Gospel, and notto do the work of education....

MR. BROWN-Do you see any necessityfor this Independent Board for Presby­terians who have the perfect liberty ofdesignating their funds?

MR. LAIRD-Yes.

MR. BROWN-You still think it is neces­sary, though it satisfies your conscienceto send money to the Board and designateit?

MR. LAIRD--I am not sure that it wouldsatisfy my conscience to continue to makeappeals to our people to give more to theofficial Boards of the Church.... I couldnot conscientiously raise money . . . forthe support of any missionary who is nowon the field; that would release moneyfor . . . purposes which I do not thinkare in the will of God.

"The experience of the past threeyears shows that the IndependentBoard is an agency which releasesboth lives and money for the propaga­tion of the Gospel in places whichotherwise would not be reached. Con­scientiously I can not resign fromsuch a Board. I believe it to be ofGod and I believe my call to member­ship on that Board was of God. Undersuch circumstances, how can I resign?To do so would mean to obey menrather than God.

"In taking my position I appreci­ated from the beginning what it wouldcost me-opposition, misunderstand­ing, and misrepresentation. Neverthe­less, I must needs endure such thingsbecause of my ordination vow men­tioned earlier in this statement. Letme quote it in full again from theForm of Government, Chapter 15,Section 12: 'Do you promise to bezealous and faithful in maintainingthe truths of the Gospel, and the'purity and peace of the Church, what­ever persecution or opposition mayarise unto you on that account?' Tothis I answered in the affirmative,hence my present position.

"I am grateful for the supportwhich has been so generously givento me. This is especially true withrespect to the members of First andCentral Church and those accustomedto worship with us. Many have askedin real sincerity what they might doto assist me. To such I have answeredthat there is but one thing that theycan do, namely, to pray earnestly thatI may continue to be faithful to theLord Jesus Christ, the King and Headof the Church.

"Regarding the matter of appeal,I have served notice of my intentionto appeal solely on the ground thatI do not consider myself guilty ofany offense toward God in the matter'of my membership on The Independ-

40 THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN

sn: [}Jresbyterian (Juardian

a 8ignip"cant Clive Weeks

The Independent Board for Presby­terian Foreign Missions had made abold and reckless invasion into theecclesiastical and administrative areasassigned by the Constitution to theGeneral Assembly of the Presby­terian Church U.S.A.

"The charter of the IndependentBoard was very judiciously wordedto emphasize its real purpose. Thecharter reads as follows: 'It is toencourage Presbyterian churches andindividuals to support this board... .'It is not worded: 'It is to encouragechurches and individuals of the Pres­byterian Church U.S.A. to supportthis board. . . .' If the charter hadbeen so worded there could have beenno question about the right of theGeneral Assembly of the PresbyterianChurch U.S.A. to render the mandateit did. However, somebody overlookedthe fact that there are at least threePresbyterian churches functioningwithin the bounds of the UnitedStates of America. They are: thePresbyterian Church in the U.S.A.,the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.,and the United Presbyterian Church.All three use the word Presbyterian,but that does not give the General

b

ent Board for Presbyterian ForeignMissions. It is not a question ofwhether I am going to submit to arebuke. I have already been rebuked.This was done by the Commission onMarch 25th, in the very language ofits conclusion which reads, 'TheSpecial Judicial Commission of theNew Castle Presbytery hereby re­bukes the defendant for his disobedi­ence,' and a little further on it againadds, 'an offense for which he ishereby rebuked.' Of course this Com­mission had no authority under thelaw of the Presbyterian Church torebuke me, and even if it had, Ishould have considered this rebukeunjustified, contrary to the Constitu­tion and Law of the PresbyterianChurch U.S.A., and above all, con­trary to the Word of God."

Dissenting Opinion inH. S. Laird Case

TH E Rev. Harley B. Kline, pastorof the Greenhill Presbyterian

Church, Wilmington, and a member ofthe Special Judicial Commission ofthe Presbytery of New Castle, hasfiled a dissenting opinion against theverdict of "guilty" found against theRev. Harold S. Laird. Text of hisdissent:

"I dissent from the verdict of guiltysubmitted by the Special Judicial Com­mission, elected by the New CastlePresbytery to try the Rev. HaroldSamuel Laird, for the followingreason:

"The charge brought against Mr.Laird was that of disobeying thegovernment and discipline of thePresbyterian Church U.S.A. and ofbreaking his fourth ordination vowwhich promised subjection to hisbrethren in the Lord. The prosecutingcommittee claimed insubordination onthe basis that Mr. Laird disobeyedthe mandate of the 1934 General As­sembly. This mandate was based uponthe right of the General Assembly tosuppress schisms and disputationswithin the church, as set forth in theform of government.

"Such a mandate would have beenconstitutional if The IndependentBoard for Presbyterian Foreign Mis­sions had been operating within thePresbyterian Church U.S.A. But inmy estimation, as a judge, no evi­dence was submitted to prove that

One Year (24 Issues) $1.50

Seven Months (14 Issues) $1.00

Introductory Rate·

.2Y2 Months for 25c

Assembly of Presbyterian ChurchU.S.A. any authority over them forthey are independent organizations.The charter of the Independent Boardis so worded to include in its appealall three denominations. And the factmust be clearly borne in mind thatthe Independent Board is an inde­pendent organization. What right,therefore, has the General Assemblyof the Presbyterian Church U.S.A.to take steps to accomplish the resig­nation of members within the Pres­byterian Church U.S.A. from mem­bership in an independent organiza­tion? The answer is: It has no con­stitutional right, and therefore themandate was unconstitutional.

"In conclusion, I dissent from themajority opinion of the commissionfor the reason that it was not proventhat The Independent Board for Pres­byterian Foreign Missions operateswithin the Presbyterian Church U.S.A.Since the charter of the IndependentBoard is specific, and since it doesnot operate within the PresbyterianChurch U.S.A., the mandate of the1934 General Assembly was uncon­stitutional, and therefore the defend­ant is not guilty."

Only about five weeks remain before thenext General Assembly. Straws in the windof the day's news are already pointingsignificantly to the probable outcome ofthat Assembly. The Permanent JudicialCommission has just completed the hearingof several important cases. Other events,too numerous for mention, will crowd thepages of forthcoming issues. Finally, cap­ping the climax, we will publish a complete,accurate and detailed account of theGeneral Assembly itself.

Urge your friends to subscribe now. oruse the enclosed card to send them giftsubscriptions. Perhaps never again will webe able to offer such a bargain in Chris­tian journalism.

,i