February 2016

You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February 2016.

February 14: “The Lord Reigneth!”

14 February, 2016 in February 2016 by archivist | No comments

Our series on the Westminster Shorter Catechism by Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn will resume next week. We are missing from our collection his material on Question no . 65, and that material is being supplied to us very soon by a dear friend of this ministry. So in the meantime, we present today a sermon by Rev. Van Horn, a message which seems only all the more relevant today.

“THE LORD REIGNETH!”
A Sermon preached at The First Presbyterian Church, Port Gibson, Mississippi, October 8, 1961,
by the minister, The Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn.

Scripture — I Chronicles 16:7-36.

One night last week I was in the midst of that malady known as “insomnia.” It was in the early hours of the morning, everything was very quiet. My thoughts turned to the conditions of the world in which we live. As I thought of the danger spots of the world — the places where war is going on, the places that could erupt into war at any moment, the fact that at any moment an all-out war could start — as I thought of these things my heart was heavy within me. Suddenly the quietness was broken by a roaring sound, the sound of planes up in the sky. There must have been many of them for the roar was loud and the roar lasted a long time.

I thought: Up above in the sky, in those planes, are men who are guarding those of us below. They are spending their night “out” and are forced to do so by the world in which we live.

Some moments passed. Suddenly a new sound filled the air. A sound of a train. It was not the regularly scheduled train that comes through each night. This was at a different time and was much longer. A man told me the next day that many of the cars had military supplies on them. (I did not ask him what he was doing up at that hour!)

I thought: That is probably a train of military supplies, maybe even troops. I remembered the day when I would look out the window of a train filled with soldiers, see a small town in the early hours of the morning, and wish I was back home. Men carrying military supplies, spending their night “out” and forced to do so by the world in which we live.

As I thought about the world in which we live, I thought about the statement I read one time by Lenin, the Russian communist, who said, “First we will take Eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia, then we will encircle the United States, which will be the last stronghold of capitalism. We will not have to attack. It will fall like an overripe fruit into our hands.” He made this statement in 1924.

In 1955, Khrushchev had this to say, “If anyone thinks that our smiles mean the abandonment of the teachings of Marx, Engles, and Lenin, he is deceiving himself cruelly. Those who expect this to happen might just as well wait for a shrimp to learn to whistle.”

I thought: This is our world. A world in which Communism is making rapid strides. A world that could well have before it a “Doomsday” — a day in the near future when men would destroy each other. A day when there would be no place safe, no place to which we might flee from killing rays of an atomic attack.

To make it even worse, I thought of the men in our country who are advocating the policy of “peaceful coexistence”, the men who are playing right into the hands of the enemy. Men who do not seem to realize that the tyranny of Communism is easily extended where there are those who are always trying to find something good about it. Men who do not seem to realize that the forces of evil have always made their gains in the following way: 1. They ask for tolerance — and there are men in this country today who are absolutely advocating a doctrine of tolerance for Communist nations. 2. They request equality — and there are men in this country today who are absolutely advocating a doctrine of equality for Communist nations. 3. They demand supremacy — and who knows when this will come? These are the men who want us to get along with everyone and are men who do not really stand for anything and so they fall for everything.

These are the men who put pressure on to admit Red China into membership in the United Nations. After all so goes their argument, Red China is there, and we had better be realistic about it. Congressman Walter Judd has a good answer for them: There are gangsters in Chicago and we had better be realistic about that too, but does it mean we should now add them to the police force?

Even in the church this philosophy is running rampant. Men who are professing Christians, ministers, who look with displeasure upon those who will stand firm for the faith, upon those who will insist upon allegiance to The Word of God rather than to the dictates of the organized church. The time has already come in many of our denominations, including our own, when anyone who has the courage to stand for his convictions, who contends earnestly for the faith, this person runs the risk of being branded as “uncooperative” or as a “fanatic.”

What we need today are more men like Lord Lawrence. In Westminster Abbey I saw a monument to him. Inscribed on it are his name, the date of his death, and these simple but significant words, “He feared man so little, because he feared God so much.”

At this point in my thinking, in the midst of my insomnia, things indeed looked black. It would be enough for a man to call his druggist in the middle of the night and ask for three different kinds of tranquilizer. What a world! What a trend is taking place! It is enough to make us call back to the generation before and ask, “What kind of a world did you give us?” It is enough to make a man a pessimist.

But then some words of Scripture came to me: “Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice; and let men say among the nations, The Lord reigneth.” (I Chron. 16:31). Without such words sleep would have been impossible, without such words a man could worry himself to death.

The next day when I arrived at my Study and was preparing this message, another verse came to my attention: “The name of the Lord is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.” (Prov. 18:10). In the midst of this world in which we live, in the midst of the fact that men have decided on “peaceful coexistence” as the means to their end, I should like to present to you a few thoughts.

First, The Character of God Furnishes the Righteous Man With an Abundant Security. The character of God, the Almighty, Sovereign God Himself, is the refuge of the Christian in opposition to other refuges which godless men have chosen. I would like to remind you of the seven pillars of the house of sure salvation. Seven pillars given to us by the Sovereign God. Seven pillars found in the Word of God that should enable any child of God to take heart, even in the midst of this difficult and trying world. Listen to them, take them into your hearts and be thankful: HIs wisdom, His truth, His mercy, His justice, His power, His eternity, and last but not least, His immutability. The world may change. The world may involve itself in war after war. Men may be wiped off the face of the earth. But He is not capable of change! This is indeed a strong tower. With pillars uch as these we can be sure that The Lord Reigneth!

Second, He Has Proven His Security Time and Time Again to His People. I know that this is a matter of experience — and some will say we can’t use “subjective experience” for a proof — but no matter what name you give it, it is true. The poet put it this way and how wonderful a thought it is:

“There is a safe and secret place
Beneath the wings divine,
Reserved for all the heirs of grace;
That refuge now is mine.

The least and feeblest here may hide
Uninjured and unawed;
While thousands fall on every side,
I rest secure in God.”

You see, Brethren, no matter what your tribulation might be; no matter what your trouble might be; no matter how difficult things might be; He is there. If your trial in life is want, the Lord indeed will provide. His Word is filled with promises. Listen to one: “My God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 4:19). If your trial is loneliness, the Lord is there with you. His Word is filled with promises to be with you. Listen to one: “Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have; for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.” (Heb. 13:5). If your trial in life is war and the rumors of wars, The Lord will give you His peace. Listen again to The Word: “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” (Jn. 14:27). If your trial in life is sin, remember that the Lord is your righteousness. God’s Word says, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1;9). Brethren, we can defy, in God’s strength, tribulations of every sort and size!

Third, The Righteous Avail Themselves of the Strong Tower by Running to It. Such is the teaching of Proverbs 18:10. I think this is very important for us in this day and age. It is an old saying and very true, “You do not parley with evil.” You do not try to find how you can get along with it, you run from it. Your attitude toward evil should be the same as the attitude of Norm Van Brocklin, the former All-Pro Quarterback. When asked why he ran with the ball in a game he stated, “I only run out of sheer terror!” And so should the Christian’s attitude toward evil be one of not wanting anything to do with it. We should not want anymore to do with evil than Norm Van Brocklin wanted to do with running the ball.

Somehow or other there is a new teaching making itself felt today. This new teaching, when coming face to face with evil, (and Brethren, evil is anything contrary to the standard of the Word of God whether it is in politics or in the work of the church), teaches us to see how we can get along with it. This teaching motivates us to have peaceful coexistence with evil. Brethren, if a thing is wrong, it is wrong and we have no right to tolerate it, to give it equality, for then someday we shall live under it. The teaching of the Word of God is that the Christian flees to his God. The teaching is “Flee!” Let someone call you a coward! Let someone tell you that you are not having the right attitude of love toward a thing, or a person, by not having the right attitude of love toward a thing, or a person, by not having anything to do with it. Let them persecute you for having nothing to do with those who would usurp The Word. Such is evil and we are to flee from it, and to the refuge of the Almighty, Sovereign God, and He will be our strong tower!

Yes, Brethren, it is true that we live in a dangerous, terrible world. It is true that there are things making their way to and fro in the world of today that seek to destroy us. It is true that “Doomsday” could be just ahead. It is true that many sitting here this morning may well be fighting on the fields of battle a year from now. It is true that sickness and pain and misery are all here with us. But take heart! The Lord reigneth! The Bible says, “Our life is hid with Christ in God.” We are in the hands of Christ. We are under the wings of the Deity. Our names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life — if we have asked Jesus Christ to come into our hearts and save us from our sins. No one can erase them. We have a strong tower and we are safe, by His grace.

Spurgeon once told his people — and he can say it far better than I am able to say it — “I see no reason for us to stay down in the dungeons; let us go up to the very top of the ramparts, where the banner waves in the fresh air, and let us sound the clarion of defiance to our foes again, and let it ring across the plain, where yonder pale white-horsed rider comes, bearing the lance of death; let us defy even him. Ring out the note again; salute the evening, and make the outgoings of the morning to rejoice.”

“Munitions of stupendous rock,

Thy dwelling-place shall be;

There shall thy soul without a shock

The wreck of nature see.”

Brethren, may I remind you once again? May I announce it to you in a way that you will never forget it? May I sound forth the answer to anything the world might have to offer with its wars, tribulations, bombs, evil? The Lord Reigneth!

February 13: “The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States”

13 February, 2016 in February 2016 by David_W_Hall | No comments

Today being Saturday, we return to our Election Day Sermon Series written by the Rev. David W. Hall, pastor of the Midway Presbyterian Church in Powder Springs, Georgia. Today Dr. Hall looks at the sermon brought by the Episcopal minister Jasper Adams on this day, February 13, in 1833.


Election Day Sermon Series : “The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States”
delivered on February 13, 1833, by the Rev. Jasper Adams.

The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United SThe Rev. Jasper Adams was an Episcopal Minister and President of the College of Charleston when he preached this 1833 message to the Diocese of South Carolina at St. Michael’s church in Charleston, South Carolina. This sermon occurred a little over a half century after the American Revolution. In it, Adams argued at length that Christianity (Protestantism in the main) rested at the foundation of American political order. This sermon may be found on pp. 39-50 of Religion and Politics in the Early Republic, Daniel L. Dreisbach, ed. (Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 1996).

Adams based his sermon on 1 Peter 3:15, Prov. 14:34, and Rev. 11:15. His first trumpet note was: “As Christianity was designed by its Divine Author to subsist until the end of time, it was indispensable, that it should be capable of adapting itself to all states of society, and to every condition of mankind.” He summarized the intersection of religion and politics toward the beginning of his sermon in this fashion:

According to the structure of the Hebrew Polity, the religious and political systems were most intimately, if not indissolubly combined: and in the Mosaic Law, we find religious observances, political ordinances, rules of medicine, prescriptions of agriculture, and even precepts of domestic economy, brought into the most intimate association. The Hebrew Hierarchy was a literary and political, as well as a religious order of men. In the Grecian States and in the Roman Empire, the same individual united in his own person, the emblems of priest of their divinities and the ensigns of civil and political authority. Christianity, while it was undermining, and until it had overthrown the ancient Polity of the Jews on the one hand; and the Polytheism of the Roman Empire on the other; was extended by the zeal and enterprise of its early preachers, sustained by the presence of its Divine Author and accompanied by the evidence of the miracles which they were commissioned to perform. It is not strange, therefore, that when, under the Emperor Constantine, Christianity came into the place of the ancient superstition, it should have been taken under the protection, and made a part of the constitution of the Imperial government.

While warning against the flagrant abuses of Constantinianism, he also noted that most early American colonies united faith with franchise. Here is how he raises the establishment question: “In thus discontinuing the connection between Church and Commonwealth—did the people of these States intend to renounce all connection with the Christian religion? Or did they only intend to disclaim all preference of one sect of Christians over another, as far as civil government was concerned; while they still retained the Christian religion as the foundation of all their social, civil and political institutions?” And on the federal level, he asks: “Did the people of the United States, when in adopting the Federal Constitution they declared, that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ expect to be understood as abolishing the national religion, which had been professed, respected and cherished from the first settlement of the country, and which it was the great object of our fathers in settling this then wilderness to enjoy according to the dictates of their own consciences?”

Rather than the view “that Christianity has no connection with the law of the land, or with our civil and political institutions,” Adams reviews the actual record and finds the following:

  1. The originators and early promoters of the discovery; and settlement of this continent, had the propagation of Christianity before their eyes, as one of the principal objects of their undertaking.
  2. We shall be further instructed in the religious character of our origin as a nation, if we advert for a moment to the rise and progress of our colonial growth.
  3. To examine with a good prospect of success, the nature and extent of the changes in regard to Religion, which have been introduced by the people of the United States in forming their State Constitutions, and also in the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In perusing the twenty-four Constitutions of the United States with this object in view, we find all of them recognizing Christianity as the well-known and well-established religion of the communities.

He reports these epiphenomena as well: “In our Conventions and Legislative Assemblies, daily Christian worship has been customarily observed. All business proceedings in our Legislative halls and Courts of justice have been suspended by universal consent on Sunday. Christian Ministers have customarily been employed to perform stated religious services in the Army and Navy of the United States.” He continued to note: “In administering oaths, the Bible, the standard of Christian truth is used, to give additional weight and solemnity to the transaction. A respectful observance of Sunday, which is peculiarly a Christian institution, is required by the laws of nearly all, perhaps of all the respective States. My conclusion, then, is sustained by the documents which gave rise to our colonial settlements, by the records of our colonial history, by our Constitutions of government made during and since the Revolution, by the laws of the respective States, and finally by the uniform practice which has existed under them.”

[Ed. : An epiphenomenon (plural: epiphenomena) is a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon.]

Adams not only thought this to be the accurate history but also a salutary relationship. Neither he nor his audience seems to tremble before this history as if it were a theocratic incursion. On the contrary, a half century after the Revolution, Adams (and others) advocated a healthy, clothed public square.

This Episcopal bishop warned against the encroaching system of unbelief that ushered in “the ruin of hundreds of thousands of estimable families, unexampled distress of nations, general anarchy and convulsions, and in the devastation of much of the fairest portion of the earth? Encouragement of the infidel system among us will dissolve all the moral ties, which unite men in the bonds of society.” “Circumvention and fraud,” he warned, “will come to be esteemed wisdom, the sacred mystery of ‘plighted troth’ will be laughed to scorn, wise forbearance will be accounted pusillanimity, an enlightened practical benevolence will be supplanted by a supreme regard to self-gratification and an insensibility to the welfare of other men, the disregard of Almighty God will be equaled only by a corresponding contempt of mankind, personal aggrandizement will be substituted for love of country, social order and public security will be subverted by treason and violence—these, and all these have been, and may again be the fruits of the infidel system.”

Believers today might still wish to consider his exhortation:

No nation on earth, is more dependent than our own, for its welfare, on the preservation and general belief and influence of Christianity among us. Perhaps there has never been a nation composed of men whose spirit is more high, whose aspirations after distinction are more keen, and whose passions are more strong than those which reign in the breasts of the American people. These are encouraged and strengthened by our systems of education, by the unlimited field of enterprise which is open to all; and more especially by the great inheritance of civil and religious freedom, which has descended to us from our ancestors. It is too manifest, therefore, to require illustration, that in a great nation thus high spirited, enterprising and free, public order must be maintained by some principle of very peculiar energy and strength—by some principle which will touch the springs of human sentiment and action. Now there are two ways, and two ways only by which men can be governed in society; the one by physical force; the other by religious and moral principles pervading the community, guiding the conscience, enlightening the reason, softening the prejudices, and calming the passions of the multitude.

Such stirring rhetoric and such passionate patriotism from an early 19th century Episcopalian pulpit may surprise many descendants of the diocese of Charleston. But Adams’ sermon is well worth hearing again.

This sermon appears in the 2012 Kindle edition of Election Sermons (pp. 45-64) or click here or here to read it on the Web.

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

February 12: Safeguarding the Church (Machen, 1926)

12 February, 2016 in Uncategorized by archivist | No comments

Exactly ninety years ago on this day, February 12, 1926, Dr. J. Gresham Machen was in St. Louis, Missouri. As it is this year, it was a Friday, and Dr. Machen brought his message, titled “Safeguarding the Church” before the audience assembled at the Washington and Compton Avenue Presbyterian Church. A short time later he re-titled the address as “The Mission of the Church,” and delivered it again on March 1st of that same year before the Presbyterian Ministers’ Association in Philadelphia. The text presented here is of the latter address, and we do not know what changes may have been made in any revision. For that reason we show the revised title.

Admittedly this is a bit long; perhaps you can save it to read tomorrow if time is short today:

The Mission of the Church
by Professor J. Gresham Machen, D.D.
[excerpted from The Presbyterian and Herald and Presbyter 96.14 (8 April 1926): 8-11.]

J. Gresham Machen

Before we can consider the mission of the Church, we must determine what the Church is. What are its limits? What forms a part of it and what does not? Where is the true Christian Church to be found?

According to the Westminster Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, the invisible Church is to be distinguished from the visible Church. The invisible Church consists of the whole number of those who are saved; the visible Church consists of those who profess the true religion, together with their children. There is absolutely no warrant in Scripture for supposing that any particular branch of the visible Church will necessarily be preserved. Always, it is true, there will be a visible Church upon the earth, but any particular Church organization may become so corrupt as to be not a true Church of Christ, but (as the Confession of Faith puts it), “a synagogue of Satan.”

Now the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America has certainly not become a synagogue of Satan. The hostile forces in it are indeed very powerful, and in some sections of it they are dominant, but the majority is still Christian. But the point is that we have absolutely no warrant in Scripture for holding that the Christian character of this particular Church or of any other particular Church will necessarily be preserved. The question whether this Church will remain Christian or will become non-Christian (as so many other ecclesiastical bodies throughout the world have done) will probably be determined in the next five or ten years. If the indifferentist party continues (working with the Modernists) to dominate the Church, as it did (so far as administrative matters are concerned) by a slight majority at our last General Assembly, and as it does so generally in the Boards and Agencies, if the great issue continues to be concealed, then the Church will soon become non-Christian; but if, on the other hand, the issue is plainly raised and is decided aright, then the Church will continue to be a Church of Jesus Christ.

But what needs to be carefully observed is that the Church universal is not bound to any one organization. Our Lord established that fact in a great passage in the Gospels, which is often misused. A man was casting out demons in the name of Christ. The disciples bade Jesus rebuke him because he followed not with them. But Jesus said: “Forbid him not, . . . he that is not against us is on our part.” That utterance is sometimes held to support doctrinal indifferentism–to support the absurd view that a man can be a real disciple of Jesus no matter what opinions he holds about Jesus. But such a use of the passage is quite preposterous. That man in the Gospel held no low view of Jesus, such as is held by the Modernists of to-day. On the contrary, he held a high view of Jesus, since he believed that Satan was subject to Jesus’ name. He certainly had a very lofty creed. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that he differed in doctrine from the rest of the disciples. His fault from the point of view of the disciples was not that he was heretical, but that he was entirely too zealous; his only fault was that he followed not with them, that he did not obey their behests, that he was not—to put the thing in modern language—subservient to their committees. But Jesus accepted him as a disciple, and in so doing he spoke the mightiest word against organizational Church union that has ever been spoken. There are those to-day who cherish the notion of one universal Church organization, mapping out the work for the whole world through some central committee, assigning a place to every man and allowing no place whatever for the Spirit of God, trying to bring all Christendom under its sway. I am bound to say frankly that for my part I regard it as a depressing and hateful dream. It is the greatest obstacle in the world, I think, to the realization of our Lord’s high-priestly prayer that “they all may be one.” God grant that the dream may not come true! God grant that the Christian Church upon this earth may not be brought under one organization! God grant that liberty may be preserved, and that when we contemplate groups of Christians large or small who prefer to do things in their own way, we may remember the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, how he said, “Forbid him not, . . . he that is not against us is on our part.”

But where shall a criterion be found to determine which of these many ecclesiastical bodies are truly Christian? The criterion is provided by this same incident in the Gospel of Mark, of which we have just been speaking. That man in the Gospel was casting out demons, and he was casting them out in the name of Christ. There is found the two-fold test. First, the doctrine or the message was right; the work was done in the name of Christ. The “name” means, of course, not merely a word of so many letters, but the stupendous Person whom the name represents. In the second place, demons were being cast out; a mighty and beneficent work was being done. That two-fold test can be applied to-day. Many churches (in their corporate capacity) are not Christian because they do not meet the former part of the test. They are not really using the Name. They use indeed the word “Jesus,” but the word designates for them a poor, weak enthusiast who has little to do with the real Jesus presented in the Word of God. In the second place, to be recognized as a true Church of Christ, a Church must bring forth works that correspond to the casting out of demons which was possible when miraculous gifts were still in the possession of the Church. No organization and no party in any organization can be recognized as Christian when the works that it brings forth are the specious double use of traditional terminology and all manner of chicanery and deceit. By that test again many parties of to-day are condemned. “By their fruits shall ye know them,” said our Lord. A party cannot be recognized as Christian merely because, in a purely external and physical way, it bears the name of Christ; it cannot be recognized as Christian if, in its corporate capacity–we are not speaking about the relation of individuals to Christ–it brings forth Satan’s works.

But if the two-fold test is met; if, in the first place, the doctrine or the message is right, and if, in the second place, the result is not deceitfulness, but truth, then many a despised company of believers, many a hopeless minority, is to be recognized as a true Church of Christ. It is to be so recognized by us, and above all, it is actually so recognized by our Lord. And what warmth of fellowship we enjoy, in these days of stress and strain, with many Christians of many names who are our true brothers in Christ! How hollow is the external unity of committees and boards, and how deep the true unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace!

If, then, the true Church is to be found in many places and under many names, for what does the true Church stand, and why do we Presbyterians think that it is found in greatest purity in the Reformed or Calvinistic faith?

The Church of Christ entered upon the present period in its history in a certain upper room in Jerusalem in the first century of our era. The Church had indeed existed before; it had existed under the old dispensation; it had existed in the time of Abraham; it had existed ever since the Promise had been given after the fall of man. But, under the old dispensation its life had been derived from a promise of good things to come, and now the fulfillment had arrived. The redemption promised of old had actually been wrought; the Saviour had made atonement for the sins of his people, and had completed his redeeming work by his resurrection from the dead.

The little company of his disciples in the upper room were waiting for power from on high, and when the power came they went forth to the conquest of the world.

That first Christian church in Jerusalem had a creed; indeed, upon a creed all its power was based. One part of its creed, of course, is plain; it was, “Christ is risen from the dead.” A stupendous creed that was in truth; it is just that creed which is really denied by the vast modernist forces in our Presbyterian Church in America to-day and in the other great Churches of the world. But the words, “Christ is risen,” were not all of the creed of the first Christian church. We have a little extract from the central things of that Jerusalem creed preserved for us in the First Epistle to the Corinthians; Paul there tells us what he had “received” from the primitive Jerusalem Church. And what was it that he had received? “How that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose the third day according to the Scriptures.” A wonderful creed in truth! “Christ died for our sins”–there we have the center of Christianity, the blessed doctrine of the atonement. “He has been raised from the dead”–there we have the completion of the redeeming work in the glorious miracle of the resurrection. That was the good news, the “gospel,” the doctrine, upon which the Church’s life was based; that was the message with which it went forth to the conquest of the world.

At first the work was among the chosen people; but soon the leading of the Spirit became plain. The Gentile Cornelius was baptized; and the great apostle to the Gentilels was converted by the Lord himself. The distinctive work of Paul was not the mere geographical extension of the frontiers of the kingdom, but it was the setting forth of the principles of the gospel upon which the world-wide work was based. Those principles indeed were not unknown before; the doctrine of the Cross, as we have seen, was at the basis of the life of the Jerusalem Church; but to Paul was revealed with special clearness the epoch-making significance of the redeeming work of Christ. Because of that work, certain commands which under the old dispensation had been required of God’s people were no longer in force. A new era had begun. Paul recognized that fact; and because he did so, he is sometimes regarded as a “Liberal”–as the precursor of those who in our times reject the authority of the Bible and take the commands of God with a grain of salt. But persons who talk in that way simply show that they have no inkling of what scientific history is. No, the thing is perfectly plain to every historian; Paul was no “Liberal”–not in that low sense of the noble word. He always held with all his heart and mind to the full truthfulness of the Bible, as Jesus of Nazareth had done before; he never separated the “letter” from the “spirit” in the misleading modern way; and he believed that even the ceremonial requirements of the Old Testament law were commands of God. But he held that those ceremonial requirements are represented by God, in the Old Testament itself, as temporary; so that a man was actually disobeying the Old Testament law if he carried them over in full into the new dispensation. A new era had begun; the time of the Promise was over, and the time of the fulfillment had come.

So the Church could go forth with a good conscience and with the full favor of God to the conquest of the Gentile world.

That was a great moment in the Antioch Church when the missionaries were sent to Cyprus across the narrow seas and then to the conquest of the world. Those missionaries would no doubt have been coldly received by many modern mission boards. Did they not refuse to work with opponents of the Cross, both within and without the Church? Did not one of them later say: “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed”? The idea of sending out a missionary who determined to know nothing save Jesus Christ and him crucified! The thing would be regarded to-day as quite preposterous. Such men as Paul and Barnabas, I fear, would hardly have been appointed with much enthusiasm by some modern mission boards. But the choosing of missionaries was different in those days. The prophets and teachers were gathered in the Church at Antioch, and “the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.” They received their appointment indeed! And forth they went across the blue waters of the Mediterranean–humble and despised as the world looks upon such things, but with one possession that made them the mightiest of the children of men, with a gospel without which none, high or low, wise or unwise, could be brought into communion with the holy God.

In the years that followed, that gospel had to face attack. What mighty doctrinal conflicts there were in the apostolic age! I sometimes think that those who decry controversy have never read history at all, and certainly have never read the Word of God. The New Testament (Gospels as well as Epistles) is a controversial book almost from beginning to end; truth in it is always set forth in contrast to error. So it was in the apostolic Church; truth was struck forth as a fire from the clash of conflict; the great evangelical epistles, Galatians and Romans, were written in the glorious form in which they actually appear only because of the conflict with the Judaizers, who, like the Modernists of to-day, though in a much less obviously destructive manner, denied the all-sufficiency of the substitutionary atonement of our Lord. So it will always be, even in uninspired books. Men who decry controversy never in the whole course of the history of the Church have produced anything really great; great Christian utterances come only when men’s souls are stirred.

God brought the Church through those early conflicts. But certainly he did not do so by the instrumentality of theological pacifists, but by the instrumentality of that glorious fighter, the Apostle Paul. The Judaistic doctrine of human merit was kept out, at least from the center of the Church’s life, and also the pagan sublimation of the resurrection into a mere doctrine of immortality–which sublimation is so strikingly like the contention of the thirteen hundred Auburn Affirmationists in our Presbyterian Church to-day.

At last the apostolic age drew to its close. Those who had received the lofty special apostolic commission from Christ were taken away. But two things remained–in the first place, the presence of the Holy Spirit, and in the second place, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments that the Holy Spirit used.

In the second century there was another great conflict, and again it was a conflict not without, but within the Church. The Gnostics used Christian terminology, like the Modernists of to-day; but like the Modernists of to-day they were opposed to Christianity at its root. Despite the insidiousness of the danger, the Church was saved. But it was saved only because the leaders were no theolgical pacifists, but mighty contenders for the faith. Irenaeus wrote his great work against heresies, and Tertullian contended against Marcion, and so the gospel was preserved. Those men were not afraid of controversy. God be endlessly praised for that! If they had been opposed to controversy, there would be no Christianity in the world to-day.

So it has been in all the other great ages through which the Church has passed. So it was in the conflicts by which the great ecumenical creeds were produced; soit was in the days when Augustine contended against the Pelagian view of sin; so it was in the heroic days of the Reformation. Always there have been pacifists who have endeavored to conceal the issue and to bring about the false peace of compromise. But always there have been some true men who have resolutely refused.

So it was also when our great Reformed system of doctrine was set forth on the basis of the Scriptures alone. The Reformation had burst the bands of Roman slavery, and had returned to the Magna Charta of liberty in the Word of God. But, after the first heroism was over, there had come the days of vacillation and compromise; the Reformation had completed its negative work, but its positive work was yet undone. It had broken with the Roman system, but it had no thorough system of its own. Then came the man of the hour, the man whom God had chosen. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin set foth not scattered bits of evangelical truth, but a great system, and a system that was derived from the Bible alone. There is some justification for the dictum which I saw somewhere in that late lamented paper, The Freeman, of New York, which differed from most radical papers in that, instead of making radicalism stupid, it made radicalism bright–there is some justification for the dictum of The Freeman to the effect that only in the Reformed System has Protestantism overcome the “inferior complex” which elsewhere besets it over against the imposing system of Rome. We need, I think, to learn the lesson. The strongest Christianity, I think, is consistent Christianity; and consistent Christianity is found in the Reformed Faith. Strange indeed it is that men should desert that glorious heritage, as in the United Church of Canada, for the hasty creedal formulations to be expected in our intellectually decadent age. I believe in progress in theology. That is the reason why I do not regard theology as a kaleidoscope, but rather prefer to build for the future, in theology as in other branches of science, upon the solid achievements of the past.

At the time of the Reformation, and no doubt at the time of Calvin, there were many voices that counseled compromise. But, thank God, there were also true men who would not listen to the Tempter’s voice.

So it is also in our own day. For one hundred and fifty years the Church has been in the midst of a conflict greater than all the conflicts that have gone before. Many great branches of the Church are completely dominated by the non-Christian forces; our own Presbyterian Church in America is in the gravest danger of going on the same path. In 1920, a great attack was made upon the very vitals of our Constitution by the Plan of Organic Union, which received a large vote, and which if it had been successful, would have caused the Church to cease to be Christian in its corporate capacity at all. In the later years, thirteen hundred ministers of the Church have signed the so-called Auburn Affirmation, which attacks the whole factual basis of our religion; and the great Synod of New York is on record officially as approving the licensing of a minister who actually refused to affirm even the Virgin Birth of our Lord. The Boards and Agencies have almost no presentation from the evangelical party in the Church, and, to say the least, are failing to sound any ringing evangelical note.

In this time of crisis, when the question is being determined whether our Church is to remain Christian or not, there are those who deplore controversy and say that all is well. Among them there are no doubt many who are not really Christian in their preaching at all. These men are not, indeed, conscious of denying the Bible and denying Christ; but the Cross really fails to hold the central place in their hearts. But among the ecumenical pacifists there are also no doubt many truly Christian men. They belittle controversy because they do not yet see how serious is the danger, or what the controversy is really about. Can they be made to see in time? That is the question of all questions. Upon that question the existence of our Church depends. Oh, brethren, you who belittle controversy, you who think that all is well, if you could only be made to see, if the Holy Spirit would only open your eyes! When I contemplate the issue, I feel as though it were a crime for us ever to rise from our knees, except to speak the word that God has given us to speak. God grant, brethren, that the mists may be dispelled from your eyes, and that you may yet witness in this time of crisis, before it is too late, for the Lord Jesus Christ. If you do, then our Presbyterian Church will be saved as a true Church of Christ, and will go forth again with new power for the salvation of the souls of men.

[excerpted from The Presbyterian and Herald and Presbyter 96.14 (8 April 1926): 8-11.]

February 11: Carolina Covenanters (1801)

11 February, 2016 in Uncategorized by archivist | No comments

Some have heard of the small American denomination known as the Reformed Presbyterian Church and how they took a early stand against the practice of slavery. But few have read any of the story of what was involved, what it cost to take that stand, and the blessings that followed from their Scriptural obedience. It would make an interesting study, to ask how it was that this Church saw such near-unanimous obedience in standing true to the Scriptures and against the prevailing culture. I would argue that what we read here is the proper exercise of that doctrine known as the Spirituality of the Church, in which the Church exercises its God-given authority and effectively disciplines sin where it finds it.

Our post today comes from the September 1875 issue of Our Banner, a publication of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.

A Long Standing Testimony

OurBanner1875

Extracts of Minutes of the Committee of the Reformed Presbytery, on the Subject of Slavery.—Minutes of February 11, 1801.

“A petition came in requesting a reconsideration of the business respecting slaveholders, so far as this species of traffic might be supposed to affect Christian communion—and that such steps might be taken in the premises, as should place that whole affair on such a moral basis as the principles of our common profession, seem imperiously to demand.”  “It was agreed prior to the further consideration of this subject that all slave-holders in the communion of this church, should be warned to attend the next meeting of the Committee, and that there the merits of the petition aforementioned, shall be particularly attended to.”

Minutes of February 18, 1801.—“The consideration of the state of the enslaved Africans was introduced this day into the Committee.  The purport of the discussion was to ascertain whether those who concurred, more or less, in the enslavement of these miserable subjects, should be considered as entitled to communion in this church.  It was unanimously agreed that enslaving these, our African brethren, is an evil of enormous magnitude, and that none who continue in such a gross departure, from humanity and the dictates of our benevolent religion, can have any just title to communion in this church.”

To carry this resolution into effect, the following note was sent to every member of the congregation, not then present, involved in the evil, viz:  “Sir, you are hereby informed, that none can have communion in this church who hold slaves. You must therefore immediately have it registered, that your slaves are freed, before the sacrament. If any difficulty arises to you in the manner of doing it, then you are desired to apply to the Committee of Presbytery, who will give directions in any circumstances of a doubtful nature in which you may be involved, in carrying this injunction into execution.”

At this time the Rev. Wm. Martin was deposed from the office of the ministry, having been found guilty of several heinous sins and scandals, among which the third in order belongs to the present subject, and illustrates the faithful application of discipline to remove slavery from the church.

“3d, That he sold some time since, a negro man then in his possession, thereby doing everything in his power, to prevent himself from ever having it in his power to liberate a poor wretched fellow mortal in any other period in his life, putting this price of blood among his substance, while he left his fellow-mortal to languish out the last moment of his life, under the galling chains of slavery without one scanty ray of hope of ever obtaining deliverance any other way but by the hand of death, and all this after the determination of the court and church to which he belonged had marked African enslavement with the strongest degree of abhorrence.” The last words quoted undoubtedly point to Presbyterial action on the subject of slavery or at least to the action of a committee of Presbytery prior to the deed of selling the slave. This action was thereafter taken by the Scotch Presbytery itself or by its committee, as that was the court to which Mr. Martin belonged until he gave in his submission in 1801 to the committee of Reformed Presbyterians in the United States of America. Mr. Martin’s want of proper feeling in reference to his sin, appears from the plea he made for himself. “Ye a’ see I’m opposed to slavery for I ha’e sold mine.”

As the communion season was near at hand, and they were not familiar with the legal formalities in the deed of emancipation it was found necessary to settle the matter in preparation for the sacrament by binding the parties under heavy penalties to carry out the liberation of their slaves “as soon as it could possibly be ascertained” how it could be legally done. ” It was accordingly agreed that said bonds be in the meantime delivered into the hands of Rev. Thomas Donnelly, who is held responsible for the same; and that the said Rev. Thomas Donnelly, John M. Ninch, and Robert Hemphill be appointed a committee to inquire into the peculiar circumstances of each of the slaves to be liberated, as also into the true legal forms of emancipation; that the intentions of the Reformed Presbytery in purging out the accursed thing from among them, may be carried into the most speedy effect.” This last language implies that the American Presbytery had also given orders on this matter. Indeed, it is well understood that the committee of Presbytery came to the South specially empowered by Presbytery to abolish slavery in the church. It was further ordered that Mr. Donnelly should make an early report to Presbytery in reference to this matter. It will thus be seen, that Covenanters always viewed with the utmost abhorrence the crime of slavery; and while they provided for the natural freedom of the enslaved, they enquired about their circumstances, it is presumable, in a spiritual as well as a temporal point of view. The records do not show that Mr. Donnelly ever reported the matter to Presbytery and therefore to bring it to a close, we must depend on tradition. It is said that of all those that gave bonds, only four persons failed to carry out their obligations.  One of these, James Kell, was afterwards taken in the act of adultery with his own slave—a second died a vile drunkard—and a third was reduced to abject poverty, and was caught stealing the nails to make his wife’s coffin. Thus the brand of Cain was put on the sin of slavery and that in connection with the discipline of our church. The blessing of God followed those that turned from their sin, and some of their children and grand children became ministers and elders in the church.

Some of the slaves then freed also became members of the church.  Three children of Will and his wife, the former set free by James Hunter, and the latter by John McDill, are now members of Church Hill congregation in Illinois.

The ministers of the church all habitually denounced the judgments of God on the nation for the sin of slavery. If there was any difference in the degree of abhorrence felt against the inhuman and revolting traffic, it was on the part of the ministers and people of the South. They had seen the monster sin, not to pity and embrace; but to hate and abhor. The underground railroad found its most daring conductors and station agents among Carolina Covenanters. Having abolished slavery among themselves, they were not ashamed to be called abolitionists ; and they were not afraid to incur the wrath of citizens and civil officers by helping the fugitives. It was part of their religion.

Mr. Donnelly retained his fervid hatred of the system to the end.  His hearers say, that as he had always consistently opposed the iniquitous institution, his severe denunciations and arguments were overlooked, with some such remark as, ” Oh, it is only old Donnelly, let it go ;” while if a Northern man had said the same thing it would have secured him a coat of tar and feathers. Nor was he at all a respecter of persons in reproving this sin. After his son became a Presbyterian and a slaveholder, they must needs discuss the irrepressible subject. The son claimed that there were Christian slaveholders. The father replied, ” It may be so, but a slaveholder among Christians is like a black swan in the flock.”  Slavery was certainly the principal cause of the exodus of Covenanters from the South.  Rev. James Faris used to say that he would have made the South his home, had it not been for the danger to his family through the temptations held out by the peculiar institution.

February 10: The Form of Presbyterial Church Government (1645)

10 February, 2016 in February 2016 by archivist | No comments

An Auspicious Date Indeed

It was on this day, February 10th in 1645 that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland officially adopted the Westminster Assembly’s document titled The Form of Presbyterial Church-Government.

In Charles Hodge’s Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church, he states “In this directory it is declared, that the ordinary and perpetual officers of the church are pastors, teachers, and other church governors and deacons.” Certainly the Presbyterian form of government was already in place and practiced in Scotland before this date, but by the adoption of this Westminster document, the Kirk of Scotland endeavored to bolster a uniformity of church government among the churches of England, Scotland and Ireland.

While not exactly easy reading, here below is the text of the 1645 General Assembly’s resolution:

The Form of Presbyterial Church-Government

<

p style=”text-align: justify;”>ASSEMBLY AT EDINBURGH, February 10, 1645, Sess. 16. 
ACT of the GENERAL ASSEMBLY of the KIRK of SCOTLAND, approving the Propositions concerning Kirk-government, and Ordination of Ministers.

THE General Assembly being most desirous and solicitous, not only of the establishment and preservation of the Form of Kirk-government in this kingdom, according to the word of God, books of Discipline, acts of General Assemblies, and National Covenant, but also of an uniformity in Kirk-government betwixt these kingdoms, now more straitly and strongly unite by the late Solemn League and Covenant; and considering, that as in former time there did, so hereafter there may arise, through the nearness of contagion, manifold, mischief to this kirk from a corrupt form of government in the kirk of England: like as the precious opportunity of bringing the kirks of Christ in all the three kingdoms to an uniformity in Kirk-government being the happiness of the present times above the former; which may also, by the blessing of God, prove an effectual mean, and a good foundation to prepare for a safe and well-grounded pacification, by removing the cause from which the present pressures and bloody wars did originally proceed: and now the Assembly having thrice read, and diligently examined, the propositions (hereunto annexed) concerning the officers, assemblies, and government of the kirk, and concerning the ordination of ministers, brought unto us, as the results of the long and learned debates of the Assembly of Divines sitting at Westminster, and of the treaty of uniformity with the Commissioners of this kirk there residing; after mature deliberation,, and after timeous [i.e., in good time or sufficiently early] calling upon and warning of all, who have any exceptions against same, to make them known, that they might receive satisfaction; doth agree to and approve the propositions aforementioned, touching, touching Kirk-government and Ordination; and doth hereby authorized the Commissioners of this Assembly, who are to meet at Edinburgh, to agree and to conclude in the name of this Assembly, an uniformity betwixt the kirks in both kingdoms, in the afore-mentioned particulars, so soon as the same shall be ratified, without any substantial alteration, by an ordinance of the honourable Houses of the Parliament of England; which ratification shall be timely intimate and made known by the Commissioners of this kirk residing at London. Provided always, That this act be no ways prejudicial to the further discussion and examination of that article which hold forth, That the doctor or teacher hath power of the administration of the sacraments, as well as the pastor; as also of the distinct rights and interests of presbyteries and people in the calling of ministers; but that it shall be free to debate and discuss these points, as God shall be pleased to give further light.

Words to Live By:
God has ordained that the Church should be overseen, first at the local level, by spiritually mature men. Local congregations in turn are connected one to another and represented by these same elders, first regionally, and then on a wider scale, most commonly nationally. See Acts 15 for an example of this wider court of the Church. Pray for the Church. Pray that our leaders in the Church would study to carefully maintain God’s intended order for the Church. Pray that both we and our elders would remain humble and obedient to our Lord Jesus Christ, in all things seeking His will and not our own.

And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. — (Acts 14:23, KJV)

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— (Titus 1:5, ESV)

« Older entries § Newer entries »