How Many of You Know . . .

Mention the name of Pearl Buck and countless Americans will immediately think of the award-winning book “The Good Earth.”  And indeed Pearl Buck did write that famous work and many other novels which earned her both a Pulitzer prize as well as a Nobel prize for literature.  But how many Americans, and even church folks, know that she was instrumental in bringing about the original Presbyterian Church of America in 1936?  And yet she was.

Born in Hillsboro, West Virginia (and not, as is often reported, in the Orient), Mrs. Buck is the daughter of the late Dr. and Mrs. Sydenstricker, who were for many years two of the outstanding foreign missionaries of the Southern Presbyterian Church. A graduate of Randolph-Macon College, she had spent her childhood in China, and in 1917 she had married a missionary, Dr. J. Lossing Buck. Later, in 1935, she was to marry Richard J. Walsh, after she and Dr. Buck were divorced.

In 1932, the book “Rethinking Missions” was published. It stated that its aim was to do exactly what the title suggested, namely, to change the purpose of sending foreign missionaries to the world.  Its aim was to seek the truth from the religions to which it went, rather than to present the truth of historic Christianity.  There should be a common search for truth as a result of missionary ministry, was the consensus of this book.  Pearl Buck agreed one hundred per cent with the results of this book.  She believed that every American Christian should read it.

To her, Jesus ceased to be the divine son of God, virgin born, and conceived by the Holy Spirit.  There was no original sin in her belief structure.  All these truths of historic Christianity made the gospel to be a superstition, a magical religion, and should be done away with by the church, and subsequent mission boards.


Obviously, with beliefs like this, Pearl Buck became the focus of men like J. Gresham Machen, who published a 110 page book on the Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.  That treatment was freely presented to the congregations of the Northern Presbyterian Church.  The result was that Pearl Buck was forced to resign from the China mission, though the Presbyterian Board accepted that resignation with regret.

Eventually, the situation of the China Mission was a powerful basis for forming the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions in 1933. True Bible-believing Presbyterians needed to have one board which would only send missionaries to foreign lands who believed that Jesus was the only way, truth, and life to God.  Pearl Buck did not believe this biblical truth.

Pearl Buck passed into eternity on March 6, 1973.

Words to Live By: The New Testament author,  Jude, writes about those who “creep in unnoticed” into the church, who “deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”  As long as the church is on earth, there will be a need for Christians to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered unto the saints.” (ESV  – James 3, 4)

A Closer Look—J. Gresham Machen on the Views of Pearl Buck:


Her Views On Missions
In presenting his case on the larger issue of missions in the Presbyterian Church, J. Gresham Machen drew up an Argument, in which he gave, as part of his presentation, an analysis of Mrs. Buck’s views. He wrote:

“. . . Mrs. Buck expresses the most enthusiastic agreement with the book Re-Thinking Missions, and singles out for special commendation those features of that book which are most obviously and diametrically opposed to the Bible. She says, for example:

‘I have not read merely a report. I have read a unique book, a great book. The book presents a masterly statement of religion in its place in life, and of Christianity in its place in religion. The first three chapters are the finest exposition of religion I have ever read . . .

‘I think this is the only book I have ever read which seems to me to be literally true in its every conclusion … I want every American Christian to read this book. I hope it will be translated into every language.’

Her Views On Christianity

“In the article in Harper’s Magazine,” Dr. Machen continued, “Mrs. Buck deals more generally with missions and with the nature of the Christian religion, and what she says in both articles on this subject is in thoroughgoing conflict with the historic Christian Faith. She represents the deity of Christ as a thing accepted by some and rejected by others, but certainly not essential:

‘Some of us (Christians) believe in Christ as our fathers did. To some of us he is still the divine son of God, born of the virgin Mary, conceived by the Holy Spirit. But to many of us He has ceased to be that . . . Let us face the fact that the old reasons for foreign missions are gone from the minds and hearts of many of us, certainly from those of us who are young.’

She rejoices in the stripping of ‘the magic of superstition’ from Christ, and it seems clear that in the ‘magic of superstition’ she includes the miracles of Christ and the Biblical notion of the salvation which He wrought. . . She rejects directly the Bible doctrine of sin:

‘I am not inclined to blame human beings very much. I do not believe in original sin. I believe that most of us start out wanting to do right and to do good. I believe that most of us keep that desire as long as we live and whatever we do.’

She rejects the old gospel of salvation from sin and even seems to advocate the denial of religious liberty to those who preach that gospel:

‘In the old days it was plain enough. Our forefathers ‘believed sincerely in a magic religion. They believed simply and plainly that all who did not hear the gospel, as they called it, were damned, and every soul to whom they preached received in that moment the chance for salvation from that hell. Though heard but for a single moment, the preacher gave that soul the opportunity of a choice for eternity. If the soul paid no heed or did not believe, the preacher could not take the responsibility. He was absolved. There are those who still believe this, and if they sincerely believe, I honor that sincerity, though I cannot share the belief. I agree with the Chinese who feel their people should be protected from such superstition.’

Needless to say, Mrs. Buck agrees fully with Re-Thinking Missions in belittling preaching over against what she regards—quite falsely—as living the Christian life:

‘Above all, then, let the spirit of Christ be manifested by mode of life rather than by preaching. I am wearied unto death with this preaching. It deadens all thought, confuses all issues, it is producing in China at least, a horde of hypocrites, and in the theological seminaries a body of Chinese ministers which makes one despair for the future, because they are learning to preach about Christianity rather than how to live the Christian life.’

It is needless to say, further, that this estimate of preaching is entirely contrary to that which is taught in the Word of God.

“One thing is certainly to be said for Mrs. Buck. She is admirably clear. Her utterances are as plain as the utterances of our Board of Foreign Missions are muddled. There is nothing vague or undecided about them. She has let it be known exactly where she stands. She is opposed to the old gospel and is not afraid to say so in the presence of all the world . . .

Her Views about Missions

“Mrs. Buck’s views about missions have obviously not been formed overnight. She herself intimates very plainly that the book Re-Thinking Missions only expresses views which she has already held. Yet she has been allowed to continue in the foreign field by a Board which is charged with the sacred duty of seeing that its mission work is in accordance with the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church and with the Word of God. Could she have done so if the Board had not been grossly neglectful of its duty?


“Moreover, there is not the slightest likelihood that Mrs. Buck stands alone in her destructive views. Her distinguished talents have merely allowed those views to become widely audible in her case. It is altogether probably that there are many like her among the missionaries under our Board. Rev. John Clover Monsma (in his booklet, The Foreign Missionary Situation in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., February, 1933 . . . ) is quite justified in saying:

Today the Board is not in a position to guarantee our church members that there are not scores upon scores of other ‘Mrs. Bucks’ in the field, at different stages of apostacy and doctrinal revolution’.”

As a result of the pressure which Dr. Machen and other Bible-believing Christians had built up, Mrs. Buck handed in her resignation as a missionary to the Board of Foreign Missions. And she insisted that the Board accept it when the Board seemed reluctant to do so. It is highly provable that, except for the great publicity given to her unsound views by Dr. Machen, Mrs. Buck could have continued to serve indefinitely as a foreign missionary of the Northern Presbyterian Church had she so desired.

When the Board of Foreign Missions finally accepted her resignation, it announced that it did so “with regrets!”

A Case of Two Letters

Among the conservative Presbyterian responses to the Auburn Affirmation here we also have the opportunity to see one of the rarer articles by Dr. J. Gresham Machen.  The subject here requires a very brief bit of explanation, and admittedly we are straying into deeper Presbyterian waters.  In short, the Auburn “Correspondence Committee” sought to extend the influence of the Affirmation statement and in 1925 they issued a  letter titled “For Peace and Liberty”.  It is specifically that letter that Machen here addresses.  Note the principle that Machen upholds and the error that he critiques. Please note that our copy of this document is defective in a few places, obscuring the text.

Shall the General Assembly Represent the Church? : An Answer to Criticisms of the Letter of Eight Ministers
By Rev. J. Gresham Machen, D.D.

[excerpted from  The Presbyterian 95.10 (5 March 1925): 6-8.]

The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America is passing through a time of decision. For many years the danger was concealed; the undermining of the faith was covered by a misleading use of traditional language; and another religion was gradually being substituted for the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ, without any real knowledge, on the part of the rank and file, of what was taking place. But now the mists to some extent have been dispelled, and the church has been led to face the facts. Shall our Presbyterian Church desert the Bible, as many Protestant ecclesiastical bodies throughout the world have already done, or shall it hold to the Bible as the only infallible rule of faith and practice? Shall it merely admire and strive to imitate the reduced Jesus of naturalistic Modernism—the one whom the Unitarians and their co-religionists in other churches so patronizingly call “the Master”—or shall it hold to the Lord of Glory who is set forth in the Word of God? Shall it stand for Christ or against Him?

Some progress toward the answering of this question has been made during the past two years. But it would be the greatest possible mistake to suppose that the matter has now been settled, or that watchfulness is no longer in place. On the contrary, the attack upon the Christian faith within our church is, if anything, more acute now than it was in 1923 and 1924.

There are many evidences of this fact, but we shall now mention, by way of example, only two. One is found in the booklet, entitled “The First Presbyterian Church of New York and Dr. Fosdick,” which has been widely distributed by the clerk of session of that church; the other appears in the pamphlet, “For Peace and Liberty,” issued by “The Correspondence Committee” at Auburn, New York.

The New York booklet, after rehearsing the Fosdick case, of course in a thoroughly partisan way, represents the presbyery as having complied with the action of the last General Assembly. But this representation is incorrect. As a matter of fact, the presbytery has placed itself squarely in opposition to the mandate which the Assembly sent down. The Assembly declared that the relations with Dr. Fosdick “should not continue longer”; whereas as a matter of fact they have been continued all through the present winter—all during these months this anti-Christian propaganda, attacking the Bible and the very roots of the Christian faith, has been heard in the First Presbyterian Church of New York. Not content with this defiance of the Assembly, the presbytery has appointed the same preacher to the presbyterial function of preaching the sermon at an installation service, and recently has even asked him to take part in an evangelistic campaign. Thus evangelism, which to Christians means bringing sinners to the foot of the cross, means apparently to the Presbytery of New York the attempt to draw Christian people, especially Christ’s little ones, through the preaching of Dr. Fosdick, away from the Saviour who died for them. What is the attitude of the Presbytery [text obscured here in our copy] . . . whatever the attitude of the Presbyterian Church may be, the attitude of our Saviour has been made abundantly plain. “Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me,” said Jesus, “it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!”

So much for the action of the Presbytery of New York with regard to the past and the present. Equally hostile is its attitude with regard to the future. It is true that the presbytery has fixed the date when Dr. Fosdick’s resignation as associate minister of the First Presbyterian Church is to take effect as March i, 1925 (over nine months after the General Assembly declared that the relation “should not continue longer”!) But the fixing of this date does not for a moment mean that either the church or the presbytery has given up the hope of having this preacher permanently. On the contrary, it is only “under present conditions” that the congregation accepts the resignation of its associate minister (page 49), and the hope is expressed (pages, 48, 53f, 58) that some way be found “not inconsistent with Presbyterian law and usage whereby his ministrations . . . may be continued.”

With this hope of finding a way to retain Dr. Fosdick, it is evident that the presbytery is in full sympathy; and the congregation makes plain what that way might be. The congregation refers (pages 47, 50) to the Plan of Organic Union which, as it finally came before our presbyteries of 1920, sought to relegate our historic Confession of Faith to the realm of the unessential, and set up as a basis of union a preamble which was couched in the vague language of agnostic Modernism. It is no doubt some such way of retaining Dr. Fosdick which the Presbytery of New York would welcome; but when that way is followed, the Christian character of the Presbyterian Church will be at an end.

Their letter, titled “For Peace and Liberty”

The second attack upon the Christian faith, and upon the peace of our church, which we single out just now for special mention is the letter of the Auburn “Correspondence Committee,” entitled “For Peace and Liberty.” This letter commends the “Affirmation” of 1924, which was signed by some thirteen hundred ministers; and actually claims that this Affirmation was approved in principle by the last General Assembly! Could there be a more striking refutation of all those who say that everything was settled at the General Assembly of 1924, so that nothing is left for the General Assembly of this year, or who say that the anti-evangelical propaganda in our church is of negligible proportions ? No doubt there were some truly Christian men among the thirteen hundred signers of that former paper; some men no doubt were deceived by the Christian terminology in which the Affirmation was couched. But the Affirmation itself represented the basic facts of Christianity, such as the bodily resurrection of our Lord, as “theories” about which full liberty is allowed in the church. God save us [text obscured] . . . our church, which is grounded upon the simple truthfulness of the Bible as the Word of God.

These two attacks upon the corporate witness of the Presbyterian Church are not isolated phenomena, but indicate a widespread condition of mind and heart. Dr. Fosdick, for example, would in himself be comparatively unimportant; despite his popular gifts, he is only one preacher among many. But when his teaching, so vigorously hostile to Christianity, is commended and supported, not only by the Presbytery of New York, but also by a large number of Presbyterians throughout the length and breadth of our land, it is perfectly evident that rather definite decisions must be made if the Christian character of the Presbyterian Church is to be preserved.

Such is the situation. But what is to be done about it?

A letter of reply, then Machen’s own response

A little group of eight men, of which the present writer is a member, has tried to answer that question in a letter which has been sent to many ministers. This letter has been vigorously criticised, not only in the religious press, but also in the Auburn communication and in a widely circulated pamphlet compiled by Dr. G. A. Briegleb, of the Synod of California. In this latter pamphlet our letter is printed in full, and is criticised by Dr. Briegleb himself, by Dr. W. O. Forbes, of San Francisco, and by an action of the Presbytery of Los Angeles. To these criticisms I now desire, entirely in my own name, and without showing what I have written to any other member of our group, to make a brief reply.

Two features of our letter have been singled out for special criticism. We have been criticised in the first place because we urge the selection of such commissioners to the General Assembly of 1925 as shall be loyal to the historic position of the Presbyterian Church, and in the second place because we recommend, as a means toward the attainment of that end, a series of meetings in different sections of the church.

The second of these two criticisms may conveniently be considered first. The fact of the criticism in many quarters is in itself not surprising. We do not wonder that men who are indifferent about the Standards of our church object so strenuously to “loyal meetings.” But if the fact of the criticism is under the circumstances only what was to be expected, the nature of the criticism is truly surprising, and ought to be considered on its merits, lest loyal men should be deceived.

When the criticism is considered thus on its merits, it is found to be based simply upon opposition to the entire system of popular government which is fundamental in our Presbyterian polity. The Presbytery of Los Angeles deprecates “anything in the nature of caucuses or mass meetings by any class of Presbyters for the purpose of influencing in advance the election of Commissioners to the General Assembly . . . or dealing with legislation that properly belongs to the judicatories of the Church.” These words ignore the basal principle of liberty as it finds expression in the Constitution of our church—they ignore the basic fact that the judicatories of our church are representative of the rank and file. As a matter of fact, under Presbyterian law, there is absolutely no such thing as “legislation that properly belongs to the judicatories of the Church,” and does not also belong ultimately to [text obscured] this whole notion that presbyteries and General Assemblies have any existence independent of the men and women that elect members of them, the better it will be for our church. In deprecating “mass meetings,” the Presbytery of Los Angeles is deprecating the fundamental right of free assembly of individuals; and without that right, both in church and state, all liberty would be at an end. Most assuredly then there may be mass meetings intended to influence legislation, and the moment a legislative body, deprecates such meetings, it is setting itself up to be independent of the will of the people, and will, if there be any love of liberty left, meet with a swift and vigorous rebuke.

If the Presbytery of Los Angeles deprecates the exercise of the right of free assembly, we on our part deprecate something else—we deprecate this whole effort at keeping the laity in the dark about the great issue before the church. We object to all star-chamber methods in our judicatories; we most emphatically do not think that the issue between Modernism and Christianity is a merely theological issue with which plain men and women have no concern. We do not indeed wonder that Modernism objects to publicity; for the laity of our Presbyterian Church is fundamentally Christian, and if it knew what is really going on, it would make its will felt in a way that could not be ignored. But we cannot see what objection loyal men can have at any time to meetings in which loyalty to the Bible and our Confession is to be urged; and still less do we see what objection there can be at the present time, when the very basis of our church is being underminded. Others may deprecate public discussion of the great issues of the day, others may prefer to labor in the darkness; but we for our part prefer the light.

The second criticism concerns the choice of commissioners to the General Assembly. We have urged “the selection of such Commissioners to the General Assembly of 1925 as will be loyal to the historic position of the Presbyterian Church.” This suggestion has been called “politicizing” the presbyteries (see The Presbyterian Banner quoted in the Auburn pamphlet, entitled “Editorials from Presbyterian Weeklies”) ; and in reply it has been maintained (letter of Dr. W. O. Forbes in Dr. Briegleb’s pamphlet) that “every man in the Presbytery is entitled to equal rights—including the privilege of going to the General Assembly, so long as he is in good and regular standing in the Presbytery.”

This criticism of course ignores the simple fact that the General Assembly is a representative body. It is absolutely untrue that every man in a presbytery is entitled to the privilege of going to the General Assembly; on the contrary, the only men who have such a right are the men whom the presbytery elects as its representatives. [note here that the PCA operates under a different “grassroots” principle, allowing each church to send representatives.]

What we are trying to do is simply to secure an intelligent and honest election. We cannot prevent Modernist members of presbyteries from voting for Modernist or indifferent commissioners (and certainly Modernist members of presbyteries always do vote for such commissioners) ; but what we do think ought to be prevented is that evangelical members of presbyteries, for personal considerations or out of ignorance of the situation, should vote for such commissioners. For that reason we should vote for such commissioners. For that reason we think that in this great crisis all personal considerations should be laid aside, and that presbyters should ask themselves [the text of this last line of the column is obscured]. . . commissioners will best serve the interests of God’s kingdom in this hour of crisis?

That does not mean that among those whom we think unfitted at this particular time to go to the Assembly there are not found many true Christian men; it does not mean at all that every candidate for the Assembly whose election we should feel obliged to oppose is one whom we think ought to be subject to a charge of heresy. On the contrary, we think that among the qualifications of commissioners is to be found a knowledge of the present danger to the church as well as a personal loyalty to Christ and to our Creed. It is a time of peril; the General Assembly has the future of the church in its hands. At such a time, personal considerations seem very small; the election of commissioners is a solemn act for which we are responsible to Almighty God.

Thus the objections of those who are opposed to our letter are really objections to the whole principle of representative government; if Dr. Forbes’ view, for example, were correct, the commissioners to the General Assembly would have to be chosen by lot. We, on the other hand, believe that every presbytery has a right to choose those commissioners who are known to be in sympathy with the measures that the presbytery thinks ought to be put into effect.

A Modernist Assembly of 1925, or an Assembly indifferent to the great danger that besets us, would, we think, be productive of untold harm; whereas an Assembly aware of the real conditions and loyal to Christ will do much to preserve the witness-bearing of the church and its true unity as based upon the Word of God. We are not now proposing a programme of legislation; and certainly we are opposed to any programme which is not strictly in accord with the. Constitution of the church. We are not speaking at all, moreover, of the “instruction” of commissioners. But we do think that an electorate has a full right to know in general the opinions and the qualifications of those whom it is choosing to represent it.

How then shall a well-informed and loyal General Assembly be secured? One method would be the method of personal influence; we might place men in nomination on personal grounds, with concealment of the real issue. Such have been the methods by which the Modernists and indifferentists have attained their present position of altogether disproportionate influence in the church. Our method, we confess, is different. We for our part prefer to place the issue squarely before the church. “Here is the issue,” we say; “the General Assembly must decide; you elect the members of the General Assembly; if the Assembly decides wrong, you are responsible to God.” I do not know whether this method will be effective; I cannot say whether it is ecclesiastically astute or not. But of one thing I am convinced—it is the only method that is thoroughly honest and above-board. And personally I do not for my part attribute so much importance to ecclesiastical astuteness or personal “influence” or the like, as is sometimes done. If the Presbyterian Church is to be preserved, it will be preserved only by the Spirit of God; and the Spirit of God, I believe, honors naught save honesty and truth.

Because of this last fact, I do not despair of the result. We are passing through a great crisis, but this is not the . . . [text obscured] . . . Always, from the very beginning, paganism in one form or another has been seeking to engulf the people of God; always it has been seeking to obliterate the distinction between the church and the world; always it has been trying to remove the offense of Christianity by inducing the church to become what the new Auburn Affirmation calls an “inclusive” church. But somehow there has always been a true church of God; the salt has never quite lost its savor; and there have always been some disciples of Christ truly conscious of their distinctness from the world.

That does not mean that we have any assurance in the Word of God that just our Presbyterian Church, which we love so dearly, will be preserved. But at least it does show where strength is to be sought if that end is to be accomplished. It is to be sought not in that “trust in men” which The Presbyterian Banner (quoted in “Editorials from Presbyterian Weeklies”) demands. On the contrary, it is to be sought only in the power of the God who answers prayer.

We are not without sympathy for the “other gospel” which is to be heard so widely to-day. It has promoted some civic virtues; it has palliated some of the secular symptoms of sin. But one thing it has not done—it has not saved a single soul. That can be done only by the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit uses only the one true gospel, now so often despised, that is found in the Word of God. Which “gospel” shall our church proclaim? That is the real question before the General Assembly of 1925.

Our text for today is taken from The Souvenir Book of the General Assemblies, Atlanta, Georgia, May 14-25, 1913, pp. 11ff. This was a work compiled from the occasion when three Presbyterian denominations all met in their separate General Assemblies in Atlanta in May of 1913. The entire work can be found at http://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/georgiabooks/pdfs/gb5189.pdf


At the close of the American Revolution, the entire area of the State of Georgia was embraced within the Presbytery of South Carolina. On November 3, 1796, the region west of the Savannah River was organized into a separate jurisdiction known as the Presbytery of Hopewell. The first meeting of the new Presbytery was held at Liberty Church, in Wilkes County, Georgia, on March 4, 1797, and the opening sermon was preached by the Rev. John Springer, a noted pioneer evangelist.

Mr. Springer was the first Presbyterian minister to be ordained in Georgia. He opened a school at Walnut Hill, where he taught the great Jesse Mercer, who afterwards founded Mercer University; and he also numbered among his pupils the illustrious John Forsyth, who negotiated with Ferdinand VII of Spain for the purchase of Florida. Liberty Church no longer exists as an organization by this name, but it survives in the Church at Woodstock, an organization into which it was merged. It was located nine miles west of the town of Washington, in the neighborhood of War Hill, where the Tory power in Upper Georgia was overthrown by a Presbyterian elder, Colonel Andrew Pickens, in the famous Revolutionary battle of Kettle Creek.

One of the Presbyters at this first meeting of the Hopewell Presbytery was Dr. Moses Waddell. At Mount Carmel, near Appling, Georgia, this pioneer educator opened an academy which became historic. Here he taught John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, afterwards Vice-President of the United States; and William H. Crawford, a distinguished statesman, who, while a candidate for the highest office in the nations’s gift, was stricken with paralysis, a misfortune which alone prevented him from reaching the White House. Mr. Crawford was Secretary of the Treasury in the Monroe Cabinet and Minister to France during the First Empire; and the great Napoleon once said of him that he was the only man at the French Court to whom he ever felt constrained to bow. The Emperor’s reception of Mr. Crawford constitutes one of the most dramatic incidents in our diplomatic annals. Dr. Waddell also taught Hugh Swinton Legare, a Secretary of the Navy, in the Tyler Cabinet; George McDuffie, of South Carolina, an orator second only to the great Calhoun; and George R. Gilmer, afterwards Governor of this State. On account of Dr. Waddell’s prestige as an educator he was called to preside over the University of Georgia, the oldest State University in America, founded in 1785.

Rev. John Newton, another Presbyter whose name appears on the minutes of the first meeting of Hopewell, organized near Lexington what is probably the oldest Church in the Synod of Georgia—Beth-salem. Dr James Stacy, the accredited historian of the PCUS, inclines to this opinion. Beth-salem still survives in the Presbyterian Church at Lexington.

In the course of time the Presbytery of Hopewell was subdivided into smaller units as population became more dense; and finally, at Macon, in the fall of 1845, these various Presbyteries were organized into an ecclesiastical body known as the Synod of Georgia.

Words to Live By:
The Excellency of Brotherly Unity—Psalm 133 A Song of Ascents, of David.
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious oil upon the head,
Coming down upon the beard,
Even Aaron’s beard,
Coming down upon the edge of his robes.
It is like the dew of Hermon
Coming down upon the mountains of Zion;
For there the Lord commanded the blessing— life forever.

“Other places have been sorely visited and have sorely suffered. Sin, no doubt, has been the procuring cause of all our sufferings.”


Pray for Repentance and for Reformation

From volume 1 of Wm. B. Sprague’s ANNALS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN PULPIT, we find this account of the Rev. William Hill. Following a brief biographical sketch, we look then at a sermon he presented on the occasion of a great tragedy–the burning of the theater in Richmond, Virginia, and a significant loss of life that resulted on that occasion, in 1811:



“William Hill, the son of Joseph and Joanna (Read) Hill, was born in Cumberland County, Virginia, on the 3d of March, 1769. His ancestors were from England. He lost his father when he was five years old; and, after the lapse of a few years, his mother gave him a stepfather in Mrs. Daniel Allen, father of the Rev. Carey Allen, and an elder in the Presbyterian Church in Cumberland County, at that time under the pastoral care of the Rev. Samuel Stanhope Smith. At the age of eleven, he lost his mother, who seems to have been a devout and exemplary Christian, and to have made impressions upon the mind of her son in favor of a religious life, that had a powerful influence in ultimately determining his character. One year previous to this, he was placed under the tuition of Mr. Drury Lacy, who, for three years, was employed by Mr. Allen as a teacher in his family. After his mother’s death, he was placed under the guardianship of one who cared little for religion, and under whose influence he soon lost his serious impressions, and became absorbed to a great extent, in the pleasures of fashionable life.

“This habit of carelessness, however, was not destined to be of long continuance. In 1785, he entered Hampden Sydney College, then under the Presidency of the Rev. John Blair Smith. So low was the state of religion in the College at that time, that there was not a student who evinced any regard for it, nor one who was known to possess a Bible. During the early part of his collegiate course, he endeavored to banish all thoughts of religion, and indulged freely in the views common to his ungodly associates; but even then he had his moments of reflection when he was haunted by the remembrance of his mother’s counsels and prayers. Nearly two years elapsed, after he entered College, before his character seemed to undergo a radical change. After his mind had, for some time, been turned inward upon itself in silent and anxious thought, he retired to a secluded spot, where he gave vent to the agony of his spirit in earnest cries to the Divine mercy, and was enabled, as he believed, to devote himself without reserve to the service of God.

Shortly after, two or three other young men connected with the College experienced a similar change of views and feelings, and associated themselves with him in a private devotional service, which, as it became known, excited the most bitter opposition from their fellow students, and even drew forth threats of vengeance, unless it were discontinued. This brought the matter to the ears of the President, who assured them not only that they should be protected in their rights, but that they should have the privilege of holding their meeting in his parlor, and that he would himself be present and assist in conducting it. A revival of religion now commenced, which soon included among its subjects half of the students in College…The revival extended into neighboring churches, and then into those which were more remote, and was more extensive and powerful than had been experienced in Virginia since the days of President [Samuel] Davies.”

It breaks our preconceptions to read that times then were not much different than today. Unbelief, atheism and the persecution of those who desire to live godly lives, these things were just as much a part of early American history as they are today. God brought reformation and revival then, and He can so bless again.

THE RICHMOND FIRE


It was during the summer of 1787 that William Hill made a public profession of his faith in Christ as his Savior. In 1790 he was licensed to preach, and after serving a term as a missionary, took the pulpit of the Presbyterian Church in Winchester, Virginia in 1800. It was there in 1812 that he preached a sermon in reflection on what has been termed early America’s first great disaster. Late in 1811, a great fire had swept a theater in Richmond, VA, trapping many of the theater-goers and killing 72. The nation mourned, and Rev. Hill was one of many who delivered a sermon in retrospect of that tragedy. A portion of his sermon follows, with a link at the end for those who may want to read the full sermon.

SERMON, &c.

Luke XIII.–1st and 5th inclusive.

“There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.  Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”

The Blessed Saviour in the close of the last chapter had just mentioned what would be the dreadful doom of obstinate and impenitent sinners, who, when in the hands of their adversary, and about to be hauled before their Judge, should still neglect to make their peace with him.–This induced some person present to mention the case of those Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices, as a case supposed to be in point. The Saviour, as was his custom, took an occasion, from the relation of that barbarous act, to deduce a pious improvement, and to impart useful instruction.

By referring to another passage of Scripture, and to the Jewish historian Josephus, we learn the occasion of this cruel deed. These persons, slain by Pilate, the procurator of Judea, were some of the faction of Judas of Galilee, mentioned by Gamaliel in the 5th Chap. of the Acts of the Apostles, and more at large by Josephus. This Judas had stirred up the Galileans to sedition against the Roman government, under a pretense of asserting their liberty, by freeing them from the Roman tribute; and some of them coming to Jerusalem, to sacrifice according to the custom of the Jews, at the Passover, Pilate caused them to be slain upon the spot, while they were engaged in offering up their sacrifices, shedding their blood, with that of their beasts, which they were slaying for the altar.

Our Saviour takes occasion from the relation of this event, to correct a very vicious humor, which has always raged in the world, that of censuring the faults of others, while we overlook our own.

The principle of self-love which was inherent in man, has, by our apostasy degenerated into self-flattery, so that it has now almost become natural in man, to supply the want of a good conscience, by a good opinion of themselves. And hence it comes to pass, that men are so ready to take all advantages to confirm themselves in that false peace, which they have created to themselves in their own imagination; and so they can but maintain a comfortable opinion of themselves, it matters not how uncharitable they are to others; and knowing no better way to foster this fond conceit of themselves than by fancying God to be their friend, it hence comes to pass, that they are so apt to interpret the providence of God towards others in favor of themselves, and to abuse the judgments which fall upon their neighbors, into an argument of their own comparative innocence.

Therefore, our Saviour, who knew what was in man, and what kind of conclusions men are apt to draw from such occurrences of Providence as are before us, endeavors in the first place to prevent the bad use which they were apt to make of them. “Suppose ye,” says he, “that those Galileans were sinners, above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, nay.”

To this instance of the Galileans, he adds another still stronger. Pilate might be represented as a tyrant, and the best of men are liable to suffer, by the cruel hand of oppression. But he now mentions an occurrence of a recent date, and well known to all at Jerusalem, which proceeded immediately from the hand of God, without the agency of man. “Those eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all that dwelt at Jerusalem? I tell you nay.”

And having thus anticipated the censuring of others, our Saviour proceeds to awaken his hearers to a consideration and care of themselves. “I tell you nay; but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”

The general sense of which words, is, that impenitency in sin, will certainly be the ruin of men sooner or later. It will bring great mischiefs upon them in this world; but however that may be, it will infallibly plunge them into inconceivable misery in the next. But besides the certain denunciation of misery and ruin to all impenitent sinners, which is the largest sense of the words, and analogous to many other declarations of Scripture, it is probable that our Saviour, in the present instance, more immediately referred to those temporal calamities which were shortly to befall the Jews; and by way of prediction, foretold what would be the fate of that whole nation, if they continued impenitent. There is a peculiar force in the [Greek] word [in our text] which means something more than merely, likewise, or also, as it is rendered in our translation. It means literally, “except ye repent, ye shall all perish in like manner,” i.e., besides the vengeance of another world, a temporal judgment as sad as those just alluded to, and not much unlike them, shall come upon this whole nation; which awful prediction was soon after fulfilled at the siege and sack of Jerusalem, by the Roman army of Titus.

The pious and useful reflections, suggested by the subject under consideration, would also very naturally arise from the late awful visitation of Richmond which has shrouded that city in gloom—thrown our legislatures into mourning, and suspended the voice of melody and song. The dreadful scene forbids all attempts at painting it, for it would actually beggar all description. It is true our friends and fellow citizens have been arrested—suddenly arrested—in an hour of thoughtless gaiety and mirth.—Many—Ah! many have fallen victims to devouring flames; without previous reflection hurried to a judgment bar, and to a destiny henceforth unalterable. And are we to conclude, that they were the guilty, and we the innocent? Our Saviour cautions us from drawing such a conclusion, but assures us, “that except we repent, we shall all likewise perish!”

From the text and occasion thus explained, let us consider two things.

1st. The wrong use and censorious conclusions which men are apt to draw from signal judgments of God upon others.

2nd. The right use which we should make of these things; which is, to reflect upon our own sins, and repent of them; lest the like, or great judgments overtake us….

and Rev. Hill concludes his sermon:
…Be assured we have not been called to repentance and reformation too soon. God knows, the state of religion, of morals, & manners is gloomy enough among us; we have enough to repent of, enough that calls aloud for reformation. May we not hope we are already sensible of it! Let us then show our sincerity by our conduct—use all our influence from our standing in society and from the stations we may fill, to suppress vice and impiety in every shape; and to approve ourselves to our Maker. Other places have been sorely visited and have sorely suffered. Sin, no doubt, has been the procuring cause of all our sufferings.

To read the full sermon, click here.

Sprague, William, vol. 3, p. 563-564.

To read more about the Richmond fire and a recent book written about that tragedy, click here.

The Quality of Mercy, Unstrained
From the diary of the Rev. J. J. Janeway.

March 2, 1806.

“My mind has been teeming with charitable schemes. I have thought that, had I wealth, I should esteem it an honour to employ all, beside what my subsistence required, in relieving the poor and in aiding the promotion of the gospel. But I have suspected a mixture of corrupt passion and self-seeking in these imagined schemes; and on this account I have prayed God to purify my views and motives, and give me charity out of a pure heart, and faith unfeigned. How deceitful the heart! It becomes a Christian to see that, while he thinks he is doing God service, he do not seek himself. This day I preached on Christian zeal. Ah! how much I want of this virtue!    Would to God I had more!

But alas I am sluggish, and feel little of that holy fervour which warmed and animated the spirits of the apostles. With respect to the church to which I am connected, I desire to think and act with meekness and moderation. The will of God be done! If it is my duty to remain here and make unusual sacrifices, as I have since my marriage, I desire to know and do it. At present I have but few thoughts about it. God gave me what I have, and he has a right to take it when he will.”

The duty of pastoral visitation he recognized and practised. His systematic habits enabled him to accomplish much in this matter. Of it he made a conscience; though he often complains of want of disposition and talent to drop a word for God, and render his visits more practical. Of his own feelings he never was accustomed to speak much. He was silent as to what God had done for his soul. But to reprove vice and rebuke sin he never failed. A gentle savour of piety seasoned his conversation; and at the bedside of the sick and dying he was peculiarly happy. Others thought well of his services in such respects; but he judged himself severely by the word of God, and felt that he had fallen below the standard. But at home, and in the secresies of his closet, he wrestled for the fervour and earnestness which would qualify him for his work.