It was yesterday actually—September 17th, 1936—and not today’s date of September 18th, when Dr. J. Gresham Machen spoke in Westfield, New Jersey on the subject “Shall We Obey God, or Man?”. But as we didn’t want to pass up mention of this occasion, so you will please forgive a bit of backtracking.

This appears to be one of Machen’s messages which is now lost. I did not find any title close to “Shall We Obey God, or Man?” among Dr. Machen’s published works, but if I missed something, please bring it to my attention. Like so much of Machen’s writings, this too would have remained a timely message for our own day. Perhaps there are still some notes, an outline, or even a transcript preserved among the Machen Papers at Westminster Theological Seminary?

DR. J. G. MACHEN SPEAKS HERE SUNDAY.

“Shall We Obey God, or Man?” is the subject to be discussed by Rev. Dr. J. Gresham Machen of Philadelphia on Sunday at 8 p.m. in the Masonic Temple. This meeting, the last in the series of three sponsored by a local committee interested in the newly organized Presbyterian Church of America, has been planned to bring before the public some of the outstanding issues before the Presbyterian Church today.

Dr. Machen, who is Professor of New Testament in Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and long identified with the fundamentalist group in the Presbyterian Church, today is a national figure. IN 1928 he headed a group of men that left Princeton Seminary and about four years later was instrumental in the founding of the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions. It was the establishment of this board that brought to a head the fast growing differences between the two groups, for from this board, termed illegal by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., Dr. Machen and others were ordered to resign. Their refusal to do so lead finally this year to their withdrawal from the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. and the formation of the Presbyterian Church of America.

Why the matter has been doctrinal rather than administration as claimed by the General Assembly that met in Syracuse last May, in what way the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. has placed the word of man above the word of God and why Conservatives cannot expect to purify the church from within are among the things which will be explained by Dr. Machen.

Acclaimed by his friends and foes alike as the outstanding Greek scholar of the world today, known as an ardent defender of Fundamentalism and the author of numerous well-known books, Dr. Machen will come prepared to state authoritatively the position of the new Presbyterian Church of America.

This same news clipping, pictured at right, can be found in context on the front page of The Westfield, New Jersey Leader, here :
http://archive.wmlnj.org/TheWestfieldLeader/1936/1936-09-17/pg_0001.pdf . Our copy of this clipping is from the scrapbook collection gathered by the Rev. Henry G. Welbon.

Words to Live By:
In every age and era, there are challenges that confront the Christian. There is always the contest, whether to obey God or man. Strive to obey God daily, moment by moment, while the challenges may still be simpler and less painful. Set the habit now. Walk in the light of His Word and make a practice of remembering God’s faithfulness. For one, make a habit of noting His answers to your prayers. Then, when real challenges to obedience come, you should be able to say, “How can I deny Him now, when He has been faithful to me all these years?”

A Potential Schism Halted by a Compromise

Initially there was no real problem with the written standards for the Presbyterian Church in America. Ministerial students were simply tested for their learning and soundness in the faith.  But a controversy in the mother country soon changed this.  So the question arose, should teaching and ruling elders be required to subscribe to the subordinate standards of the Westminster Assembly in their entirety, or just for their essential truths?  The fact that so many officers were still in the process of emigrating to the colonies made this a relevant question for the infant church to resolve.

Conscious of the potential for schism, on September 17, 1729, Jonathan Dickinson became the main proponent against the total subscriptionist party in the church.  His argument was simple.  He believed the Bible was the sufficient rule for faith and life.  Subscription must be adhered to it and to it alone, not to some man-made summary of it, as good as it might be.

The total subscriptionist side also believed the Bible was all-sufficient for doctrine and life, but were equally convinced that the Westminster standards of confession and catechisms offer an adequate summary of the Old and New Testaments.  To receive it and adopt it in its entirely would stop any heresies which may invade the church from either within or without the church.

At the synod in 1729, Dickinson and his followers won the day with what has become known at the Adopting Act of 1729.  The document stated that on the one hand, there was a clear requirement to receive and adopt the Westminster Standards.  However, if an elder, whether teaching or ruling elder, had an exception to those standards, he was to make known to the church or presbytery his exception.  The latter body would then judge whether the exception dealt with essential and necessary articles of doctrine, worship, or government. If it did not, then he could be ordained without official censure or social ostracism.

The entire body of elders gathered at the Philadelphia Synod gave thanks to God in solemn praise and prayer that the resolution of this potential schism had been averted and unity was maintained in the infant Presbyterian church.

Words to live by:  It is always good that disunity should be avoided and unity be maintained.  But at what cost, is the question?   The compromise here looked good on the surface.  But presbyteries and synods and assemblies are made up of fallible men who can, sadly, declare that the basic truths of the Christian religion are not necessary to be held, as is the case now with several liberal Presbyterian bodies.   Obviously, much prayer must be made for those who instruct and rule over us, that God’s Spirit will keep the visible church pure in both faith and life. The true key to doctrinal unity springs from a daily awareness of our own sinfulness, from hearts broken before the Lord in godly humility, Seeking the forgiveness found in Jesus Christ alone.

Excerpted from Volume III of The Presbyterian Magazine, September 1853, pp. 413-415.
This recounting of the venerable Dr. Alexander’s farewell to his congregation bears the following footnote:

THE PRESBYTERIAN says, that “A valued friend recently discovered in the possession of one of the Pine Street parishoners of Dr. Archibald Alexander,  a manuscript copy of the remarks made by him after his closing sermon as the pastor, and sends it to us for publication, with the remark that ‘it is eminently characteristic of the man, and peculiarly seasonable in its suggestions at this time.’ It will, of course, be read with much interest.”

DR. ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER’S FAREWELL ADDRESS.

As it is known to this congregation that I have been appointed by the General Assembly to be a Professor in the Theological School, which they are about to establish at Princeton, New Jersey; and as the time draws near when it will be expected that I should declare my mind in relation to this appointment, I have judged it proper and expedient, in the first place, to make a communication to you, the dear people of my charge.

After viewing this important subject in every light in which I could place it, and after having earnestly sought the direction of Heaven, it does appear to me to be the call of Providence, which I cannot and ought not to resist.

This resolution has not been formed under the influence of any dissatisfaction with my present condition, nor from any want of affection to this people; for, since I have been your pastor, no event has occurred to disturb that peace and harmony which should ever exist between minister and people; and I have had no reason to doubt the sincerity and cordiality of the attachment of this congregation to me, from the first day I came amongst them until this time. For all their respect and attention, and especially for that readiness with which they have received the word at my mouth, “I give thanks to God.” I moreover wish to say, that I do not know a single congregation within the bounds of our Church, of which I would choose to be pastor in preference to this. No invitation, therefore, from any other would ever have separated us.

I did expect to live and die with you, unless ill health (with which I have been threatened of late) should have made a removal expedient. But we know nothing of the designs of Providence with regard to us. His dispensations are unsearchable. In the whole of this business, thus far, I have been entirely passive. I never expected or sought this appointment. When it was mentioned to me by some members of the Assembly, the day it took place, my answer was, that I sincerely wished they would think of some other person; that it was an office which I did not covet, and for which I felt myself altogether unqualified. But when asked whether I would give the subject a serious and deliberate consideration, if I should be appointed, I answered, that this I dare not oppose.

Since the appointment has been made, I have thought much, but said little. I have seriously and deliberately considered the subject. I never viewed any decision to be made by me in so important a light. I think I have desired to do the will of God, and have, as earnestly as I could, asked His counsel and guidance, and the result is, that I am convinced that I ought not to refuse such a call.

To train up young men for the ministry has always been considered of higher importance to the Church of Christ than to preach the gospel to a particular flock, already gathered into the fold; and it has always been considered as a sufficient reason for dissolving the pastoral relation between minister and people, that he was wanted for this employment; and sister churches, which do not allow of removals from a pastoral charge, do, nevertheless, admit this to be a sufficient reason for the translation of a minister.

In addition to this, it ought to be considered that this call comes to me in a very peculiar way. It is not the call of a College, or University, or any such institution, but it is the call of the whole Church by their representatives. And I confess that it has weighed much with my mind, that this appointment was made by the General Assembly in circumstances of peculiar seriousness and solemnity, and after special prayer for Divine direction and superintendence, and by an almost unanimous vote. Perhaps it would be difficult to find a disinterested person who would not say, under such circumstances, “It is your duty to go–it appears to be the call of God;” and I do believe that the majority of this congregation are convinced in their judgment, whatever their feelings may dictate, that I would be out of my duty to refuse. Indeed, I cannot but admire the deportment of the people in relation to this matter. Although tenderly affected, and many of you grieved at heart, yet you have not ventured to say “Stay.”  You saw that there was something remarkable in the dispensation, and you knew not but that the finger of God was in the affair, and therefore, with a submissive spirit, you were disposed to say, “The will of the Lord be done.”

It does appear hard, indeed, that this bereavement should fall upon you who have already been bereaved so often; but consider that He who causeth the wound hath power to heal it, and can turn this event to your greater advantage; and I entertain a confident persuasion that if you willingly make this sacrifice for the good of the Church, the great Head of the Church will furnish you with a pastor after His own heart, who will feed you with knowledge. Commit your cause to Him with fervent prayer and humble confidence, and He will not forget nor forsake you.

My dear brethren, as we have lived in peace and love, I hope that we shall part in the same spirit. I hope that we will remember one another unceasingly at the throne of grace. Let us recollect the times and seasons when we have taken sweet converse together in this house, and other places where prayer is wont to be made. If any shall choose to be displeased, and follow me with hard speeches instead of prayers, I shall not return unto them as they measure unto me. I will not resent their conduct. I desire ever to be disposed to bear you as a people on my heart with tender love; and now to His grace and kind protection do I commit you. Farewell !

This is the concluding article in the series PRESBYTERIANS IN AMERICA. The author, Rev. Prof. Paul Woolley, was formerly the professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. I do hope you have found Rev. Woolley’s articles both interesting and instructive, and I do trust that our readers are more familiar now than they were previously with the several Presbyterian denominations in our country.—Editor.

VII – The Secession Tradition

[Reformed Presbyterian Advocate, 86.4 (April 1952): 37-38.]

                    The question of church patronage—the right of one man to appoint the pastor of a parish—began to trouble the church at least as early as the eighth century. In some instances it has not yet ceased to trouble it. The First and Second Books of Discipline of the Scottish Church, however, in the heroic days of John Knox and Andrew Melville, established the principle that the installation of a pastor was subject to the approval of the congregation and the elders.

               It was the violation of this fundamental principle in the mid-eighteenth century which led Ebenezer Erskine and others to leave the established Church and found the Associate Presbytery, popularly called the Secession. In 1753 two Associate ministers came to this country at the request of settlers here. Shortly thereafter, they organized the Associate Presbytery of Pennsylvania. After the American Revolution a portion of the Associate Presbytery of Pennsylvania and all of the Associate Presbytery of New York joined in a union with the Reformed (Covenanter) Presbytery to form the Associate Reformed Church.

               It would be of little value to follow, in this series of articles, all of the ecclesiastical vicissitudes of this tradition. Let me then refer to what is of importance for our purposes.

               As we have already seen the Reformed Presbytery was reconstituted and continues its existence in the Reformed Presbyterian Churches of today, of which we wrote in the last previous article.

               The portion of the Associate Presbytery of Pennsylvania which did not enter into union continued the Associate tradition and exists today as the Associate Presbyterian Church, the smallest ecclesiastical body in the United States consisting of more than one congregation and bearing the name Presbyterian, to the writer’s knowledge. It has some eight churches in Pennsylvania, Iowa and Kansas with a total membership of about 300. Restricted communion and the use of inspired psalms only in praise are principles of the Church. It cooperates with the United Original Secession Church of Scotland in conducting foreign missionary work in India.

               The Associate Reformed union is still vigorous, in that form, in the South, where the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church has some twenty-five thousand members in about 150 congregations scattered from Virginia to Florida and west as far as Arkansas and Missouri. Psalms are used exclusively in worship. There are missionaries at work in Mexico and in India. Erskine College, with a theological school in connection with it, is supervised by the Church at Due West, South Carolina. A proposal to unite the Church with the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. (Southern) failed of adoption in 1951.

               The largest American Church of this tradition is, however, the United Presbyterian Church of North America. In 1858 the Associate Reformed Church (the western and New York body, as distinct from the Synod of the South) and the large majority of the Associate Presbyterian Church united to form the United Presbyterian Church. It thus became the majority body in number to represent the heirs of the Covenanter and Secession testimonies.

               The United Presbyterian Church today has about 215,000 members in approximately 830 churches. It is perhaps distinctive in combining a reputation for general conservatism with a thorough-going abandonment of the features which characterized the Secession and Covenanter traditions. There is no longer any interest in covenanting, psalms are not used exclusively in worship, restricted communion is not practiced, there is no testimony against oath-bound societies. The confessional basis is probably the most lax of any presbyterian body in the country, since in 1925 a Confessional Statement was adopted which supersedes the Westminster Standards in cases where there is conflict between them. This Statement is unsatisfactory in various ways, as, for example, in its statement concerning Scripture. The major weakness, however, is the indication that it is not necessary for officers to agree with the Standards so long as they do not determinedly oppose them. This makes the Standards largely useless.

               The United Presbyterian Church has historically a strong reform tradition. Its position in favor of strict sabbath observance and against the use of alcoholic beverages has been vigorous.

               The Church has a theological seminary at Pittsburgh and six liberal arts colleges. Its foreign missionary activity has been particularly notable in Egypt, Ethiopia and the Sudan. It also works in India. The contributions for foreign missions approach half a million dollars a year.

               The United Presbyterian Church has often contemplated, discussed, and has voted upon, union with the Reformed Church in America, but the union enthusiasm of the latter has not equaled that of the former.

               Wider unions have also been contemplated. The United Presbyterian Church is today an example of a Church which has lost all touch with the principles for which its original constituent elements came into being. It has continued a conservative tradition in certain areas, but its dominant control is unsympathetic to this. There is no evident reason for its continued independent existence.

*     *     *     *     *

Dr. Paul Woolley’s series of articles on Presbyterians in America continues today with a segment on churches of Covenanter ancestry. Please keep in mind that these articles were written in the early 1950s and so much has changed since that time.

VI – The Churches of Covenanter Ancestry

[Reformed Presbyterian Advocate, 86.3 (March 1952): 25-26]

                    In English-speaking lands religious persecution has rarely been as vigorous as it was in Scotland in the seventh, eighth and ninth decades of the seventeenth century. Probably the only exception is the series of burnings in England under the Roman Catholic Queen Mary Tudor.
               The Scottish persecution was due to the loyalty of many Scots to the obligations which they had assumed a few years previous when they signed the Covenants which pledged them to maintain the reformed Christian faith in Scotland. The monarchs Charles II and James II would have no truck with Presbyterianism, and they were determined to force every one to worship under the authority of bishops, led by episcopally installed ministers, and following an episcopally imposed liturgy. There were thousands, however, who preferred to suffer rather than capitulate to an unrighteous demand.

               When William of Orange and his wife Mary, came to the throne of Great Britain in 1688, peace began to return to Scotland. They proceeded to reestablish the Church of Scotland as a presbyterian Church. However, the renewed Church did not formally reassume the obligation of the Covenants which their fathers had made before God. The acts which had made the Covenants and covenanting illegal were not repealed. Presbyterian government was not affirmed as of divine right.

               Consequently some of the faithful of the days of persecution continued to remain outside the established Church. They had no minister, but in 1706 a minister left the establishment to lead them. A licentiate soon joined him, but not until 1743 did the accession of a second minister make possible the constitution of a presbytery. Thus began the Reformed Presbytery, from which, in due course, grew Reformed Presbyterian Churches in Scotland, in Ireland, in Australia and in the United States. Reformed Presbyterians were popularly called Covenanters.

               The first Reformed Presbyterian minister came to this country from Scotland about 1751, and in 1774 the Reformed Presbytery was constituted. In 1782 many of the American Covenanters joined with the Associate Presbytery to form the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. Those who continued grew, however, and in 1809 constituted a synod.
               Today, however, there are two denominations in the United States which have descended from the Covenanters. This is the result of a difference of opinion which developed during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, a backwoods Democrat. It concerned the possibility of participating in the civil government of the country as a Christian. Would all such participation be sinful? Some held that it would not. Others insisted that the civil constitution must recognize God as the source of all power and Christ as the ruler of the nations before citizens might vote or participate in any fashion in directing the affairs of the civil state. As a consequence, from 1833 onward there have been two synods in the Reformed Presbyterian stream in this country.

               The Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America, General Synod allows its members to make their own conscientious decisions as to participation in civil affairs. One of its members, George H. Stuart, actively promoted the idea of the union of the various Presbyterian and Reformed Churches in the United States immediately after the Civil War. In 1950 the Church reported eleven congregations with 1,374 members. Regular readers of The Reformed Presbyterian Advocate know of its home and foreign missionary work and of the theological instruction at Cedarville, Ohio. Further description is, therefore, unnecessary.

               The Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America restrains its members from voting or other participation in the civil government under the present Constitution of the United States. It urges the amendment of the Constitution. Praise in worship is confined to inspired psalms and without instrumental accompaniment. Foreign missions are conducted in Syria and Cyprus and in Japan. Geneva College at Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, is controlled by the Synod. Their congregations frequently use the titled, “Church of the Covenanters.” In 1950, 5,339 members were reported in 75 congregations. The Theological Seminary is located in Wilkinsburg, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.