January 2019

You are currently browsing the archive for the January 2019 category.

January 20: School & Family Catechist, WSC Q. 3

20 January, 2019 in January 2019 by Wayne Sparkman | No comments

The School & Family Catechist

Q.3. What do the Scriptures principally teach?

  1. The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning god, and what duty God requires of man.

EXPLICATION.

Principally. – Chiefly, above all other things.

Duty. –Something which God requires of us, and which we are bound to perform.

ANALYSIS.

By this answer we are informed that the Scriptures principally teach us two things:

1.What we are to believe concerning God. —2 Tim i. 13. Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus.

  1. What duty God requires of man. —Psal. cxix. 105. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

January 19: The Cause of Doctrinal Troubles, part 2

19 January, 2019 in January 2019 by Wayne Sparkman | No comments

The Cause Of The Doctrinal Trouble In The Northern Presbyterian Church, part 2

(“Exploring Avenues Of Acquaintance And Co-operation”)
By Chalmers W. Alexander
Jackson, Miss.
[THE SOUTHERN PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL 8.14 (15 November 1949): 5-9.]

This is the ninth in the series of articles by Chalmers W’. Alexander under the heading, “Exploring Avenues of Acquaintance And Co-operation.” This is an informative new series of articles written by one of the most able laymen in the Southern Presbyterian Church.

When the reorganization of Princeton Seminary took place in 1929, four outstanding members of the faculty of Princeton Seminary voluntarily resigned their positions in that institution. And they left its campus, never to return.

At that time I was in my freshman year at Princeton University, which is located a few blocks’ distance from the campus of Princeton Seminary. Who were these four outstanding men?

The Scholars Who Left Princeton Seminary

One was Dr. J. Gresham Machen, probably the world’s greatest New Testament scholar at that time. Dr. Machen had received his A.B. degree from Johns Hopkins University, his M.A. from Princeton University, and his B.D. from Princeton Seminary. Then he had studied at the Universities of Marburg and Goettingen, both in Germany. Dr. Machen had been a member of the faculty of Princeton Seminary since 1906.

Another was Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, probably the world’s greatest Old Testament scholar at that time. Dr. Wilson had received his A.B. and his M.A. from Princeton University and his Th.B. from Western Theological Seminary. Then he had studied for two years at the University of Berlin prior to receiving his Ph.D. from Princeton University. Dr. Wilson, a great linguist, had mastered some two dozen languages collateral with Old Testament languages in order to throw light upon the Old Testament and its manuscripts. He had been a member of the Princeton Seminary faculty since 1900.

The third man was Dr. Oswald T. Allis, one of America’s greatest Old Testament scholars today. Dr. Allis received his A.B. from the University of Pennsylvania, his B.D. from Princeton Seminary, his M.A. from Princeton University, and his Ph.D. from the University of Berlin. Dr. Allis had been a member of the faculty of Princeton Seminary since 1910, and since 1918 he had been the Editor of The Princeton Theological Review.

And the fourth man was Dr. Cornelius Van Til, one of the ablest Professors of Apologetics in America at the present time. Dr. Van Til had received his A.B. from Calvin College, his Th.B. and his Th.M. from Princeton Seminary, and his Ph.D. from Princeton University. He had joined the Princeton Seminary faculty in 1928.

These four unusually great scholars left Princeton Seminary and, in association with other men of like mind, they proceeded to found Westminster Theological Seminary, at Philadelphia, in the autumn of 1929.

In this undertaking they were associated with such prominent ministers of the Northern Presbyterian Church as Dr. Maitland Alexander, a former Moderator of the General Assembly of that denomination, and long the President of the Board of Directors of Princeton Seminary until its reorganization in 1929; and Dr. Frank H. Stevenson, former Pastor of the Church of the Covenant in Cincinnati; and Dr. Clarence E. Macartney, a former Moderator of the General Assembly of the Northern Presbyterian Church, and the Pastor of the famed First Presbyterian Church of Pittsburgh.

All three of these prominent ministers had served as members of the Board of Directors of Princeton Seminary until its reorganization in 1929.

Why They Left Princeton Seminary In 1929

The reason why these unusually able scholars and ministers left Princeton Seminary in order to help found Westminster Theological Seminary was because they were firmly convinced that the reorganization of Princeton Seminary would result in serious changes being made in that institution’s hitherto consistently and thoroughly orthodox position in theology.

Some of the sound Princeton Seminary scholars stayed on at Princeton Seminary, after its reorganization in 1929, with the hope that they might so influence its affairs that the Seminary would continue to be consistently and thoroughly orthodox in its position. Dr. Casper Wistar Hodge, Ph.D., was one of this number; but by the time of his death, in 1937, Dr. Hodge had lived to see that his hopes of keeping Princeton Seminary consistently and thoroughly orthodox in all of its teachings had been in vain.

Some Developments Since The Reorganization

A brief review of some of the events which have taken place at Princeton Seminary since its reorganization in 1929 will show that the belief of Dr. Machen and his associates that the reorganization would result in serious doctrinal changes was not without foundation.

For instance, after the reorganization occurred in 1929 signers of the heretical Auburn Affirmation were for the first time placed on the Board of Trustees which controls Princeton Seminary; this was done apparently with the implied consent of the other members of the Board who remained after the reorganization. And in the school year 1937-1938 an Auburn Affirmationist taught in the Seminary as visiting Professor of Homiletics.

Dr. Emil Brunner At Princeton Seminary

During the school year 1938-1939, Dr. Emil Brunner, of Zurich, Switzerland, occupied the position of Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Seminary — the faculty professorship which had been made world-famous by the Hodges and toy Dr. Warfield. The Board of Trustees of the Seminary actually offered Dr. Brunner that professorship as a regular continuing member of the Seminary’s faculty, but he declined the offer.

Now Dr. Brunner is a very able scholar and he had previously raised a vigorous voice against some of the Modernism in Europe. But his own views have themselves been called the “New Modernism” by some of the ablest theologians in this country.

In his book entitled Man In Revolt, Dr Brunner specifically rejects belief in the Virgin Birth of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Dr. Brunner’s views on the inspiration of the Holy Bible are certainly far from adequate. For example, in The Presbyterian, issue of February 17, 1938, he wrote: “It is, however, my conviction that faith in the inspiration of the Bible does not exclude, but includes, the distinction between the Word of God and the earthly, temporal vessel which carries it.” The “earthly, temporal vessel which carries it” is, of course, the Holy Bible. In other words, Dr. Brunner does not believe that all of the Bible is the Word of God.

He substitutes human experience for the Bible as the ultimate standard of truth. As Dr. Cornelius Van Til, Ph.D., states: “That Brunner begins with experience as something that must interpret the Bible, instead of starting from the Bible which must interpret human experience, can be seen from the fact that he has no hesitation in accepting the principles of ‘higher criticism.’ He even feels that it is our business to engage in ‘higher criticism.’ The human element in the Scripture, he thinks, is inherently wrong and we must separate it from the divine.”

This attitude toward the Holy Bible is certainly radically different from the view held by the Hodges and by Dr. Warfield, and it constitutes a radical departure from the view contained in the Westminster Standards.

If Dr. Brunner had been appointed a professor in Union Theological Seminary of New York City, or in the Department of Religion of Princeton University as it is today, or at Yale, or at Harvard, or at the Chicago Divinity School, for instance, there would have been great rejoicing among the Conservatives, for that would have represented a great step upward for those institutions. But for Dr. Brunner to occupy the chair of Systematic Theology which had formerly been occupied by the Hodges and by Dr. Warfield at Princeton Seminary represented a decided step downward for that institution.

How One Minister Became A Regular Member Of The Faculty

Another illustration which shows the change in Princeton Seminary’s attitude since 1929 concerns the appointment to its faculty of a certain minister in the year 1939.

Under the copyright date of 1936, this minister had written a book entitled Christianity in America wherein he stated, among other things: “Few intelligent Protestants can still hold to the idea that the Bible is an infallible book; that it contains no linguistic errors, no historical discrepancies, no antiquated scientific assumptions, not even bad ethical standards. Historical investigation and literary criticism have taken the magic out of the Bible and have made it a composite human book, written by many hands in different ages.”

Clearly the views expressed by him in 1936 were at very serious variance with the views of the inspiration of the Bible which are contained in the Westminster Standards, and this fact was not unknown to those in control of Princeton Seminary. And yet, in spite of this fact, the Board of Trustees of Princeton Seminary elected this minister to serve as a professor in the Seminary for the school year 1938-1939. When, however, the General Assembly of 1938 met, its Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries failed to confirm his appointment as a professor. And, accordingly, the Seminary’s Board of Trustees withdrew his name.

Now only fifteen days before the meeting of the following General Assembly, the General Assembly of 1939, there appeared in The Presbyterian, under the date of May 11, 1939, an article, written by this minister, which was entitled “Convictions”—and in this article he took an entirely different view from that expressed in his book published in 1936.

When the General Assembly of 1939 met, his name was again submitted for confirmation as a professor in Princeton Seminary, and the minister in question personally appeared before that General Assembly’s Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries. A member of the Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries at that time was Mr. C. D. Garrard, of Covington, Kentucky, who was then a Ruling Elder in the Northern Presbyterian Church. Mr. Garrard later wrote an article in which he stated that this minister, in the Committee hearing, in answer to some questions asked by Mr. Garrard, stated that he had been considered thoroughly orthodox when he had graduated from Princeton Seminary, and he had changed his theological position a number of times in the past fifteen years. Mr. Garrard then asked what had caused him to change his views between the 1938 and the 1939 General Assembly meetings, and this minister had replied that he “just grew up.”

After this hearing, the Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries, by a majority vote, then decided to recommend that this minister be confirmed as a professor in Princeton Seminary, although Mr. Garrard voted against it. The General Assembly of 1939 then proceeded to confirm the minister’s appointment to the faculty of the Seminary, and he is still a member of that faculty at the present time.

In all of this the significant fact is that those in control of Princeton Seminary were perfectly willing to elect this minister to a position on the faculty of that seminary months prior to the publication of his article entitled “Convictions”; and the only thing that kept him from becoming a member of the Seminary’s faculty in 1938 was the failure of that Assembly’s Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries to confirm his appointment after the Board of Trustees of Princeton Seminary had submitted his name for confirmation.

(In passing, it is indeed interesting to note that Mr. C. D. Garrard, of Covington, Kentucky, stated that after he had become interested in the affair of the Auburn Affirmation, and after he had attended the 1939 General Assembly of the Northern Presbyterian Church as one of its Commissioners, he resigned his office as a Ruling Elder and he severed completely all of his connections with the Northern Presbyterian Church. Mr. Garrard is now a Ruling Elder in the Southern Presbyterian Church, and recently he informed me that he is one hundred per cent opposed to the proposed union between the Northern Presbyterian Church and our own denomination.)

Evidence From The New Westminster Bible

A recent illustration of the fact that the reorganization of Princeton Seminary in 1929 opened the door for doctrinal unsoundness to enter into the teachings of that Seminary is the new Westminster Study Edition of the Holy Bible.

This Westminster Study Edition is now sometimes referred to as the “Presbyterian Bible.” It was published by the Westminster Press, a subsidiary of the Northern Presbyterian Church’s Board of Christian Education (which Board has had among its membership, from time to time, various signers of the heretical Auburn Affirmation)..

Three professors from the faculty of Princeton Seminary were among the eleven editors of this Westminster Study Edition of the Holy Bible.

Now what is the tenor of the editorial comments and explanations contained in this Westminster Study Edition?

Dr. Oswald T. Allis, Ph.D., has written that “the Study Edition is definitely critical,, at times even radically so.”

Dr. William Childs Robinson, Th.D., of our Columbia Theological Seminary, has remarked that the editors of the Westminster Study Edition seem hesitant to call Christ God, and that their whole doctrine of the Deity of Christ is weak.

In addition to being weak on the doctrines of the Inspiration of the Bible and of the Deity of Christ, the Study Edition is far from strong in its statements on the Reformed doctrine of the Atonement and Justification. It was such doctrines as these that the great Princeton theologians of the past like Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge and Benjamin B. Warfield exalted, and it was in these doctrines that they glorified.

Even such a secular magazine as Time has stated that, though this Study Edition sticks to the traditional King James wording, “it is far from conservative in commenting on it.”

And yet three professors from the faculty of Princeton Seminary were among the editors of this Westminster Study Edition.

It is certainly safe to say that none of the great theologians at Princeton Seminary during the time of the Hodges and of Dr. Warfield would ever have consented to have their names associated with an edition of the Bible which, in its editorial comments and explanations, can in so many instances be termed as “definitely critical, at times even radically so,” and as being “far from conservative.”

Princeton Seminary Since 1929

It is not our purpose in this article to affirm or to deny that there are sound men on the faculty of Princeton Seminary at the present time. No one, however, can contend that, since its reorganization in 1929 which resulted in “new School” theology being introduced into its teachings, Princeton Seminary’s faculty has been as consistently and as thoroughly orthodox as it was in the days of the Hodges and of Dr. Warfield.

Since 1929, Princeton Seminary, either through members of its administrative personnel or as a part of its policy as an educational institution, has been following the course of doctrinal inclusivism. The enthusiastic co-operation of one of the Seminary’s most prominent officials in the organization of the World Council of Churches—a movement which no one can claim is consistently orthodox—is a recent case in point. Some very able Presbyterian ministers and theologians are of the opinion that Princeton Seminary is traveling a route which will lead ultimately to surrender to Modernism, unless it changes its course.

New School” Theology And The Northern Presbyterian Church

Wherever the liberal “New School” theology has taken root in the Northern Presbyterian Church it has caused serious trouble.

In fact, the principal cause of the doctrinal trouble in the entire Northern Presbyterian Church is the presence in that denomination of the liberal “New School” theology and of the Modernism which it has so often helped to promote.

If We Were To Unite

If the proposed union between our Southern Presbyterian Church and the very much larger Northern Presbyterian Church were to take place, we could rest assured that certain changes would be forced upon all of our seminaries so that the liberal “New School” theology could be taught in them side by side with the conservative “Old School” theology, which conservative “Old School” theology has always been the official doctrinal belief of our denomination since its founding.

Frankly and candidly, in some of our seminaries at the present time there are reported to be some strong influences which are tending definitely toward Modernism. But these reported influences have not been authorized by our General Assembly. Incidentally, it is the opinion of a large company throughout our denomination that it is now time for our General Assembly to appoint a competent committee charged with the responsibility of examining these seminaries with a view toward overhauling them, if need be, so that all of their teachings will conform completely to the teachings of the Holy Bible as they are summarized in the Westminster Standards.

Now if the proposed union with the Northern Presbyterian Church takes place, we can rest assured that all of our seminaries will be overhauled —tout the purpose of their reorganization after the proposed union will be, not to bring their teachings more into conformity to the teachings of the Bible as they are summarized in the Westminster Standards, but to put the official stamp of approval upon introducing the liberal “New School” theology into their teachings!

What shall every Southern Presbyterian, as a Bible-believing Christian who repudiates completely the liberal “New School” theology and who rejects altogether the Modernism for which it has so often helped to prepare the way, say with regard to the proposed union with the heresy-tainted Northern Presbyterian Church?

Thou Shalt Say, No!

January 18: T.D. Witherspoon [1836-1898]

18 January, 2019 in January 2019 by Wayne Sparkman | No comments

The latest issue of The Confessional Presbyterian focuses on the life and ministry of the Rev. Thomas Dwight Witherspoon. Among the articles is a very useful review of Witherspoon’s rare work, Children of the Covenant. A most unusual work, it is made up of three eulogies for children of another pastor’s family; an evangelistic message to children; and an exhortation to parents, urging them not to wait to talk with their children about the claims of Christ upon their souls. For a closer look at this 2014 issue and its contents, click here.
A Living Fire on the Altar of his Heart

Thomas Dwight Witherspoon was born at Greensboro, Alabama, January 17, 1836, educated at the famous academy of Professor Henry Tutwiler, in Green County, Alabama, then the University of Alabama, and the University of Mississippi, where he was graduated in 1856. Witherspoon had by that time decided to enter the gospel ministry, and took his theological course at the Presbyterian Seminary in Columbia, S.C., where Dr. James Henley Thornwell was the able and distinguished President. While attending Columbia, he fell in love with the seminary president’s eldest daughter, but death took her from him the day before the wedding.

Witherspoon was ordained on May 23, 1860, and installed as the pastor of the Presbyterian Church at Oxford, Mississippi, where he was exerting a very fine influence on the students of the university located there, and might well have considered it his duty to remain with his Church. After war’s interruption, having served as chaplain, Witherspoon went on to serve a number of churches before taking up a position as professor in his final years. Dr. Francis Beattie, a close friend, wrote the following tribute, drawing from Witherspoon’s life a number of lessons for young preachers.

TDW_carte_de_visThe Late Thomas Dwight Witherspoon, D.D., LL.D., as a Preacher
by Francis R. Beattie, Ph.D., D.D., LL.D., The Homiletic Review 39.3 (March 1900) 213-219.

While Dr. Witherspoon was very popular as a preacher with the people of the highest culture, he was equally popular with the rough mountaineers of Kentucky. His work of instruction in the Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary was supplemented by summer evangelistic campaigns in the mountains. His varied experience makes the study of his personality and his methods of peculiar value to other preachers.

The observant study of the personality and the methods of work followed by effective preachers affords an exceedingly useful form of homiletical research. The careful study of the best treatises on homiletics is a good thing, but to observe the preacher actually at work is often better. In any event, such study of homiletics in the concrete is a valuable addition to its investigation in the abstract.

In this article the personality and pulpit work of the late Dr. Witherspoon, Professor of Homiletics and Pastoral Theology in Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, who passed away deeply lamented a little more than a year ago, will be studied for the purpose, namely, of bringing out some useful hints that may be of value to younger ministers. We have heard many preachers in this and other lands, and we can freely say that, as a sermonizer, the subject of this article had very few equals; and as a preacher, if he had possessed a deep, rich voice, he would have had few superiors in this generation as an effective popular pulpit orator.

It was the writer’s privilege to know him very intimately; and, by the courtesy of his family, he has had the advantage of access to his literary remains for this study. Such a study naturally falls into two parts. The first deals with the personality of the man, and the second with his methods as a preacher.

I. The Personality of the Man.

He was a thorough gentleman. He came from noble ancestry, having in his veins the blood of John Knox. He was dignified and courteous, and always showed this in his intercourse with all classes of people. The most cultured greatly respected him, and those in the lowly walks of life always felt at ease in his presence. In him dignity and courtesy, gentleness and strength, self-respect and consideration for others were finely blended.

Such a man had in this respect important gifts for the preacher. The pulpit always needs such men. When the call to the ministry comes to the sons of our best families, the result is one of God’s noblest gifts to His Church. The Church needs men from all the walks of life, and she urgently requires that all alike be gentle and strong, refined and dignified. A boorish manner or a clownish way in the pulpit will greatly limit a preacher’s usefulness. Good manners, fine feelings, and refined instincts on the part of the preacher will touch a responsive chord in all classes.

His mental gifts were superior. This appeared during his career as a student, and was evident all his life. His powers of mind were finely balanced and harmoniously developed. His logical power was good, his philosophical insight was keen, and he could think a matter through in a very thorough way. His imagination was unusually fine. It was vivid, yet always under the control of good taste and judgment. It was this faculty, with the fine poetic feeling which went along with it, that enabled him to produce profound impressions.

For the preacher all this is important. These gifts, used as they were by Dr. Witherspoon, enabled him to reach all classes. He could edify the refined city congregation, and could deeply move a gathering of peasants among the hills. The Church needs the very best minds for her service, for the day is past when these gifts, consecrated to the Master’s service, can any longer be despised. Above all, to the careful cultivation of the imagination every minister should give earnest attention. This faculty gives vividness and concreteness to preaching. Its use enables the preacher to reproduce Scriptural scenes, and to illustrate the truths he presents in such a way that they stand before the audience like very pictures. The truth has color and movement given to it, and it is thus made attractive and effective. If young ministers would save themselves from getting prosy, they must cultivate the imagination.

He had a deeply sympathetic nature. He had a warm heart as well as a good head. His feelings were very kindly, so that he had sincere sympathy with people in all conditions. The result was that rich and poor, high and low felt that they had ready access to him. He could with the same natural graciousness enter the mansion of the cultured and the cabin of the mountaineer. Children were drawn to him, and those in trouble and sorrow readily sought him in seasons of distress. This gave his preaching a warmth and pathos that ministered much comfort to those in trouble.

He was also in ardent sympathy with nature in her varying moods. Some of his most striking illustrations were drawn from this source. When moderator of the General Assembly in 1884, and at the Westminster Assembly Celebration in 1897, illustrations of this kind then used in public addresses produced effects almost electrical. This sympathy enabled him to produce many original illustrations.

Here are vital hints for the preacher. He must have warm sympathies, if he is to get near to his people and to have heart in his work. And sympathy with nature should be cultivated by every preacher. The Old Testament prophets were deeply imbued with the influences from nature; and our Lord constantly drew on nature for His parables and illustrations. Here is a pattern for the preacher today.

To crown all, Dr. Witherspoon was a man of simple faith and devout piety. He came from a godly ancestry. He early devoted his life to the service of Christ in the Gospel ministry. The records of these early years serve to show how earnest he was in this purpose. He had strong and well-grounded convictions in regard to the reality of divine things. He was a firm believer in the Bible as the Word of God. He so received, and so preached it. His piety was simple, natural, and unobtrusive. His life was always marked by high devotion to principle, so that religion with him was not a mere sentiment.

Here, again, is an example worthy of imitation. The spiritual tone of the preacher has much to do with the quality of his preaching. “Like priest, like people” here means that the piety of the preacher will in the long run determine the average piety of the pew. If the preacher is to retain his power, he must have piety as well as learning. No forced utterances about piety will avail if there be not a living fire on the altar of his heart. The preacher must ever keep this fire burning; and this piety must be deeply rooted in principle, so that his life may commend the Gospel which he preaches.

These natural and gracious endowments in the subject of this paper were cultivated by him with great care and constancy. He formed good habits of study in early days, and kept them up all his life. He did not think that when college and seminary days end, hard study may be given up. He not only prepared his sermons with great care, but he continued to read widely in all directions. The stores thus gathered he poured into his sermons. This discipline enabled him to do his work rapidly and thoroughly, and it also made his sermons fresh and instructive. He could scarcely be dull if he tried. He acquired an almost faultless literary style. His sermons are models of pure English, his conversation was always elegant, his articles for the press were clear as crystal, and his letters were always so correct that they were ready for the printer.

All of this is full of meaning for the young minister. Good mental habits, severe intellectual discipline, wide reading, patient methods of study, and thorough work on sermons are simply indispensable for the preacher of the present day. The dead-line is not so much a matter of years as of habits of study. That line is sometimes crossed a few years after the young man leaves the seminary; or it may not be reached at seventy years of age, as was the case with Cuyler and Storrs, now both over seventy. Unremitting study, constant reading and meditation, ever-increasing knowledge of the Holy Scriptures are the secrets of a growing ministry. If learning without piety makes a fruitless ministry, piety without learning is sure to make an ineffective ministry.

II. His Methods of Work

tdwportrait02There now lie before the writer several thousand sermons fully written, and sermon briefs, and their perusal has been made with deep and pathetic interest. Beside the sermon books and manuscripts lie two books in which a complete record of his sermon texts and of the date and place of preaching is made. The last entry is No. 4,917, which may be taken to represent the number of his sermons. By following this record one can trace out the whole movement of his life during the almost forty years of his ministry. Some of the most touching entries are of the sermons preached when he was a chaplain in the Confederate army, mainly in Virginia. There is the record of one at Waynesburg, Pa., and another at Gettysburg, Pa., about the time of the terrible battle at the latter place. An inspection of this varied material reveals several instructive features of homiletical value.

There is everywhere evidence of most careful work. Everything about these sermons and addresses impresses one with the marked diligence and system of the work. Here are his first sermons, which were parts of trial for licensure and ordination in 1859-60, and they are in very perfect literary form, and very mature for a young man of twenty- three. Here are a dozen books filled with carefully written sermons, and for each an index, giving the text, with a fitting title for the sermon. The sermons on single manuscripts, and even the outlines of his prayer-meeting addresses, bear the same features of systematic treatment and orderly, careful work throughout.

Here is a good lesson for ministers young and old. A good systematic habit of working will save time and make the task lighter. Once in a while a genius may appear who can set all rules of order at defiance, but the average minister must be content with a genius for hard work, and a systematic habit is his best helpmeet in it. Let the young minister acquire this habit at the outset of his ministry, and he will master circumstances, and not be at the mercy of his surroundings.

Another marked feature of the materials before us is their strictly Scriptural nature. A good text, not a mere catchword, of Scripture is usually chosen, carefully expounded, and then its truth developed and applied in a direct and rational way. We do not observe a single case in which some topic of the times is taken for the sermon theme and a text gotten for it. The text is from Scripture, and its truth is brought out by careful exposition, and then applied to the conditions and needs of the time. This is a vital matter for the preacher to regard.

At the present day there is temptation for ministers to forget their true function. They are to preach to the times; but they should always be sure that the message they bear is not their own, but God’s. To heed this will give directness and power to all preaching.

A further quality of the work before us is its expository character. In some cases there is a thorough exposition of some difficult texts, and in others a comprehensive exposition of connected passages. A series of sixteen sermons on the Book of Job, and one of twelve on the Minor Prophets, illustrate this feature. Much labor has been bestowed upon these expositions. They are so complete in both matter and form as to be almost ready for publication.

Here is a pertinent hint for the pulpit of to-day in regard to the nature and value of expository preaching. The people want to know what the Bible teaches. One of the healthful signs of the present time is this demand of the pew for the Bible, and the pulpit should respond promptly and fully to meet it. This means hard work, for expository preaching of the right kind needs more time and labor than any other. The careful and devout exposition of any book of the Bible in a connected way will do both preacher and people great good.

The work lying before us reveals great variety. This variety appears in different respects. In the selection of themes the whole area of religious truth and duty seems to be covered. The texts are taken from all parts of the Old and New Testaments. Doctrinal, evangelical, and practical themes appear in due Scriptural proportion. Biography, history, prophecy, parable, miracle, and promise all recur in ever-inviting variety as one turns the pages of these sermon books. Christian privileges, the duties of Church officers, and the life and work of the Church are all presented in these sermons.

This is an important feature for all preaching. There must be variety in pulpit work, and endless variety, as the Scriptures exhibit and the needs of the people demand. With Christ crucified as the central theme, the pulpit should cause all its preaching to revolve in constantly recurring variety around this theme. Here is room for endless skill, inventive resources, and patient labor. But it will make the pulpit the minister’s throne, and his ministry a constantly growing power.

Along with this variety we see adaptation in the materials before us. The themes were chosen to fit the circumstances. The sermons and prayer-meeting addresses are appropriate. His sermons to children, of which there are many, and on special academic and other occasions, are admirable in their adaptation. Those preached to the soldiers in camp, to students at the university, to people in sorrow and trouble, and to the plain mountain people are always peculiarly suitable. There is genius for adaptation always. This was one of the most marked features of his whole ministry, and never did it more plainly appear than in his later years, when, with a company of the seminary students, he went, during vacation, to the rough mountains of Kentucky to preach the simple Gospel to the people there.

This reveals a feature of his ministry that every preacher should strive to possess. Many a good man fails for lack of tactful adaptation in his preaching. A good sermon fails to hit its mark simply because the aim was not good. Endless labor, and careful study not only of the truth to be set forth in the sermon, but also of the audience to be addressed, are demanded.

There are striking courses of sermons among the material before us. Some of these courses are worth mentioning. One on the apostles and one on the prophets arrest attention. A course on some of the negatives in the Book of Revelations gives: No sin; No tears; No more pain; No more sea; No winter; No night there; No temple. Sometimes two sermons are coupled together so as to make a very vivid contrast: Crowns at the Feet; and Crowns on the Head. One series on “ The Antitheses of Character ” is so marked that it is worth quoting in full: I. Lot, A Worldly Choice; and Moses, A Religious Choice. II. Baalam, A Religious Sentiment; Caleb, A Religious Principle. III. Samson, Endowments Wasted; Gideon, Endowments Consecrated. IY. Jephthah, The Superstitious Vow; Ruth, The Religious Vow. V. Saul, Promotion without Piety; David, Promotion with Piety. VI. Solomon, The Seeker of Wise Counsel; Rehoboam, The Despiser of Wise Counsel. VII. Jonah, Peril in the Midst of Security; Daniel, Security in the Midst of Peril.

This will serve to mark a feature of the work of the subject of this study which is full of suggestiveness for young ministers. There will be pleasure in such work, and its result will always be fresh and instructive to the people. Let the young preacher cultivate the habit of original research into the hidden depths of the Scriptures, and let him seek to exercise in a proper way his inventive skill in framing brief courses of sermons after the manner of those quoted.

Only a closing paragraph can be devoted to the method of preparation as revealed in this material. During the early period, for perhaps ten years, there seems to have been faithful writing in full. Then evening sermons seem to have been preached from notes in an extemporaneous way, but always with vigorous thinking through of the subject. In later years he preached sometimes without writing at all, and then wrote the sermon out afterward. This seems to have been the natural growth of a disciplined and well-stored mind. It affords a suggestion and a warning. It warns the young minister against dispensing with writing his sermons in the early years of his ministry, and it suggests that by patient effort a preacher can do his very best preaching without notes after severe reflection and careful mastery of all his materials. The subject of this study never read his sermons, and his example and advice were always against it.

“After he had served his own generation, by the will of God he fell on sleep.” — “And he being dead yet speaketh.”

For Further Study:
The Thomas Dwight Witherspoon Manuscript Collection is preserved at the PCA Historical Center. Details about the collection can be viewed here.

January 17: Frances P. Mullally, D.D.

17 January, 2019 in January 2019 by archivist | No comments

REV. FRANCIS P. MULLALLY, D. D.

Death in New York of a Distinguished South Carolina Divine and Patriotic Citizen.

The Charleston News and Courier, of last week, contained the following write up of the life and distinguished services of the Rev. Francis P. Mullally, D. D., who died in New York on January 17, 1904. We feel sure the article will be read with interest, as Mr. Mullally was well known to a great many of readers:

Dr. Mullally was a native of the County Tipperary, Ireland, the son of what is called in that country a gentleman farmer. His early boyhood was passed in that romantic, region. Ile had inherited a love for field sports and became a splendid horseman, ever foremost in the chase. He had finished his academic studies, when the “Young Ireland” party raised the standard of revolt, under the leadership of Smith

O’Brien, John Mitchell, Thomas F. Meagher, Devin Reilly, Thomas Davis and other gifted and gallant Irishmen.  It was the famous movement of 1848, which terminated in disaster and defeat.  Dr. Mullally was one of the most ardent and active of the revolutionists; his zeal in the cause and the sterling qualities of the young patriot attracted the admiration of Smith O’Brien, who appointed him his private secretary.

He enjoyed the confidence of the leaders and was complimented for his courage and constancy, which was a breathing inspiration, a glowing heart-fire.

After the capture, conviction and transportation of the leaders he managed to escape and came to America.  After remaining for a brief period in New York he went to Georgia and taught the classics in the C. P. Beman Academy, near Sparta.  He then came to this State and settled in Columbia, where he entered the Presbyterian Seminary, from which he was graduated with high honors.  On entering the ministry ho was appointed co-pastor to the renowned Rev. J. H. Thornwell, D. D., and soon became prominent in religious circles, and was noted for eloquence, impressiveness, fervor and zeal.

In 1859 he was married to Miss Elizabeth K. Adger, daughter of the Rev. J. B. Adger, D. D.  At the breaking out of the war he promptly volunteered his services and entered the field as a member of a company attached to the 2d regiment South

Carolina volunteers, commanded by the knightly Col. J. B. Kershaw, and went to Virginia with that command, doing his duty faithfully. Although a minister of the Gospel he was frequently found on the firing line, not only giving spiritual consolation to the dying, but also encouraging the men fighting in the front of the battle.  On one occasion, at least, he used a rifle effectively, and his coolness and courage elicited the admiration of Lieut. Col. William Wallace, and that fearless officer spoke of him as the embodiment of bravery.  When Orr’s 1st regiment of rifles went to Virginia, under the command of the gallant and chivalrous Col. J. Foster Marshall, Dr. Mullally was appointed regimental chaplain and immediately won the affection of the men by his devotion to duty, his winning amiability of manner and lofty eloquence, which attracted the attention and thrilled hundreds in other regiments of Gregg’s (afterwards McGowan’s) brigade.  Gen. McGowan complimented him highly for the deep interest he took in the welfare of the men.

Dr. Mullally was known to Gen. “Stonewall” Jackson, who spoke of him in complimentary terms.  On that memorable morning, at the Wilderness, when the lion hearted Gen. Micah Jenkins was killed and Gen. Longstreet was seriously wounded, Dr. Mullally was in the midst of the fight, his handsome and expressive face all aglow as he cheered his courageous comrades or knelt by the dying heroes.

After the fateful 9th of April at Appomattox Dr. Mullally returned to South Carolina, and for some time taught school in Pendleton.  He afterwards went to Boliver, Tenn., thence to Covington, Ky., where he remained several years as pastor of one of the churches. The failure of the Southern cause, like the unsuccessful rising in his loved motherland, left him depressed in spirit.  He went to Sparta, Ga., and subsequently to Lexington, Va., where he took a course in law at the Washington and Lee University. The degree of doctor of divinity was conferred on him by the Mecklenburg college.  For some time he was the able and accomplished President of Adger College, Walhalla.  He lived in Dakota for two years; after this he went to New York, where he remained until the lamatable day of his death.  Although absent from

South Carolina, the affection for the cherished home of his adoption remained unchanged.  He continued to believe in the righteousness of the noble cause he so ardently espoused and so faithfully defended.

Dr. Mullally was strikingly handsome, tall and finely proportioned.  He was magnetic in manner, cultured and of a gentle and generous nature. His piety was of the purest order.  He was high-mined and conscientious, firm in his opinions, but temperate and tolerant towards others.  He loved his fellow man, assisted him when in distress, made due allowance for his frailties and aided him, too, in a manner fully commensurate with his means.  His devotion to his native land was a passion and a romance. In the South he had many admiring friends, who loved him when living, to whom he had endeared himself by his warm-heartedness, manly and sterling qualities, and who deeply deplore his death. Among the many tributes paid to Dr. Mullally during the war, there was none more eloquent than that which came from one of his heroic army comrades, the late Judge James S. Cothran, of Abbeville, to whose assistance Dr. Mullally went during the battle in which that gallant officer was seriously wounded.  Judge Cothran frequently said Dr. Mullally was, like Bayard of old, “without fear and without reproach.”  Dr. Mullally was a finished scholar, thoroughly versed in the classics; his oratory was of the Ciceronian order. There are survivors of McGowan’s brigade in Charleston and elsewhere throughout the State who recall his rich and resonant voice, his fertility of thought and felicity of expression.  During the winter of 1864 he delivered a discourse on the righteousness of the Confederate cause which was a masterpiece of lofty and inspired eloquence, learned and logical. Dr. Mullally wrote a series of able and brilliant articles on the book of Romans, and was a frequent contributor to papers and magazines.  He was domestic in his habits and loved the happiness and tranquillity of the home circle. Dr. Mullally leaves eight children : J. B. Adger Mullally, Thornwell, Mandeville, Lane, William, Miss Elizabeth K., Miss Susie D. A. and Miss Mary Clare Mullally.

Tags: , , ,

January 16: Conservatives Classified and Divided

16 January, 2019 in January 2019 by Wayne Sparkman | No comments

It is interesting to find an early description and assessment of the Fundamentalist Movement, this from 1924 and published in 1925. Pictured here is a fair unanimity within the Movement. Already by the time of this writing it is evident that there was a clear division among fundamentalists over millennial issues, but it took another decade for that division to become more formalized and more divisive of fellowship between the two sides. Implicit in this article, as you will see later, were the attempts by modernists to foster division among the modernists. Those attempts had been recognized as early as 1921 and, it might be argued, finally bore fruit in the mid-1930’s. And again in the 1940’s, in the Southern Presbyterian Church, there are indications that behind the effort to speak to the issue of dispensationalism there were the machinations of modernism seeking to divide the conservatives.  

The Rise and Growth of the Fundamentalist Movement
by the Rev. Raymond J. Rutt
[The Presbyterian 95.1 (1 January 1925): 7-8.]

[This article is a brief of the one read by Rev. Raymond J. Rutt, pastor of the Oliver Presbyterian Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota, before the Presbyterian Ministers’ Association of Minneapolis, on December 8, 1924.

I regret very much that it has become necessary to classify groups in the church of our Lord Jesus Christ. I abhor being called theologically by any other name than Christian, because no other name can fully represent a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.

But when there appears a group of people within the church who deny the final authority of the whole Bible in faith and practice, and put the human mind in the place of final authority, then I am compelled to submit to a classification of believers, who have always, and do now, believe in the final authority of the whole Bible in all matters of faith, by whatever name they may call themselves.

The name “fundamentalist” has been given to, and quite generally accepted by, those believers in the Christian church who rely upon the whole Bible for their authority. And in contrast, the name “modernist” has also been given, and as generally accepted by those who do not accept the whole Bible as authoritative, but put their own minds above the statements of Holy Writ. I know there are some who feel that fundamentalists and modernists are two extremes, and they prefer to take a middle-of-the-road policy between them. To me, this seems impossible. It is very evident that among modernists, the mind of man has rejected great portions of the Bible. If the mind of man is made supreme over any portion of the Bible, what will keep them from destroying the whole testimony of the Word? The difference between these two elements in the Christian church is not a matter of method or interpretation, but rather a matter of premesis [i.e., premise(s)] of authority. Fundamentalists all agree on the authority of the whole Bible. The question is often asked, “Are the modernists our brethren in the Lord?” I think that depends on how much of the Bible they reject. It is dishonoring God to reject any portion of his Holy Word. And when that rejection continues to the extent of denying doctrines that are essential to salvation, then I cannot consider that person a brother in Christ. Many modernists have gone beyond this limit, and I do not consider them brethren.

There are two kinds of fundamentalists, and yet they both accept the final, absolute and supreme authority of the whole Bible, and agree in the essentials of salvation. Premillennial fundamentalists believe that the coming of the Lord before the millennium, which they feel is imminent, is fundamental to a right understanding of the prophecies, but not fundamental to salvation. The post-millennialist fundamentalists feel the same about their position. Thus we find that both kinds of fundamentalists agree as to essentials of salvation.

I think it is commonly agreed that the fundamentalists are the descendants of historic Christianity, for they are generally satisfied with the statements of faith as handed down to them by the Fathers. Not because their statements were infallible, but because they, who have given to us our great church of Christ, have done so from the standpoint that the whole Bible is the absolute, supreme and final authority in all matters of faith. This must not be interpreted to mean that we do not welcome research, study, and new truth that may be shed on the sacred page by the work of the Holy Spirit. We do believe that the Bible should be critically scrutinized and studied from every possible angle and applied to modern life in all its complexities. We welcome constructive criticism. Every believer has a creed, and unless he holds to the final authority of the whole Bible, he will have difficulty in holding it. Truths declared t0-day by the mind of man are denied to-morrow by the same mind of man. On that basis, what can a man believe? But if we cling to the whole Bible, we have a stabilizing standard which has held the heart and hand of the believer from the time of its first revelation.

There has been a desire on the part of fundamentalists to be associated together in fellowship and to promote efforts to defend the authority of the whole Bible against the destructive penknife of the modernist. The premillennial fundamentalists, gathered from all the states but two, and Canada, in Philadelphia, for a Bible Conference, in May, 1919, and organized the World’s Christian Fundamentalist Association. At that time they elected Rev. W.B. Riley, D.D., pastor of the First Baptist Church of Minneapolis, as their executive secretary. The association has met each year since then, and each time re-elected Dr. Riley, who has given one-half of his time to the promotion of Bible conferences all over the continent. Many state organizations have been organized under the World Christian Fundamentalist Association. Again, many local fundamental associations have been organized in cities and counties, some as premillennial fundamentalists and others as associations of all fundamentalists. Of the latter kind, one of the oldest and best known is the Rocky Mountain Bible Conference, of Denver, Colorado. Recently, such an organization has been effected in Minneapolis, and is known as “The Twin City Bible Conference.”

As fundamentalists, we regret very much the sharp differences that exist between fundamentalists and modernists. We are sorry our modernistic friends have deemed it necessary to revolt against the historic standards of the Christian church. I feel that a great deal of ill feeling has been caused by the wrong representation of the one by the other on both sides. As a fundamentalist, I have not appreciated being called a “funny-mentalist,” and I dare say many modernists have resented being called “funny-monkeyists.” Such classifications are but the way of bluff and do not reflect the spirit of the Master.

In conclusion, let me say we fundamentalists are not trying to make a new church, or even a division in the church. We are trying to preserve the church because we believe her Standards have been given to us by God-fearing Fathers, who accepted the whole Bible as their sole authority. We would not curb men’s minds or try to have all believers see alike, but we do believe in the absolute, supreme and final authority of the whole Bible. And if believers will take that stand, there will be little, if any, trouble as brethren together in the Lord. With these words from THE PRESBYTERIAN, I close :

“Christianity is no quiescent thing, but an eternal, omnipotent energy that has been at work in the world, not only in the past, but which is at work in this and every time, yet its specific content was given it once for all by Christ and his apostles, and that this content found authoritative expression in the New Testament. Each generation must, in some degree, express this content in its own language, and its own terms of thought, but the content itself, according to the fundamentalist, like Christ himself, as generation succeeds generation, abides the same to-day, yesterday, and forever.”

« Older entries § Newer entries »