Happy Anniversary! [after a fashion];
. . . and A Most Basic Right.

The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC) in this country began with a merger which took place on this day, June 13, 1782, between the Reformed Presbyterians and the Associate Church, two groups which derived directly from secessions from the Church of Scotland. Both groups entering this union were small and it was not until 1804 that the newly formed denomination had sufficient strength to constitute itself as a General Synod. Admittedly it’s a more complicated history than this short account would imply. As the ARPC grew, there were eventually four Synods and one General Synod. But today the ARPC officially looks back to the 1803 formation of the Church’s Synod of the South, since the other Synods eventually merged into the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

But to make a point with today’s blog, let’s look more closely at the Associate Presbyterian side of that 1782 union. The Scottish Reformation dates to 1560. Then in 1733 came the First Secession, which came about when the 1732 General Assembly approved a highly controversial Act which inferred with a congregation’s right to call its own pastor. This First Secession was led by Ebenezer Erskine, and the departing group named themselves the Associate Presbytery. By 1745, the Presbytery had grown to the extent that it could now be constituted as a Synod. But no sooner had blessing come than division again brought humbling. The Associate Synod was split in 1747 over the Burgess oath. The sticking point was a clause in this oath which some took to mean they approved of the established or state-supported Church, the Church of Scotland. Those opposed to the Burgess oath were called Anti-Burghers and these took the name of the General Associate Synod, or in the American colonies, the Associate Church.

As one Scottish historian has observed, 

If the Scottish parliament had accepted the 1st and 2nd Books of Discipline at the time of the Reformation in 1560, the troubles which beset the Presbyterian church in Scotland in the ensuing centuries would never have happened. These were almost all caused by patronage – the right of a patron to appoint the minister in each parish. The Books of Discipline had lain down that the minister was to be chosen by the parishioners and that no minister was to be intruded against their will.
Unfortunately, the Parliament of the day was made up of men with vested interests – the landowners in those parishes and so while, initially, the Crown had assumed the right of patronage, landowners soon acquired that right. For a while, after the execution of Charles 1 in 1649 and throughout Cromwell’s Commonwealth, congregations were allowed to choose their ministers, but, after Charles 11 was restored, an act of 1662 re-instated patronage.
It also required all ministers who had been appointed since 1649 to acquire a patron. A quarter of the clergy refused to do so and so were deprived of their livings and it was these men who formed the backbone of the Covenanters, out of which movement, the Reformed Presbyterian Church emerged.

[http://scotsarchivesearch.co.uk/short-history-secession-churches-scotland/]

And so we want to stress the importance of that right of a congregation to call its own pastor. Presbytery has the right to keep an ill-suited man from the field, but the right of the congregation to call its own pastor can be considered the more foundational right. And basic rights can often become ignored rights, and once ignored, can sometimes be lost or surrendered when we forget just how important they actually are. Let’s take a look at how this fundamental right has been inshrined in the Constitutions of Presbyterian denominations over the last four and one-half centuries:

First Book of Discipline, Church of Scotland (1560)

Fourth Head—Concerning Ministers and their Lawful Election
It appertains to the people, and to every several congregation, to elect their minister. And in case that they are found negligent therein the space of forty days, the best reformed kirk—to wit, the church of the superintendent with his council—may present unto them a man whom they judge apt to feed the flock of Christ Jesus, who must be examined as well in life and manners, as in doctrine and knowledge.

 

Second Book of Discipline, Church of Scotland (1578)

Chapter 3—How the Persons that bear Ecclesiastical Functions are to be Admitted to Their Office
5. In the order of election, it is to be eschewed that any person be intruded in any of the offices of the kirk contrary to the will of the congregation to whom they are appointed, or without the voice of the eldership. None ought to be intruded or entered in the places already planted, or in any room that vakes not [is not vacant], for any worldly respect; and that which is called the benefice ought to be nothing else than the stipend of the ministers that are lawfully called and elected.

Then crossing the ocean, notice how consistently the American Presbyterian Churches have reiterated this core right of the congregation, each denomination taking up the very same wording in paragraph six of a document called the Preliminary Principles:

Preliminary Principles, Paragraph 6.
VI. That though the character, qualifications, and authority of church officers, are laid down in the Holy Scriptures, as well as the proper method of their investiture and institution; yet the election of the persons to the exercise of this authority, in any particular society, is in that society.

These denominations are:
(1.) Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (1789)
(2.) Book of Church Order of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (1936)
(3.) Book of Church Order of the Bible Presbyterian Church (1938)
(4.) Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America (1973)
[in 2008 the PCA made a small change, deleting the words “and institution”]

Note that the OPC and the BPC both come out of the PCUSA tradition where the Preliminary Principles were drawn up in 1788. Yet while the PCA comes out of the Southern Presbyterian tradition, those Preliminary Principles were seen as so important that our founding fathers included them as part of our Constitution. Curiously, the Southern Presbyterian Church had rejected the Preliminary Principles as early as 1867 and declined to include them in its Book of Church Order, viewing them as innately congregationalist in nature and as only befitting a nascent church. Time was limited but surprisingly, I did not see, in a quick scan, a similar provision in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Form of Government. If it is there, I would appreciate someone pointing it out. 

To read the full text of the Preliminary Principles, comparing the text as adopted by the above denominations, click here.

COMMENTS:

Phil Pockras writes:

The RPC was not a secession from the de novo 1690 Revolution Church, as the Secession was. The RPC was and is the lineal descendant of the original Kirk, including its Second Reformation attainments. This has been recognized by the civil courts of the UK, particularly in and through the “Ferguson Bequest Case” in the nineteenth century.

The Purity of Our Religion

“Whereas, amongst the infinite blessings of Almighty God upon this nation, none is nor can be more dear unto us than the purity of our re­ligion; … “. So begins the document which formally established the West­minster Assembly of Divines on June 12, 1643. It was concern for the “puri­ty of our religion” which lay at the foundation of our Westminster Confes­sion of Faith and Catechisms. This purity could not be maintained without protest against impurity. This same document specifies further that the Westminster Assembly was convened in protest against “… that present church-government by archbishops, their chancellors, commissars, deans … ” etc. because such a “hierarchy is evil, and justly offensive and burdensome to the kingdom, a great impediment to reformation and growth of religion . . . “. In undertaking their work the members of the Assembly were “. . . resolved … that such a government be settled in the church as may be most agreeable to God’s holy Word, and most apt to procure and preserve the peace of the church. . . “.

[excerpted from the RPCES report on “Apostasy as it relates to Ecclesiastical Separation.” (1978)]

The Man Whom God Prepares

ALEXANDER McLEOD, D.D.*

Alexander McLeod was born at Ardcrisinish, in the Isle of Mull, Scotland, June 12, 1774. His father was the Rev. Niel McLeod, who was connected with the Established Church of Scotland, and was Minister of the United Parishes of Kilfinichen and Kilvichewen. His mother was Margaret McLean, daughter of the Kev. Archibald McLean, who was the immediate predecessor of his son-in-law, Mr. McLeod, in the same charge. Both his parents were eminent for talents and piety. The great Dr. Johnson, in his tour through the “Western Islands, was a visitor at his father’s house, and, in referring to the circumstance, Johnson says,—” We were entertained by Mr. McLean,” (by mistake he used the name of the lady for that of her husband,) ” a minister that lives upon the coast, whose elegance of conversation and strength of judgment would make him conspicuous in places of greater celebrity.”

At the age of five years, Alexander McLeod lost his father; but, even at that early period, his mind seems to have been alive to religious impressions; for when the tidings of his father’s death were announced to the family, the child was upon his knees in prayer. From that time for several years the general conduct of his education devolved upon his mother, than whom perhaps no mother could have contributed more effectually to the development and right direction of his faculties. His mother, however, employed a tutor in the house, who immediately superintended his studies; and his uncommon quickness of apprehension and facility at acquiring knowledge, were indicated by the fact that he had mastered his Latin Grammar before he had completed his sixth year. He subsequently attended the parish school of Braeadale, in the Island of Skye, for three or four years, and availed himself also of the advantages furnished by other schools, with reference to particular branches, which were understood to be taught in them with unusual efficiency. He lost his mother at the age of about fifteen, when he was absent from home at school. So deeply was he affected by the tidings of her death, that, for a time, there were serious apprehensions that it would be the occasion of depriving him of his reason. As he was consecrated to the ministry in the intention of his parents, he seems, before he was six years old, to have formed a distinct purpose of carrying out their intention; and of that purpose he never lost sight, amidst all the subsequent vicissitudes which he experienced. He was always remarkable for an intrepid and adventurous spirit, and was not infrequently confined by injuries which he received in consequence of too freely indulging it.

The Rev. Samuel G. Craig, founder of Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, was one of those conservatives who stayed in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., continuing to fight for an orthodox Christian faith.  Dr. Clarence E.N. Macartney, whom Craig mentions toward the end of this editorial, was another of those who stayed to continue the difficult fight.  Dr. Craig wrote this editorial not many months after the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church [initially named The Presbyterian Church of America].  The editorial is his explanation of why he stayed.  It may also offer some insight into the thinking of those who, to this day, continue to stay to fight for the Gospel of Jesus Christ and against modernism and unbelief.  By God’s grace, He has put us in other places, but these brothers and sisters do deserve our prayers and encouragement.

THE ALLEGED APOSTASY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH U.S.A.
[excerpted from Christianity Today 7.6 (October 1936): 1-2.]

APOLOGISTS for the “Presbyterian Church of America” justify its formation on the ground that the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. has become apostate. It would even seem that most of their members hold that all the Presbyterian churches of America that existed prior to June 11, 1936, have become Presbyterian churches in name only, as otherwise it is natural to assume, especially in view of their small number, that they would have sought membership in one of the already existing Presbyterian Churches. Be that as it may, they unblushingly affirm that the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. is hopelessly corrupt and that it is a sin to remain a member of said Church.

The above charge seems so incredible on its face as to call for no consideration. However, in view of the fact that it is being persistently made by the organizers and promoters of the newly organized “Presbyterian Church of America,” it may not be out of place to make brief reference to it.

It should not be overlooked, in the first place, that it is as impossible to indict a whole Church as it is to indict a whole nation (Burke). Even if we should grant the contention that the existing leadership of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. is apostate—we think even that a gross exaggeration—it would by no means follow that the Church as a whole with its nearly ten thousand ministers, some fifty thousand elders and approximately two million members is apostate. The charge is so absurd that it is passing strange that persons, otherwise seemingly sane and sober, should give it any credence.

It should be noted, in the next place, that this charge is based largely if not exclusively on the judicial decisions of the last Assembly. Certainly previous to the judicial decisions of the last Assembly the charge could not well be made by those now members of the “Presbyterian Church of America” as practically all of them were at that time members of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. It is important to point out, therefore, that even if it were true that the last Assembly sitting as a court handed down decisions that involved placing the word of man above the Word of God and subordinating Christ himself to a human authority that would not mean that the Presbyterian Church had become officially apostate. To judge thus is grossly to overestimate the significance that attaches to judicial decisions according to Presbyterian law. The doctrine of stare decisis is not a part of the law of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. This means that while decisions by a General Assembly, sitting as a court, are final as far as the cases before it are concerned yet that these decisions do not establish binding precedents. It is impossible, therefore, for the Presbyterian Church to become apostate through the actions of a single Assembly Avithout the concurrence of the presbyteries. No doubt if a succession of Assemblies, with the approval of the Church at large, should take actions that in effect acknowledged a king other than Christ and placed the stamp of its approval on “another gospel” that would, for all practical purposes, have the same effect as if this had been done by an Assembly with the concurrence of the presbyteries. But as yet at least that has not happened.

It should be noted further that such plausibility as attaches to the allegation that the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. apostasized through the actions of the last Assembly is derived for the most part from, the assumption that said Assembly placed the seal of its judicial approval on the 1934 Deliverance as a whole. Otherwise the last Assembly pronounced no judgment on that Deliverance in as far as it affirmed that support of the Boards of the Church is a matter of compulsion not of free will, that an implicit faith in the deliverances of the General Assembly is obligatory on members of the Presbyterian Church, and that a church or an individual who fails to give to the support of the Boards of the Church “is in exactly the same position with reference to the Constitution of the Church as a church or an individual that would refuse to take part in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper”—to mention some of the representations in that Deliverance most generally relied upon to support the alleged apostasy of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. In our opinion the assumption, just alluded to, is not well-grounded. It rests on the language employed by the Assembly in Judicial case No. 2 (McIntire case) in which it was stated that “The Deliverance of 1934 is an executive order of the General Assembly, issued with reference to a particular situation that had arisen in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., directed to a limited number of persons, and to the presbyteries concerned, for the purpose of securing definite action relating to those persons.” This language was used in connection with the court’s discussion of the question whether the appellant was guilty of an offense because of his refusal to obey the direction of the 1934 Assembly requiring him to resign from the Independent Board. It would seem, therefore, that when the court employed this language, seeing that the Deliverance as a whole was directed to the Church at large not merely to members of the Independent Board and the presbyteries to which they belonged, that it meant to set its judicial approval on the 1934 Deliverance only in as far as it was an executive order. This is confirmed by the fact that the Deliverance as a whole is not of the nature of an executive order and so not susceptible of such description. That the court did not mean to set its judicial approval on the Deliverance as a whole would seem to be indicated, moreover, by the fact that, by implication, it repudiated the Deliverance—in part at least—when it affirmed that membership in an independent agency or board “is not in itself cause for disciplinary action.” For if it is not an offense to belong to and support an independent board or agency it cannot be that it is the “definite obligation and a sacred duty” of all those affiliated with the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. to support its boards and agencies “to the utmost” or to the “full measure” of their ability.

As pointed out in previous issues, the considerations just adduced lead us to believe that in the passage relied upon to prove that the last Assembly set the seal of its judicial approval on the 1934 Deliverance as a whole the word “is” was used in the sense of “contains.” But let it not be forgotten that even if the assumption we have been discussing is well-grounded, i.e. even if the last Assembly placed the seal of its judicial approval on the 1934 Deliverance as a whole, it would not follow, in view of what we said above about the significance of judicial decisions according to Presbyterian law, that the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. became apostate through the actions of the last Assembly. That is why we have spoken of this assumption as bearing on the plausibility rather than on the validity of the alleged apostasy of said Church. If on the other hand we are right in thinking that the last Assembly expressly upheld the 1934 Deliverance only in as far as it was an executive order addressed to a limited number of individuals and presbyteries, then obviously its judicial decisions, re its Independent Board members, contain little or nothing to even suggest apostasy. These decisions may leave much to be desired but interpreted apart from the 1934 Deliverance as a whole they do little more than affirm that membership in an organization like the Independent Board is punishable with suspension because such an organization contravenes express provisions of the Constitution, particularly Chapter XXIII of the Form of Government. If such is not the case certain members of the Independent Board have been treated exceedingly unjustly but that would offer no warrant for asserting that the Presbyterian Church has apostasized. The Constitution being what it is, it is simply untrue to say that the Independent Board members were prosecuted merely because they chose to obey God rather than men.

Because we maintain that it is to bear false witness against the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. to affirm that it is apostate, let it not be supposed that we are satisfied with said Church as it is. Far from it. Modernism, indifferentism and bureaucracy are rampant in its councils and boards and must needs be firmly opposed by all those who value their Presbyterian heritage. Reform is imperatively needed and every true Presbyterian should gird himself for the task. Let it not be said that everything possible to reform the Church has been done and the task been found to be an impossible one. Such is not the case.

The ill-advised attempt represented by the Independent Board and the Presbyterian Constitutional Covenant Union commanded the support of only a few conservatives and was doomed to failure from the start. As yet no intelligently conceived or wisely directed plan of reformation has been devised and its execution attempted. It is to be hoped that at the joint-meeting of the Presbyterian League of Faith and the Ruling Elders’ Association, announced for this autumn, something worth while may be accomplished along this line. It is not a task that can be accomplished in a day. It is a task that will require years, possibly decades, and we should not be discouraged if progress be slow. But it is a task, we believe, that can be avoided only at the cost of loyalty to the great Head of the Church. Dr. Macartney is certainly right when he says that “the two watchwords for this hour are the two utterances so familiar to all Americans — one by the dying James Lawrence, ‘Don’t give up the ship’, and the other by John Paul Jones, ‘I have just commenced to fight’.”

In 1926, J. Gresham Machen received nomination to the chair of apologetics and ethics from the Board of Directors at the Princeton Theological Seminary.  In the normal course of things, this nomination would have been routinely approved by the General Assembly as it met later that same year.  Machen, however, had previously opposed in 1920 the Philadelphia Plan for merging nineteen Presbyterian denominations into a single federated body.  He had published two books, The Origin of Paul’s Religion (1920) and Christianity and Liberalism (1923), both of which presented strong arguments against modernism and unbelief.  In short, Machen had become a very public voice raised against modernism, and so he had enemies.  A campaign of opposition was raised against his nomination and the matter remained unresolved up until the reorganization of Princeton Seminary and the departure of Dr. Machen and other faithful professors.

Today’s post is especially interesting for two reasons.  First, it is, I think, the earliest example in print of someone describing J. Gresham Machen in terms of Bunyan’s famous character from Pilgrim’s Progress, Mr. Valiant-for-Truth.  Ned Stonehouse, in his Biographical Memoir of J. Gresham Machen, popularized this description, but apparently Rev. Lipscomb was perhaps the first to draw the association. Second, the manner in which Machen is described by comparison with other outstanding men of his era provides some unique insights into his character, though our modern ignorance of the men referenced saps the full force of the comparisons.

An Appreciation of Dr. J. Gresham Machen
By Rev. T.H. Lipscomb, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South
[excerpted from THE PRESBYTERIAN 96.36 (9 September 1926): 9, 18.]

After five days of listening to sermons and addresses by Dr. J. Gresham Machen, we heartily endorse the statement in THE PRESBYTERIAN of June 10, that he is unsurpassed in his ability to impart knowledge to others, and that he is or should be one of the chief glories not only of Princeton Theological Seminary, but of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.

Dr. Machen has been lecturing before a Methodist “Seashore Divinity School” at Biloxi, Mississippi, on “What is Christianity?” and preaching twice on Sabbath also.  We had expected to find him a thorough scholar and a thorough Christian, with what super-additions of genius and grace we know not.  To our delight and unceasing joy we find him endowed with an intellectual clarity and felicity of expression which causes to flow forth into the minds of even unlearned hearers a sparkling stream of pure truth, quickening and convincing out of a mass of detailed knowledge from which most scholars bring forth only negations or inconclusive theories.  His mental idiosyncrasy in this regard is quite marked—hitting the nail on the head, causing the sparks to fly ; and in the light of vindicated truth driving error from the field.  We recall, as we think of him, Bunyan’s Mr. Valiant for Truth, and we would that the ten thousand silver trumpets might sound to do him honor—they will some day if not now, as he, too, crosses over into the Celestial City.  Then woe to those who have said, “Let not such light of truth which also refutes and condemns error shine among us.  We must be tolerant and considerate of error nowadays.”  A graduate of a Northern theological seminary myself (Drew ’03), and having heard many of the ablest scholars of Europe and America, we affirm frankly and sincerely that we now of no man in any church so eminently qualified to fill a chair of “Apologetics and Christian Ethics,” provided you want that chair filled, the Christian faith really defended and Christian ethics elucidated and lived.  For, let me add that Dr. Machen is an humble saint, as well as a rare scholar, not a “saint of the world,” who stands for nothing and against nothing, but a saint of God who loves truth, seeks truth, finds truth, and upholds truth against all adversaries, however mightily ; in this respect like Paul, Peter and John, and following our Lord Jesus Christ, who “to this end was born” “to bear witness to the truth.”  You rightly say in an editorial, “The toleration of error within the churches means the persecution of truth.”

But we have seen Dr. Machen in social life, sharing with him the hospitality of a Southern home ; we have been with him on a pleasure trip to Ship Island, and we must confess that we have silently looked for those terrible “tempermental idiosyncrasies” which the General Assembly branded him with as questioning his fitness for a chair in the seminary which he has served for twenty years, and which his name to-day and the name of R.D. Wilson now make illustrious among believers the world around.  We say frankly the “tempermental idiosyncrasies” do not exist in any other sense or degree than they exist in every man.  We have had two other prominent believers at Biloxi : one a Southern Methodist Bishop of renown, the other the dean of one of our theological seminaries.  They each have “idiosyncrasies” in speech, in gesture, in manner, in personality fully as pronounced as any that Dr. Machen may possess.  Dr. Machen has something of the crisp, almost snappy vocalization of S. Parkes Cadman ; he has something of the serious dignity of Marcus Dods ; he has at times, when a truth is shining radiantly in his mind and he is sending it home, something of the fire of Olin A. Curtis.  He has something of the spiritual elevation of W.L. Watkinson.  We scarcely think it defensible, however, to say that unique qualities of personality disqualify a man for a position.  There have been German theologians of highest renown, so eccentric as to go to a class room in a night gown, or stand on a corner reading while car after car passed, until the students came, found their professor, and took him to his desk.  The story is told of a prominent American Church historian that in arranging passage for Europe he forgot to include one of his own children and hurried back to the city to correct his mistake.  Yet for over twenty years he has continued in a professorship for which he is eminently qualified.  We have not heard that Dr. Machen has been accused of such eccentricities.

Dr. Machen we have found to be indeed, meeting him for the first time, a genial, cultured, Christian gentleman ; modest and almost diffident by nature, and quite considerate of his opponent in all the obligations of Christian courtesy and fairness.  In social conversation he is quite free and at perfect ease.  I saw him sit for an hour on shipboard, surrounded by young ministers, answering kindly and well a running fire of questions to the satisfaction of all.

We cannot understand the action of your General Assembly.  If it ultimately “repudiates” J. Gresham Machen, we can only interpret the shout in the camp of the Modernists already heard as the shout of the Philistines, in anticipation of the defeat of the armies of the living God.  What are orthodox words when deed belie them?

West Point, Mississippi.

From a short series that we ran some years ago, this particular post is timely:

“The great thing in the Church is CHRIST, the blood of Christ, the Spirit of Christ, the presence of Christ among us. The great thing is Christ, but there is also advantage in a certain government of the Church of Christ. I am a Presbyterian, not only of situation, but of conviction and choice. Our Presbyterian way is the good middle way between Episcopacy on the one side, and Congregationalism on the other. We combine the two great principles that must be maintained in the Church—Order and Liberty; the order of government, and the liberty of the people.”—Merle d’ Aubigne.

TEN REASONS FOR BEING A PRESBYTERIAN.

EIGHTH REASON.

8. I am a Presbyterian—because I love and pray for unity; not uniformity at the expense of truth, but unity based on truth and charity. Our Presbyterian Church has its congregations knit together in mutual dependence and sympathy, as one body in the unity of the Spirit, having one Lord and Head, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. And all are united under one superintendence and government, holding the same standards, and maintaining the same principles, the strong helping and bearing the burden of the weak, the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, with one mind striving together for the faith of the Gospel. We thus enjoy a visible, as well as a spiritual unity, according to the scriptural idea of the Church, the body of Christ.—(Ephesians iv. 8–16.)