Our post today is drawn from Dr. George P. Hutchinson’s work, The History Behind the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod. This is a great history of not just the RPCES, but it actually covers much of American Presbyterianism and should not be overlooked. Well-researched and footnoted, it is also quite accessible for the average person who simply wants to know more about our common Presbyterian heritage. A few years ago with some work I managed to put the entire book up on the PCA Historical Center’s web site, and I invite you to download it and read at your convenience. Just click the link above. I have edited Dr. Hutchinson’s narrative a bit to make better sense of this limited excerpt from chapter 2 of his book.


That sect or division of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland known as Reformed Presbyterians were never large in numbers, even in Scotland, and accordingly they had a difficult time getting established in the American colonies. As the constituting principles of the U.S. government were established, particularly with the principle of the separation of Church and State, Reformed Presbyterians in America found themselves at odds with their government, given their conviction that all earthly governments should bow the knee to King Jesus. For this and perhaps for reason of some of their other convictions, their numbers were never large. But they remain an important part of the American Presbyterian story and there is much that we can learn from them.
 

“The Presbyterians in Scotland learned from their Bibles that the system of grace is the chief of God’s works; that the saints are the salt of the earth, and Jesus is King of kings, and Lord of lords. Having organized the Church as the peculiar kingdom of the Redeemer, upon principles which maintained the exclusive headship of Christ, they demanded that the crown of the nation should be laid at the feet of Messiah. They required that the Church should not only be tolerated to establish her distinct ecclesiastical organization, but that she should hereafter be supported by the civil power of the nation in the enjoyment of her established rights.”
—Reformation Principles Exhibited (1807)

Since the Reformed Presbyterian pastor Alexander Craighead could not himself constitute a presbytery, he asked ministerial assistance from the recently constituted Reformed Presbytery in Scotland, and when such was not immediately forthcoming, he became discouraged, and took up his former ecclesiastical connections. One historians said of him that
 

“He did not, however, possess stability. Over-strained zeal is seldom permanent. This man, after having cooperated with the Covenanters, with an ardor which appeared to some of them enthusiastic, left his profession and vows, and turned to the flocks of his former companions.”

The Reformed Presbytery of Scotland did, however, send in 1751 the Rev. John Cuthbertson, who ministered in America for 40 years until his death in 1791. On Cuthbertson’s first Sabbath in America he lectured on the passage in Luke (6:22-31) which begins, “Take no thought for your life,” and ends, “But rather seek ye the kingdom of God.” The words symbolized a ministry full of faith, labor, and sacrifice. Cuthbertson made his headquarters at Middle Octorara from which he served the Societies scattered throughout the Colonies. His travels and ministry are recorded in the diary which includes entries in both English and Latin. Perhaps the most familiar entries in the diary are: “Fessus, fessus valde—tired, very tired,” and “Give all praise to my gracious God.” Such an attitude of praise was necessary when, for instance, he wrote, after staying overnight with a parishioner: “Slept none. Bugs.” Cuthbertson did much to make the organization of the scattered Societies  of Reformed Presbyterians more formal by ordaining elders and establishing sessions. He was a hard worker, preaching as many as eleven times in one week and never using the same sermon twice. Every Sabbath he would explain a Psalm, give a detailed lecture on a passage of Scripture, and preach a more popular sermon on the great themes of the Gospel. Communion was held once a year among the Societies, and strict discipline was observed with regard to who was allowed to partake.

Cuthbertson sent repeated calls to Scotland for help, but it was not until 1773 that he was joined by Matthew Lind and Alexander Dobbin, of whom we spoke recently. On March 9, 1774, these three pastors constituted the first Reformed Presbytery in America. The entry in the frontier preacher’s diary simply reads: ‘After more consultation and prayer, Presbytery.’

[It is interesting to discover that in this same year [1774] William McGuffey and his family emigrated from Wigtown, Scotland and arrived in Philadelphia in August. . . . William McGuffey was a Reformed Presbyterian of sturdy stock…. It was his grandsons, William Homes McGuffey and Alexander Hamilton McGuffey, who were the authors of the famous McGuffey Readers that were used for seventy-five years or more all over America.]

However, the first Reformed Presbytery was only destined to last eight years until 1782. In the meantime, the American Revolution! The Covenanters in America had no more use for George III than their ancestors had for Charles II. As Glasgow remarks: ‘To a man the Covenanters were Whigs. An unsound Whig made a poor Covenanter, and a good Covenanter made a loyal Whig.’ On July 2, 1777, Cuthbertson led some of his followers in taking an oath of fidelity to the cause of the Colonies and their revolution.

In 1782 the three ministers of the Reformed Presbytery, under Cuthbertson’s leadership, joined with the Associate Presbytery to form the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. Most of the Society People followed their leadership. This was what seemed to happen time and again, as Reformed Presbyterians would leave to other associations. As a strict Covenanter later remarked: “The great majority of the Covenanters in the North followed their misguided pastor into the union.” What is the explanation of this union? The position of the Covenanters in Scotland was that Christians should refuse “all voluntary subjection for conscience sake” to the British Crown in protest against a Covenant-breaking government’s right to rule; whereas the Scottish Seceders had maintained that the Christian ought to acknowledge the civil authority of the Crown “in lawful commands.’”The Associate Presbytery in America had accordingly opposed the Reformed Presbytery’s position on the American Revolution. However, now that the Colonies were no longer under the British Crown, the opinions of the American Covenanters and Seceders on the new civil government were in a state of flux, and could be more easily coalesced—especially in a time when the spirit of confederation was in the air.

Another apparent explanation is that the principle of the descending obligation of the Covenants, a central conviction among Reformed Presbyterians, seems to have come into question among some of the early American Covenanters. This began to occur as early as 1760 according to Findley, an ex-Covenanter who found his way into the Associate Reformed Church. He further maintains that the Reformed Presbytery agreed in 1774 or 1775 that “while the presbytery still continued to hold the covenants, testimonies, and sufferings of Scotland . . . in respectful remembrance,” the only terms of communion insisted on by presbytery would be allegiance to the Scriptures and the doctrines of the Westminster Standards as agreeable to the Scriptures. Cuthbertson himself is purported to have taught the personal rather than the national obligation to the Covenants.

There were, however, several individuals and Societies who refused to enter into the Union of 1782. These were scattered through the several states like sheep without a shepherd, choosing not to abandon their Covenanted testimony. ‘They disapproved of the union, and considered their former ministers as guilty of apostasy. The Reformed Presbytery in Scotland also disapproved of the union, but for some reason their missionaries to America after 1782 did not take a strong enough stand against it, and were unacceptable to the Society People. It was not until the arrival of the Rev. James McKinney that they found a champion. McKinney’s attitude toward the former Reformed Presbytery of America is expressed in simple terms: “Her transatlantic sons soon wearied of the cross. The late revolution seems to have afforded a desirable pretext for casting it away.”

Words to Live By:
“Take no thought for your life,’ . . . ‘But rather seek ye the kingdom of God.”
These are words we may well have read a hundred times but never really applied. Yet as we come to the end of our days, what words of consolation and grace. To give ourselves in pursuit of righteousness and the kingdom of God. To be consumed with seeking our Lord and nothing else. What a clarifying privilege the believer has in this heavenly duty!

THE SCHOOL & FAMILY CATECHIST
by Rev. William Smith (1834)

Q. 88.  What are the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption?

A.  The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption, are his ordinances, especially the word, sacraments, and prayer, all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.

EXPLICATION.

Outward means. –They are thus named, to distinguish them from faith and repentance, and particularly from the influences of the Holy Spirit, who often acts upon the heart and mind, without any outward instrument whatever.

Ordinary means. –They are so called, as being the instruments by which God usually, or commonly works, when he brings sinners to himself.

Communicateth.  –See Explic. Q. 83.

Benefits of redemption. –See Explic. Q. 83.

Ordinances. –Appointments, rules, laws, institutions, &c.

The word. –The preaching of the gospel, and the reading of the Scriptures.

Sacraments. –The word sacrament signifies an oath, also a religious ceremony, producing obligation on the part of those engaging in it.  The sacraments are, baptism, and the Lord’s supper.

Effectual. –Powerful, sufficient for the end in view.

Elect. –God’s chosen people.

ANALYSIS.

In this answer, we are taught three things:

1.  That the outward and ordinary means of grace, are the ordinances of Christ. –Matt. xxviii. 20. Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.

2.  That the chief of these ordinances, or institutions of Christ, are the Word, Sacraments, and Prayer. –Acts. ii. 41, 42. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized.  And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.


3.  That these are all, through the power of Christ, made effectual to the elect for salvation. –1 Tim. iv. 16. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them; for in doing this, thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Glory, Glory, Glory to the Blessed God
Our minds and hearts are drawn once again to one of the diary entries of David Brainerd, that man of God who, as a Presbyterian home missionary,  ministered to the native Americans in the mid-eighteenth century in our land.  Listen to his words penned on March 7, 1743:

“This morning when I arose, I found my heart go after God in longing desires of conformity to him, and in secret prayer found myself sweetly quickened and drawn out in praises to God for all he had done to and for me, and for my inward trials and distresses of late.  My heart ascribed glory, glory, glory to the blessed God and bid welcome to all inward distress again, if God saw meet to exercise me with it.  Time appeared but an inch long, and eternity at hand; and I thought I could in patience and cheerfulness bear anything for the cause of God, for I saw that a moment would bring me to a world of peace and blessedness.  My soul by the strength of the Lord, rose far above this lower world, and all the vain amusements and frightful disappointments of it.”

It is clear from reading this brief diary entree that Brainerd saw clearly that both delights and distresses came equally from God’s hand.   Regardless of which came his way, he was prepared to say, “Glory, glory, glory to the blessed God” for it.  And while this is hard to do, to praise God for dark providences, as one called it, yet it is biblical, to say the least.  “In everything give thanks,” the apostle Paul commanded in 1 Thessalonians 5:17.  It is primarily possible when, like David Brainerd, we find ourselves drawn irresistibly to God in adoration and obedience.  Thus we know that, being close to Him, He will give only that which is necessary for our souls to live closely to Him.

Words to Live By:  It is only by daily walking with God, as David Brainerd did during his short life, that we will be able to accept all what the Father has sent our way.  Question? Are you daily walking moment by moment with the Triune God?

How Many of You Know . . .

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

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

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

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


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

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

Pearl Buck passed into eternity on March 6, 1973.

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

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


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

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

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

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

Her Views On Christianity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Her Views about Missions

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


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

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

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

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

A Case of Two Letters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their letter, titled “For Peace and Liberty”

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

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

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

A letter of reply, then Machen’s own response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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