This Day in Presbyterian History

Yesterday’s post was on the Rev. Asa Hillyer, and today we would like to present the following portion of a sermon by Rev. Hillyer, as an example of his ministry.

The 1837 division of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. left Dr. Hillyer on the side of the New School. He deplored the schism, but never let it affect his fraternal relations with those from whom he was ecclesiastically separated. He recommended mutual forbearance and charity, and enjoyed to the end of his life, which was now near at hand, the unabated good-will and warm personal esteem of prominent men on both sides of the Old School/New School division.

In his final days, one of Hillyer’s last public efforts was a sermon preached before the Synod of Newark, taking as his text the words of Abraham to Lot:

“Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen; for we be brethren. Is not the whole land before thee?” (Genesis 13:8-9).

Rev. Hillyer urged that there was ample room in our vast country for the fullest activity and expansion of both Assemblies [Old School and New School], and, holding up the noble example of the Hebrew patriarch, he said–

“Let all who have interest in the throne of grace, and all who love the Redeemer and the Church which he purchased with His own blood, unite their prayers and their influence for the spread of this benevolent, this heavenly principle. Beloved brethren, (he added), permit me as your elder brother, as one who has borne the heat and burden of the day, and whose departure is at hand, affectionately to press these remarks upon the Synod now convened. We are indeed a little band. Separated from many whom we love, we occupy a small part of the vineyard of our common Lord. But let us not be discouraged. Let none of our efforts to do good be paralyzed by the circumstances into which we have been driven. Rather let us with increased zeal and diligence cultivate the field which we are called to occupy, while we are always ready to cooperate with our brethren in every part of the land in spreading the Gospel of the grace of God, and in saving a wretched world from ruin.”

Words to Live By:
From what I have seen of his story, I suspect that Rev. Hillyer did not personally hold to the errors that were said to define the New School wing of the division. His continued fraternal relations with Old School men offers some proof of that. He was, in his own words, more “driven by circumstances,” as many numbered among the New School were. It is a mark of good Christian maturity to hold your convictions firmly, yet still be able to work alongside other Christians who may not share your every conviction or who may have other affiliations. Such fellowship may certainly have its limits, but much can often be accomplished within those constraints. Notice that phrase in Hillyer’s words, above—the Gospel of the grace of God. Without that foundation, there can be no true fellowship. But where we share that common ground of the Gospel of the grace of God, there—and there only—do we have a basis for praying together and working together.

If God is going to bring a great turning from sin, it must and can only be His work.

Stand Still and See the Salvation of God.

Asa Hillyer was born in Sheffield, Massachusetts, on April 6, 1763. His father was a physician, who served in the army during the Revolutionary War, with young Asa attending by his side in the later years of the War.

Asa entered Yale in 1782, graduating in 1786 at the age of twenty-three. He prepared for the ministry under the guidance of the Rev. Dr. Buell of East Hampton, and completed his studies with Dr. Livingston of the Reformed Dutch Church in New York.

Licensed to preach by the Old Presbytery of Suffolk, Long Island in 1788, he was appointed to supply churches in Connecticut. In 1798, the General Assembly appointed him a missionary to the northern part of Pennsylvania and the western section of New York. His travels lasted for nine weeks and covered some nine hundred miles, preaching almost every day. He was the first minister to ever preach in the region that is now Auburn, New York.

In 1801, Rev. Hillyer was called to serve the First Presbyterian Church in Orange, New Jersey. At that time, this was one of the largest and most influential churches in the State. Hillyer’s ministry was well-received by the congregation, and he remained their pastor for thirty years. In 1833, he resigned his charge and devoted his remaining years to serving as pulpit supply for other churches in the region and to visitation. The Rev. Asa Hillyer died on the evening of August 28th, 1840.

The Rev. James Hoyt wrote a history of this church, titled “The Mountain Society:” A History of the First Presbyterian Church, Orange, N.J. (New York, 1860), and in this history, a full chapter is devoted to Rev. Hillyer’s thirty years as pastor. Among the facets of this chapter, it is notable that there were three marked occasions of revival during Hillyer’s years, 1807-08, 1816-17, and 1832. Of the first of these revivals, there is this striking description of the times prior to the revival:

“But it may not be improper to remark here, that for some time previous to this, everything around assumed a gloomy aspect in regard to evangelical piety. All meetings for prayer except the first Monday in the month, were relinquished. Gambling, horse-racing, intemperance, and dissipation of every kind, threatened all social order with destruction. A moral society had been established for two years, the object of which was the suppression of vice and immorality; but no human effort was able to withstand the torrent of vice which threatened us on every side. At the same time the exertions of Christians were paralyzed; the wise were sleeping with the foolish. This state of things alarmed a few praying people; they agreed to resume a prayer-meeting which had, for the first time in forty years, been relinquished the spring before. This took place about the latter part of July. For a number of weeks not more than twelve or fourteen persons attended; but such fervent and earnest wrestling with God I never witnessed. They prayed as though they saw their children and neighbors standing on the verge of destruction, and that, without an immediate interposition of almighty grace, they were lost for ever.”

“Then in 1807, began a great revival of religion in the town. Ninety-seven joined the church in one day, and about two hundred in all. Fifty, or more, were gathered at Bloomfield.”

“It was soon perceived that our public assemblies were unusually solemn, but no special impression appeared to be made until the third Sabbath in September. In the morning the assembly was addressed on the awful solemnity of a future judgment; and, in the afternoon, from these words: Choose you this day whom ye will serve. This was a day long to be remembered. Such solemnity had not been seen for many years, and many date their first impressions from that day.”

Two things seem remarkable about this account. First, there was the prevailing sinfulness of the wider society in those years. And second, unlike the typical characteristics of a Second Great Awakening “revival”, this occasion was marked by a great solemnity and lack of excitement or passions. Further on in the account, we read that “No attempt was made to work upon the passions…The assembly was unusually solemn. Numbers were evidently pricked to the heart. Their tears, which they made great exertion to conceal, betrayed an awakened conscience…No disturbance was made. All retired in solemn silence.”

Then these last words seem particularly indicative of what we might expect of a true time of revival:

“One evening, after the benediction had been pronounced, the whole assembly stood in solid column. Scarcely an individual moved from his place. Such evidences of deep and heart-felt sorrow I never witnessed before, on any occasion. While all stood in solemn silence, there seemed a great appearance of solemnity than during any part of the previous exercises. Sometimes it seemed we had only to stand still and see the salvation of God. It seemed, indeed, that the Lord was there, and that He gave us an example of His immediate work upon the conscience and heart.

Words to Live By:
If God is going to bring a great turning from sin, it must and can only be His work. It will not be brought about by emotional antics or other man-made contrivances. For our part, may we be earnest in prayerfully waiting upon Him.

Stand in awe, and sin not; commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still. Selah.
Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and put your trust in the LORD.
(Ps. 4:4-5, KJV)

One of my projects is working to compile an index to the THE INDEPENDENT BOARD BULLETIN, the newsletter of the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions, intending at least to compile that index through the period of 1955-1956.  As I am now working through volume 3 (1937), I have come across the following, which provides a bit of material that many haven’t previously seen. The Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions, as many are aware, was founded in part by Dr. Machen as a  response to his own denomination’s willingness to send modernists into the mission field.

MISSIONARY TRIBUTES TO DR. MACHEN
[Independent Board Bulletin III.4 (April 1937): 10-11.]

These spontaneous tributes on the part of some our missionaries will be of great interest to friends of the Independent Board.

Mr. Hamilton, of Korea, writes :

“It seems impossible to realize that our dear friend, counsellor, teacher and guide has been called Home to Glory. What a loss to us all it will prove to be!

I can’t put into words all that the friendship and teaching of Dr. Machen has meant to me personally. In all our close and intimate friendship I have never heard him enter upon a tirade against any man who was opposed to him in the theological fight. He never went into personal attacks against his foes, but always attacked the principles and practices of those who in any way deviated from the teaching of the Word of God. Vituperation he left to his enemies, and I suppose there has been no man of our generation more unjustly maligned and misrepresented by those who were supposed to be orthodox than he.

Dr. Machen called forth a passionate loyalty on the part of his friends and pupils that few even of those most closely associated with him in the church at large realized. It was not so much personal loyalty, however, as it was a loyalty to the Christ whom he worshipped, and whom he constantly held before the minds of his pupils.

*     *     *     *     *

Mr. Fiol, of India :

“It is hard for us to understand why God should call him home just now when he is needed so badly, but we know that God’s purpose is good and that He will cause all things to work together for good to those who love Him.

Perhaps His purpose is to show us that the success of the new movement does not depend on any human leader, but on God. We know that God will now allow His work to fail but He will raise up other leaders to take Dr. Machen’s place. However, I do feel the loss of Dr. Machen almost as much as if he were a member of my own family. But praise God we can still say, “The Lord has given and the Lord has taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord.”

*     *     *     *     *

Mr. McIlwaine, of Manchoukuo :

“His labors have ended, but thank God that he has lived, for his work still lives, and while we will sorely miss his counsel and leadership, our trust is in God, and we go out under His standard. I think that Dr. Machen more than any one else is responsible for my return to a true faith in the Bible. I pray that I may realize how fleeting life is, and that I may be spurred on to make better use of my time in the service of the Lord than I have so far.”

*  *  *  *  *

Mr. Rohrbaugh, of Ethiopia.

“It is strange, isn’t it? Dr. Wilson was sparred long enough to see Westminster Seminary firmly established, and now Dr. Machen ends his life’s work by securely establishing the new Church. It is strange, too, how God takes away our human props and throws us completely upon Himself. But the work will remain, not the result of the efforts of a man or of men, but will be known to all as a work of God . . .

Though we mourn his passing, I suppose we should rather give thanks that we have had the privilege of knowing so great a soul and so devoted a servant of God. He loved the fellowship of the faithful and the formation of the new Church must have been as great a joy to him as the defection of the old was a sorrow . . . During my last two years at Princeton I lived on the same floor with him and so knew him quite well, and while at Westminster got to know him much better. I wouldn’t trade that friendship with him for anything in the world.

*     *     *     *     *

Mr. Gaffin, of China, writes : 

“I do not know of a man I loved and respected more than him [Dr. Machen], except my own father.”

*     *     *     *     *

Mr. Coray, of Manchoukuo, writes :

The newspapers reporting the death of Dr. Machen referred to him as ‘intolerant,’ ‘bitter,’ ‘harsh,’ ‘critical,’ ‘schismatic.’  These terms of opprobrium reflect the heartless judgment of a crooked and perverse generation upon one of God’s noblemen. Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.”

Those who really knew Dr. Machen cannot but deeply resent these slurring thrusts at his character.

I have before me a letter written by him under date February 11, 1935. In it he deplores the action of the Presbytery of Lackawanna in erasing my name from its rolls. ‘It is not punishable by civil laws as certain sins are punishable,’ he wrote, ‘but it is a very black sin indeed.’  The next sentence would astound the Presbytery of Lackawanna were its members to see it.  ‘We shall never give up our prayer that those who committed that sin and other sins may repent and be forgiven.’ In the Presbytery of Lackawanna are men who hated Dr. Machen. The moving spirit in that body took particular pains in going outside his Presbytery to charge Dr. Machen with ‘disturbing the peace of the church.’ I have heard others speak contemptuously of him. Little did they know the man they attacked.

‘Do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you.’ Is there a finer commentary on our Lord’s injunction than these words, ‘We shall never give up our prayer that those who committed that sin and other sins may repent and be forgiven’? I confess they sent me to my knees.”

The penultimate paragraph in this brief essay provides an interesting contrasting argument when compared with the previously posted editorial by Dr. Samuel G. Craig.  Where Craig argued that the PCUSA was within its rights to prohibit membership in parachurch organizations, here Dr. Robinson correctly notes that earlier PCUSA examples contradict such a ruling.  On another subject, it might also be useful to compare Robinson’s essay with D.S. Kennedy’s comments in respect to the first of the Preliminary Principles.

Liberty of Conscience
By the Rev. Prof. William Childs Robinson, Th.D.
[Christianity Today 5.11 (April 1935): 261.]

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to His word, or beside it, in matters of faith and worship.”

This teaching from the Confession has always been dear to Presbyterian hearts. It is rooted in Jesus’ statement, “But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,” Matt. 15:9. It echoes Calvin’s conviction that “it is necessary to destroy everything which diminishes the honor of God and to that end every rule except His Word.” It reiterates the famous sermon of Alexander Henderson to the memorable Scottish Assembly of 1638: “It is not obedience to follow the humours of men that go out of this line.”

The true interpretation of the words of the Confession may be seen by the petition which the Westminster Divines addressed to Parliament requesting the adoption of their book of discipline. This petition asserts that they do not ask for “an arbitrary or unlimited power: for how can that power be called arbitrary which is not according to the will of man, but the will of Christ; or how can it be supposed to be unlimited which is circumscribed and regulated by the exactest law?”

Dr. John Witherspoon experienced the rigors of arbitrary church government under the “moderates” of Scotland. Therefore, when he came to organize the American General Assembly, he wrote as its preliminary principles: “That all church power, whether exercised by the body in general, or in the way of representation by delegated authority, is only ministerial and declarative; that is to say, that the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith and manners; that no church judicatory ought to pretend to make laws, to bind the conscience in virtue of their own authority; and that all their decisions should be founded upon the revealed will of God.” Further that the Church is to exercise censure by “observing in all cases the rules contained in the Word of God.” In entire accord with these principles which still form part of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., our Southern Presbyterian Church has expressly defined an ecclesiastical offence as “anything in the principles or practice of a church member professing faith in Christ, which is contrary to the Word of God.”

The sense of each of these authorities is that Presbyterians regard that only as “an offence,” which is contrary to the teaching of God in His Word. And yet we have the anomalous situation in the Northern Presbyterian Church of Dr. Machen and other members of the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions being tried for violating the commandments of men. There is room for difference of opinion as to the wisdom or advisability of organizing this Board. Into that question the writer has no desire to go. But as the cited authorities show, those who have organized this Board have not been guilty of committing a Presbyterian offence. It has not been shown that they have acted contrary to the Word of God.

Just a little over a hundred years ago while the General Assembly was supporting the interdenominational American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, at least two independent boards were organized by Presbyterians. The Presbyterians of South Carolina and Georgia organized the Southern Board of Foreign Missions; while those of Virginia and Pennsylvania organized the Western Foreign Missionary Society. Not only were these Presbyterians never disciplined; but the last named was eventually taken over by the General Assembly and is now the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Dr. Thornwell opposed the whole board system as without Scriptural warrant. Would he have been disciplined had he done what then Southern Church has since done, namely, organized an executive committee instead of a board?

Regardless of what one may think of the Independent Board, he can but regard the effort to discipline these men as an invasion of liberty of conscience.

[Robinson, William Childs, “Liberty of Conscience,” Christianity Today 5.11 (April 1935): 261.]