General Synod

You are currently browsing articles tagged General Synod.

On June 6 of this year, our post featured a look at the life and ministry of the Rev. Richard W. Gray, architect of the 1965 union of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Synod [1833-1965] and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church [1961-1965]. On the occasion of that union in 1965, Dr. Gray delivered the following sermon, titled:—

WHERE HAVE WE BEEN AND WHERE ARE WE GOING?

grayRichardWIn 1936 I was a senior in Westminster Seminary about to launch upon a cause which, to me and many others, showed great promise. I had become acquainted with this cause at Wheaton College where, with Dr. Buswell as president, I learned something of the conflict and of the gathering storms in the Presbyterian Church in the USA. It was there I was introduced to the works of Machen and I heard him speak for the first time, and came to know some of the men of this assembly.

During my first two years of seminary there was the upheaval at Westminster when the policy of “no compromise” caused the resignation of the president of the board, Dr. Clarence McCartney, and of one of the original faculty members, Dr. O.T. Allis. It was while I was in seminary that I went with a number of students and sat in the lovely, colonial, historic sanctuary of the First Presbyterian Church of Trenton. On the platform were five or six men comprising the Judicial Commission of the Presbytery of New Jersey. I heard them read out five or six indictments against J. Gresham Machen and I saw him humbly but firmly, stand and plead on each one “not guilty.” Then I saw this trial of justice become a fiasco when they refused to permit doctrinal consideration and said the only issue at stake was whether or not Dr. Machen belonged to the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions.

In 1936 I was preaching for one of the commissioners to the Syracuse Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the USA when Dr. Machen, Dr. Buswell, Dr. Laird and others were having their cases reviewed by that Assembly, sitting as a judicial court. It upheld the convictions of these lower courts—in effect, defrocking these men, or at least removing them from the rolls of the Presbyterian Church in the USA.

Then, I sat on that day in June in the New Century Club in Philadelphia with a group of people known as the Presbyterian Constitutional Covenant Union. There the constituting act for the Presbyterian Church of America was adopted. There stepped to the platform the young professor of philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania, Gordon H. Clark, and in “Clarkian” style he took from his pocket two 8 1/2 x 11 pages and delivered a terse but brilliant nominating speech which made J. Gresham Machen moderator of the First General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America.

It was like standing upon a tower. There was a great vista before us. I felt as though I was a part of church history and in my bones were some of the great convictions of the Reformers and of the early Christians. But within one year I was to know something of the disillusionment and the discouragement that causes the Psalmist to cry out in the first three verses of Psalm 60. This initial group split and each side tagged the other with labels which it has taken about 25 years to wash off.

We went, some of us, to our local churches, working in store-fronts and in houses against the great odds which were now upon us, being labelled with every kind of name. In the course of two decades each of these groups broke again and we became known all over the country as “splinterers.”

“O God, thou hast cast us off.” I do not think I cried this out literally, but I am sure these were my feelings.

We had felt that the hand of God was on that movement when the Presbyterian Constitutional Covenant Union became the Presbyterian Church of America and Dr. Machen became its first Moderator. But now we felt like crying out: “O God, thou hast cast us off; thou hast scattered us, thou hast been displeased. Thou hast made the earth to tremble; thou hast broken it; heal the branches thereof; for it shaketh. Thou hast showed thy people hard things; thou hast made us to drink the wine of astonishment.”

Discouragement? Well, some of you may never known such discouragement as was experienced then. Vaguely there was still the sense of calling which is described in the next two verses, the calling and the prayer. “Thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee, that it may be displayed in the cause of truth. That thy beloved may be delivered; save with thy right hand, and hear me.” It was not much more than a gasp. Where was the banner with which we began?

Now a banner is a standard raised in warfare. We believed in 1936 that we belonged to the Church Militant. I want to say that we still belong to the Church Militant. The Lord Jesus Christ is not carrying on His work on this earth with tin soldiers. It is a life-and-death struggle.

I believe we are still in the warfare and we still have the same banner. The banner raised in the cause of truth was raised for the turth against compromise in ecclesiastical matters. We were standing for the purity of the visible church. We felt that the organized church had been instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and it was not simply an association of convenience, or an organization that one joined because he wanted to get ahead, or even merely to give one the opportunity of preaching the gospel.

Also the banner of truth was raised against compromise culturally. We believed that Christianity was not only a fire escape from hell, so to speak, but it was a life-and-world view. We still believe this. We held this against the encroaching secularism of the day, against the deadening formalism of the church, and against the contaminating worldliness with which the church had become tainted.

Further, the banner of truth was raised against the compromise doctrinally. Many of us had come out of fundamentalism which united on five brief doctrines. We thanked God for that fundamentalism which stood in the gap and really brought us to a knowledge of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. But when we were introduced to the Westminster Standards, those documents which set forth the system of truth taught in the Word of God, we found something that satisfied our souls in depth. We felt that that also was a part of the standard and it was our calling to hold and raise this standard that God had given us—a banner for the cause of truth against compromise ecclesiastically, against compromise culturally, and against compromise doctrinally.

But you can well imagine that we did not exactly carry that banner with heads up. We were kind of disheveled looking after the reverses and the discouragements of 1937 and of the next decade. We would wait for the strange-looking stare that usually came and we wondered whether God had cast us off.

But then the encouragements began to come. As the Psalmist said, “God hath spoken in his holiness; I will rejoice.” I remember about ten years ago in the midst of some of these discouragements trying to convince myself that I could take a pulpit in the United Presbyterian Church about a year or two before the union with the Presbyterian Church USA, was to be consummated. It was a large pulpit and a rather influential one. I did my best to convince myself that I could take this. But somehow or other I could not quite give up on the calling that I felt God had given to me to raise this banner and to display it in the cause of truth.

I was still convinced, as I am sure many of you were, even though I did not feel it, that God had spoken in His Holiness and I clung to the promises by performances. Some encouragements began to appear. When I had a pastorate in southern Jersey just across the river from Wilmington I became acquainted with some of the brethren from whom I had been separated for ten or fifteen years. We began to work together on The Witness and the National Missions Reporter, which later became the Evangelical Presbyterian Reporter with basically the format of The Witness. That was an encouragement in the right direction.

Then the Columbus Synod occurred, and what was to be known as the Evangelical Presbyterian Church took form. Several men of that Synod went to Houston, Kentucky, to a little group known as The Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America. They said, “You know, we believe the same things you do. Cannot we get together?” I was not part of it then. They, too, had had their discouragements. Their difficulties had come before, and I think none of the older Reformed Presbyterian men would deny that discouragement had set in.

So now channels began to open. The next year some of us who had no ecclesiastical home and who had become somewhat discouraged and disillusioned, went to Coulterville, where we observed the Evangelical Presbyterian and Reformed Presbyterian Churches discussing union. It was only a year later that we were a part of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. And now, praise God, we are a part of the united church.

Although during the last five years there have been many dark days as far as this union is concerned, during the preceding 25 years there were even darker days, God gave His encouragement, we kept working and praying, and here we are.

I feel today the way I felt in 1936, when I thought I was about to launch upon a crusade with great promise. Before us at this synod there stretches the vista of large opportunity. It is the feeling one gets as he looks from the tower of Covenant College across vistas that include seven states.

But as we look out over this beautiful territory, we also see an enemy ensconced in his fortified city and we ask, “Who will bring me into the strong city, who will lead me into Edom?” You know, I think we can look at the strong city of Presbyterianism with the powerful enemy within its borders, and we can do so with a certain confident expectation regarding the future. A few weeks ago I received a phone call from a prominent conservative layman in the Presbyterian Church of the USA. He said, “I suppose you’ve seen the write-up in Time magazine about the change in the Creed. Last July I was in Princeton and I heard Dr. Dowey say the Westminster Confession of Faith was the death of theology.”

Then he made this statement to me: “You know 20 years ago they said to us that the conservative strategy should be one of co-existence and cooperation, but where has it gotten us?” I agreed that that would have been a great strategy if the hierarchy had “bought” it. The devil may allow the conservatives to win some tactical victories but certainly no strategic victories. He is certainly not surrendering the source of ministerial supply to any conservatives in that church or any other church if he can help it. Then he continued: “If you can do anything to arouse the conservatives in our denomination to reconsider this question I wish you would do it.”

In preparation for this Synod I wrote several men asking them to assess the situation in Presbyterianism today. A friend of mine who was a part of this movement in 1936 and now has one of the large Presbyterian pulpits in this country wrote. Listen to his note of discouragement. “Blake and Company are riding two horses. They speak of union with others, Episcopal, United Church, and so forth, but at the same time the unforgiveable sin is to buck the machine and not to be 100 percent Presbyterian. 100 percent Presbyterian means to give your all to the denominational program prepared by the professionals. At the same time they are making it easier for anyone to come under the flag of Presbyterianism by offering us a variety of creeds and statements. So you pay your money and take your choice. We can offer anybody anything in the way of a creed in our church. . .”

“The Presbyterian Church, North, is run by professionals who can make us poor preachers look silly when it comes to maneuvering. Note how they so slickly turned Pittsburgh Seminary from the one source of conservative-producing ministers to one of the most scholarly, radical institutions we have. Princeton is by far more conservative than Pittsburgh. They just faked us right out of our buildings.”

He is just utterly discouraged. He says, “I must admit I have not any positive thoughts about your united denomination. I can only point out the weaknesses of the situation in which I find myself, and hope they can be avoided.”

One of the leaders of the Southern Presbyterian Church wrote, “My statement to you uniting men would go along these lines. American Presbyterianism is in a state of sharp decline. The optimism of the late ’30’s over the revival of doctrinal consciousness due to the neo-orthodox movement has proved unfounded, for the rejection of Biblical infallibility by the Barthian group has had the inevitable effect of further unsettling the theological picture.

“The toboggan can be clearly seen in the north. It is not yet in evidence in the south, but a drift of increasing proportions may be easily detected. Conservatives in the southern church at this time are fighting only a holding action. They have the Presbyterian Journal as their rallying point and in this they are truly fortunate, but they lack a consistently conservative seminary which is a major and most lamentable weakness. They should be able to stave off efforts to effect union with the UP-USA body, for the constitutional requirement that mergers must receive an affirmative vote of 3/4ths of the Presbyteries is still adequate safeguard.

“There is a great need on the American scene for a sturdy, conservative Presbyterian denomination. The union of the EPC and the RPC is an important step in achieving this. If next the OPC can be brought to join forces, a truly impressive denomination would resutl. Numerically they would form a pretty good network of churches across the country. Separatist movements usually carry in themselves the seeds of further division as shown again in the days of 1936. The new denomination has learned these lessons it may be hoped.

“If the OPC should come along, too, there would be adequate number of experienced men with balanced judgment to keep the denomination on a sound course, one to encourage steady growth by local progress in attracting to the new church our Presbyterian groups seeking a happy spiritual home.

“To assist” (and I think this is a very important paragraph) “this last suggested development to occur the new denomination should follow a statesman-like policy toward the USA and the Southern church. They might well feel that their role in the south should be to testify without derogating. Criticisms that have to be made in faithfulness to Scripture could be offered in an evident spirit of loving concern, in sorrow not condemnation. It might be indicated that the line of separation that sometimes has to be drawn is often very difficult to decide upon, one man’s conscience not having received the same education as another’s, and Biblical interpretation on the issue of separation not standing out sharply and obviously clearly.”

So you see from these statements. and I think they are typical of the feelings of conservatives in the north and the south, that they are looking at us with somewhat envious eyes, and we must conduct ourselves with proper demeanor. If we ask humbly: “Who will bring me into the strong city? Who will lead me into Edom?” we will be able to reply: “Wilt not thou, O God, which hadst cast us off? and thou, O God, which didst not go out with our armies? Give us help from trouble, for vain is the help of man. Through God we shall gather strength: for he it is that shall tread down our enemies.”

I wonder what it was for which we were not prepared in 1936 that in the providence of God we may be prepared for in 1965 in order to seize the very same opportunity? I think we ought to ponder this question. One thing is that we must rely more upon the sovereign God. This reliance would cause us to carry on the battle in a different manner.

As one of the brethren of this Synod wrote me, “We should avoid the way in which we used to set forth the negative.” I was tremendously impressed by a statement in Phillips’ Your God Is Too Small in which he said that if you set forth the positive clearly and firmly and with conviction, the negative will automatically be there. But we must also exercise our responsibility, and whenever you hold to the Sovereignty of God, you are bound to hold to human responsibility.

If we are relying upon the sovereign God in prayer, then we are raising the banner in the great battle for the truth and exercising our responsibility. And I repeat that on this banner are these three distinctives: We must display the banner of truth against compromise ecclesiastically—standing for the purity of the visible church and yet paradoxically holding equally strongly to the communion of the saints which is fellowship with all believers, personally, individually, regardless of the organization ecclesiastically in which they find themselves.

We must display the banner of truth against compromise culturally, holding to the Christian life and world view, clinging tenaciously to the antithesis, while at the same time paradoxically utilizing Common Grace.

We must hold fast in our displaying of the banner of truth over against doctrinal compromise and I think this is our greatest need. Some of you other men feel the same, that we must cling to the system of truth set forth in the Westminster Standards. We are thanking God for the fundamentalism that brought us to Christ, but we are Presbyterians and we must hold to this system of truth which we believe is truly Scriptural and satisfying. It meets the enemy on many fronts.

At the same time we recognize that this system of truth has something in common with every other Christian system of truth as long as it holds to the infallibility of Holy Scripture and the supernatural doctrines of the Apostles’ Creed. We are Presbyterians in the providence of God and also by conviction. We must not be ashamed of this and if Infant Baptism is the only reason we are Presbyterians we are holding to Presbyterianism for a meager reason. The stronger reasons for being Presbyterian are for the teaching concerning the great doctrines of grace summarized in the five points of Calvinism, and the doctrine of the Covenant of Grace, as well as the Presbyterian form of government.

Who will bring me into the strong city? Who will lead me into Edom the camp of the enemy? Wilt not thou, O God, which hadst cast us off, and thou, O God, which didst not go out with our armies? Give us help from trouble; for vain is the help of man. Through God we shall gather strength; for He is is that shall tread down our enemies.”

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

A false start?

The beginnings of the Presbyterian Church of America in 1936 were small but richly blessed with men who had taken their stand for the faith of historic Christianity.  [here we are speaking of the denomination that was compelled under lawsuit to change its name in 1938 and which has been known since as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church]. Yet, but a year later—in 1937 and during the Third General Assembly of that church, a group of ministers from among their number were meeting to set up a new Presbyterian church, made up of elders out of that original group of stalwarts of the faith.  What had happened?

They had all agreed on the reasons for the separation from the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.  That church had allowed departures from the faith at home and on the mission field without doing anything about it.  Failure to discipline those who had broken their ordination vows was rampart.  Indeed, not one minister who had signed the Auburn Affirmation was ever charged by any Presbytery.  J. Gresham Machen himself had acknowledged this failure while he was still living. But he had been taken from the small body of Presbyterian separatists by death on January 1, 1937.

Now in the new church, various secondary issues had sprung up to threaten the peace and unity of the church.  One was the eschatological issue.  Pre-millennialism had always been allowed in the church, but dispensational pre-millennialism had not been accepted.  This was proving to be a divisive issue.  Second, prohibition was raging in the nation at that time.  Many churches, especially in the midwest, were taking a position against the saloon trade.  In that light, an overture was made at the PCA general assembly to bring the church to a position of total abstinence from intoxicating drink.  That was voted down by the Assembly.

1942smBelieving that these two issues were crucial, fourteen teaching elders and three ruling elders met on June 4, 1937 at the St. James Hotel in Philadelphia to discuss their concerns.  Believing that a “false start” had been made by the delegates of the Presbyterian Church of America,  the articles of association were drafted for what later on became the Bible Presbyterian Church.  Their call for a new church which was Calvinistic, fundamental, premillennial, and evangelistic was made at that time.  Their first General Synod did not take place until September in 1938.  At that meeting, a statement was adopted which affirmed that the church and its members would pursue a course of total abstinence from alcoholic beverages, thus condemning the liquor traffic and the modern saloon.  Interestingly though, while they spoke of pre-millennialism as being a hallmark of the new church, they acknowledged liberty in eschatology or the things of the last day.

Pictured above: the delegates to the 1942 Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church.

In more recent days, the Bible Presbyterian Church has recognized the schismatic nature of that separation from what is now the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.  After many examples of extreme separation down through its history, the current Bible Presbyterian Church has twenty churches  nationwide, as found in four presbyteries.

Words to Live By:  We can and should be thankful to God for all churches which are obedient to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, which are Reformed in doctrine, those which look forward to the Lord’s return in power and great glory, and which are evangelistic, intent upon taking the Gospel to the nations.  Let us extend a hand of fellowship to all such congregations.

For Further Study:
To view the finding aids for a portion of the Bible Presbyterian Church records preserved at the PCA Historical Center, click here. [information on related collections can be found at that linked page.]

Tags: , , ,

It’s not always easy writing a biographical sketch for men who served in the old Bible Presbyterian Church or the Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Synod. These were the two groups which merged in 1965 to create the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod, and neither group maintained anything like the ministerial directories that are available for both the OPC and the PCA. So details are often lacking in an account such as we have here today, taken from the memorial for Rev. Harry H. Meiners, Jr. This memorial was “spread upon the minutes” (i.e., it was included as part of the minutes) of the 1971 RPCES Synod.
I note right at the start of the following memorial, that nothing is said here of his parents, nor where he went to college, nor do we have his full birth date. Finding these added details will require going through volumes of old Presbytery records and other materials, but it is a project which I plan to start in earnest this summer, to construct a concise ministerial directory for the BPC (pre-1956) and the RPC,GS. Once we have that in hand, we will effectively have a directory for the RPCES. Some of this information is already available for those men who eventually became part of the PCA, but there are many others still to research. If you have biographical information for any of those men who might have died prior to the reception of the RPCES into the PCA in 1982, please contact me (see the About page).

meiners01“Reverend Harry H. Meiners, Jr. was born in 1919. After college he took his seminary training at Westminster Theological Seminary, Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia.

“Upon completion of his seminary training in 1950, he began to serve as the pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Duanesburg, New York, a member church of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America, General Synod. He served in this post until 1959, resigning due to the contraction of polio, which made it difficult for him to continue in active ministry.

“He moved to Las Cruces, New Mexico in July of 1959 for health reasons. Though his body was frail, it did not limit him in his desire to be of utmost service in the Lord’s work. He was largely responsible for the University Presbyterian Church of Las Cruces joining with the our denomination. That church has not only a fine membership from that community, but a strong student ministry to New Mexico State University located there. Since the church property adjoins that of the University, it has a most strategic location. Mr. Meiners has on several occasions served as interim pastor and moderator of the Church. He was held in highest esteem by the Church and not only ministered there but also at Westminster Reformed Presbyterian Church in Alamogordo.

“Mr. Meiners was one of the leaders largely responsible for the growth of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America and then in the union with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. [Note: the EPC referred to here was originally named the Bible Presbyterian Church, Columbus Synod, taking the EPC designation from 1961 until its merger with the RPCNA, GS in 1965; it is not to be confused with that EPC which began its existence in 1981 and which continues today.] He served as the Stated Clerk of the RPC,ES from the time of the Union in 1965, having served in the same capacity in the Reformed Presbyterian Church since 1960. He was most proficient, conscientious and accurate. He manifested a great compassion for God’s people and a deep loyalty to Christ.

“At the 148th General Synod [1970], Mr. Meiners gave notice that he would be resigning at the time of the 149th General Synod due to a serious heart attack. Although it was not easy to give up this position which he loved, he was making every effort to turn over the responsibility and endeavoring to make it easier for his successor to take over the work. Just recently [early 1971] he suffered another serious heart attack and was again hospitalized, but seemed to be improving. Just the Sunday prior to his home-going, he attended both Morning and Evening Services of the Las Cruces Church. He spoke of his great yearning to continue to have an active part in our denomination through the ministry of prayer. On Sunday, May 9, early in the morning, he quietly slipped away to be with the Lord. He is survived by his wife, two daughters and three sons. His oldest daughter graduated from Covenant College last year and the next two children are now students of the College. [one son went on to serve as a missionary with the PCA’s Mission to the World agency.]

“A great leader and faithful servant has been taken from us. We will all deeply miss our brother who was so gracious and kind and brought so much encouragement to our movement. God’s ways are past finding out. Again, we are reminded that men come and go, but God and His work go on forever. May his home-going challenge all who knew him to be more faithful in service to the Lord, looking forward to the day of the appearing of our Lord. Mr. Meiners was faithful until death and to him has been given the Crown of Life. He has heard the word of His Master, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant…Enter thou into the joy of the Lord.” Matthew 25:21.”

Words to Live By:
Time and again we read that God uses the meek and lowly. Pay careful attention, for often the Lord uses times of adversity and hardship to bring about great works in His kingdom. Rev. Meiners was stricken with polio, and so surrendered his pulpit and moved to New Mexico . . . where he was vitally involved in the life of two more churches!

Tags: , , , , , , ,

What follows is admittedly lengthy. It is the second half of a funeral sermon delivered by the Rev. David Steele, pastor of the Fourth Reformed Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia. This is the biographical section of the sermon, and given that today is Saturday, we trust you will find time to read and profit from this. There is a great deal of history bound up with this account, plus it is a fine example of this aspect of a funeral sermon. Both McLeod and Steele were members of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Synod, which tradition eventually comes into the PCA in 1982 by way of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod.

The Reverend John Niel McLeod, Doctor in Divinity, Pastor of the First Reformed Presbyterian Church, New York, and Professor of Doc­trinal Theology in the Theological Seminary of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, in North America, was born in the City of New York, on the eleventh day of October, 1806. He died on the twenty-seventh day of April, 1874, in the sixty-eighth year of his age and the forty-sixth year of his ministry. On the first day of May, 1874, by the hands of loving and Christian friends, his remains were consigned to the grave in Hill Girt Lawn, one of the most beautiful spots in Greenwood Cemetery, Long Island, New York.

Here reposes the dust of his distinguished father, the late Dr. Alexander McLeod, whose shining talents and masterly eloquence adorned the Reformed Presbyterian Church during the first quarter of the present century.

Early in the morning a number of ministerial and other friends assembled in the house of the deceased, when the solemn occasion was improved by fervent and appropriate prayer. The House of God, into which the honored dead was subse­quently brought, previous to interment, was filled to its utmost capacity by a congregation composed of persons of diversified professions and of different Christian denominations. All were bowed with sincere and reverent feelings, as solemn words were spoken and the throne of grace was addressed. A large part of the assembled multi­tude accompanied the funeral procession, and bedewed with tears of affection and grief the spot where the mortal remains were laid.

It was the season of spring. Through the rifted cloud and retiring winter the king of day was making himself felt by his warming rays. Here and there a flower was seen opening its petals, and giving promise of the coming summer. The blades of grass were shooting forth from amid the decay and debris of former life. The tuneful bird at intervals uttered a stray note, re­minding the attentive listeners that the death and muteness of winter were gone, and that in a short time, the bloom and beauty of nature would ensue. As we retired from the last resting-place of our dear friend, sad, lonely, and filled with unutter­able emotions, everything around seemed to whisper “ Thy brother shall live again,” and the words of the prophet, “ Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust,” fell like music on the grief- stricken heart.

Dr. McLeod, together with Drs. Wilson and Clarke, may be said to have formed a connecting link between that “ honorable triumvirate,” as they have been called, — Alexander McLeod, John Black, Samuel Brown Wylie,— and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of the present day. At the feet of these distinguished masters in Israel he had sat. From their lips he had caught the animating sen­timents which imbued his soul with love for the system of faith so dear to his heart. Around “the Church which they loved, for which they labored, from which no honors elsewhere offered could en­tice them, and which they literally” “set above their chiefest joy,” his affections clustered, and the triumph of her principles one day on the earth, he confidently anticipated.

These illustrious fathers have all been removed from earth to their home in heaven. They have exchanged labor for rest, conflict for triumph, re­proach for glory, and the Church visible and militant for the Church invisible and triumphant.

And oh, how the soul yearns to feel their rap­ture, to bathe in their bliss, to enjoy their com­munion, and to participate in their celestial fellow­ship !

But we come to speak more particularly of our departed friend and brother; and here may be noticed,—

I. His characteristics as a man.

For Dr. McLeod, nature had done much. He was about medium height, symmetrically formed, and in person and in mien fitted to secure influ­ence and command respect. His face was lighted up with intelligence, while every feature indicated thought and was suggestive of something excel­lent.

In manner he was dignified, courteous, concili­atory, and eminently social, when in company with those in whom he could confide. His mental characteristics were strongly marked. Earnest in his convictions, deeply conscious of his own integrity of purpose, he was ever fearless in his defence of what he esteemed to be the truth, and constantly ready to discharge whatever service he felt himself called upon in the providence of God to perform.

In conversation he was particularly happy, in­teresting, and instructive. His large stores of knowledge, intimate acquaintance with men and books, correct diction, and love to communicate information, supplied him with resources, which, on suitable occasions, he could turn to advantage, to the gratification and profit of those who were so fortunate as to be in his society. His house was the abode of cheerfulness, hospitality, and genuine friendship, and in his domestic economy he was regular and unostentatious.

Called upon frequently to leave his home in the service of the church, he was nevertheless fondly attached to it, and to every one of its members, from the infant orphanage to the part­ner of his life. For the spiritual as well as tem­poral prosperity of his family he labored, and frequent references to the health of its members in his correspondence showed how near it was to his heart, and how his affections clustered around it whether at home or abroad. At the close of a week of severe labor in the seminary, often has he journeyed homeward in order that he might spend the Sabbath in his own congregation and among the members of his own family, and then return to Philadelphia on Monday to resume instruction in the class-room. The death of such a husband and father is enough to prostrate any family. His sympathy with suffering was lively, and his benevolent acting took a wide range, from the bereaved relative to the immigrant stranger landing upon the shores of our country. In times of stagnation in trade, when numbers were suffer­ing from poverty, he took delight in becoming the projector and almoner of charities which have gladdened the hearts of thousands and evoked thanksgivings unseen and unrecognized by any but God. The poor have lost one of their best friends, and benevolence one of its most active and self-denying agents.

Dr. McLeod was a patriot; he loved the coun­try of his birth. Thoroughly American in all his feelings, he labored in his individual and ecclesi­astical capacity to elevate and ennoble Columbia in the scale of nationality. He raised his voice against oppression, and when the “irrepressible conflict” was precipitated, his whole soul was stirred to its depths in desire to suppress rebel­lion and uphold constitutional authority.

He was one of the organizers of the 84th regi­ment N. G. S. N. Y., commanded by Colonel Fred. A. Conkling. For a period of seven years he acted as chaplain, serving two campaigns with the regiment in the field.

Although intensely American in all his instincts, yet, being of immediate Scotch descent, his father, Dr. Alexander McLeod, having emigrated to this country from Mull, Argyleshire, Scotland, he was warmly attached to Scotland and to Scotsmen. This attachment, as well as other circumstances, no doubt induced him to make no less than four visits to the land of martyrs, and of his father’s sepulchres. In 1869 his tour through the High­lands was very extended; and being versed in the traditions and literature of the Gaelic language, his last journey afforded him great delight. Often have we heard him become enthusiastic in his descriptions of the noble men with whom he met in Scotland, and in its neighboring province, the North of Ireland.

But we proceed to consider him, —

II. In his public relations.

These were numerous and exceedingly varied. From his youth he had been devoted to the pur­suit of literature. His preparatory studies, previ­ous to entering college, were pursued under the direction of the late Rev. S. B. Wylie, D.D., to whom so many in the learned professions, espe­cially in and around Philadelphia, are indebted for their acquaintance with ancient classic literature. In 1826 he graduated from Columbia College, New York, with distinction. Having had the ministry in view from an early age, after leaving college he entered the Theological Seminary of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, then located in the City of Philadelphia. But from his boy­hood he had been a student of theology. Like his esteemed father, he had received much of his divinity in the nursery, and in the social prayer-meetings of the Reformed Presbyterian Church.

With philosophy and science in all their ramifi­cations and subtleties, the subject of our memoir was remarkably familiar. His reading was exten­sive, and he never allowed himself to fall behind in an acquaintance with the latest discoveries and most advanced opinions in relation to every sub­ject of interest. He was well acquainted with the stores of knowledge embodied in the Greek and Roman tongues. He was an excellent Orien­talist, and until the last devoted himself to the study of the Celtic and modern languages. His acquisitions in every department of literature were made subsidiary to the knowledge of Divine truth. His conceptions of inspiration were lofty and de­vout. And while he viewed the Hebrew as the parent stock of all the spoken and unspoken dia­lects, he felt that the Bible was for man, and that its inspiration could not be lost in a faithful translation into any of the languages of human kind. Hence, the deep and absorbing interest which he took in everything pertaining to the circulation of the Holy Scriptures. In the pos­session of such furniture, it is not surprising that he should be successful as a minister of the Gospel.

After a short period of probation, subsequent to licensure, he was called to the Reformed Presby­terian Church of Galway, Saratoga County, State of New York. In this congregation he was ordained and installed in the year 1829. On the fifteenth of April, 1830, he was united in marriage to Miss Margaret T. Wylie, eldest daughter of the Rev. S. B. Wylie, D.D., of Philadelphia. The health of his father becoming somewhat impaired, he was called from his field of labor in Galway by the First Reformed Presbyterian congregation of New York City. This call he accepted, and on the fourteenth of January, 1833, he was installed as assistant pastor and successor to his father. The relation established between him and the con­gregation of New York continued until his death, a period of more than forty years. To sum up all the good that has been done to the souls of men by this servant of Christ during these years is be­yond the power of human computation. The aged who have ripened for heaven, those in the prime of life who have been strengthened to over­come the world, the youth who have been encour­aged to lay hold on Christ, and the careless who have been warned of their danger under this ministry, can testify to the fidelity of him whose memory we aim to honor, and whose voice we can hear no more on earth.

As an appreciation of his scholarship and Bib­lical research the degree of Doctor of Divinity was conferred upon him by Dickinson College in the year 1846. This honor is seldom conferred on one so worthy of distinction.

The material of Dr. McLeod’s discourses was the marrow of the Gospel, announced with the accuracy of the scholar, the grace and ease of the accomplished orator, and the unction and applica­tion of one deeply imbued with the love of God and earnestly concerned for the welfare of the souls of men. His preaching was didactic and expository, and he was peculiarly happy in avail­ing himself of occasions and events to arrest atten­tion and press home truth upon the conscience. His views of the two covenants, the mediatorial throne, the Church, and the ultimate triumph of religion on the earth through her instrumentality, were singularly clear, comprehensive, and satisfy­ing. And at times, in speaking upon these themes, he would become so deeply moved and absorbed with their grandeur, in relation to the two eternities, that the most inattentive listener could not fail to perceive that the Holy Ghost had come down upon his servant with more than ordinary fulness and power. Nor did he ever fail to assert and illustrate the paramount obligation of the law of God revealed in the Scriptures, over man in all his relations, pursuits, and circumstances.

On communion occasions he was particularly happy. These have always been seasons of great interest in the Reformed Presbyterian Church, and the observance of established order, as well as the provision of material for discourse, makes large draughts upon the mental resources of the min­ister. With all the “forms” and “ordinances” of Zion on such occasions he was familiar, and he well knew how to adapt and use the Scriptural form, so as to secure the largest attention for the substance. It was in such connection that he would dwell upon the unity and catholicity of the church, and with a spirit of good-will towards others aim to infuse into the hearts of his hear­ers an intelligent regard for that department of Zion with which, by solemn transacting with God, they entered into covenant. These seasons he loved, and in them he rejoiced. To him, there­fore, we believe, it was no ordinary privilege, that in his departure from among us, there was only the interval of a few days between the moment of communion on earth and the table of everlasting fellowship in heaven. His Father’s house here, he has left, that he might enter with gladness and rejoicing the palace of the King of Glory. And in his experience the hallowed intercourse of the church visible is swallowed up in the uninter­rupted fellowship of the celestial paradise. Not for effect, but in faith, each survivor may say, “Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his!”

As a Theological Professor, our esteemed broth­er excelled. It was, we believe, in the Theologi­cal Seminary that Dr. McLeod’s gifts shone with peculiar lustre. Here he brought forth the results of the study of more than half a century. Here he gathered his pupils around him, as a family, and addressed them as a father. Here, while charitable to others, he labored to communicate to the students under his care some of his own glow of ecclesiastical patriotism, as he expounded and illustrated the system of faith solemnly adopted by the department of the church of God with which he was associated. His sympathies stretch­ing out as widely as humanity, and his researches embracing the whole range of useful and instruct­ive literature, were all brought, as it were, to a focus in the school of the prophets. With an accuracy rarely equalled, and a diction pure and classic as the rarest literary gems of ancient or of modern times, he laid before those waiting upon his prelections the sum of theology, invariably and ever making all his teaching centre in, and radiate from, glory to the mediatorial throne. He loved the school of the prophets, and was willing to make any and every sacrifice for its success.

Called to the Chair of Theology in the year 1851 he had received a charge from Rev. S. B. Wylie, D.D., its first Professor of Theology, to the following effect: “ Take care of the seminary. It is the hope of the church,” and this dying request of his honored predecessor he never forgot. At great personal inconvenience, he journeyed to and from New York and Philadelphia in the depth of winter, in order that he might dis­charge the duties devolved upon him in the School of Theology. And there can be no doubt that his abundant labors in connection with the seminary, together with his tribulations and pa­tience in the kingdom of Jesus Christ, hastened the breaking down of a constitution which, with ordinary labor, humanly speaking, might have been good for years longer. In his death, litera­ture has lost an ornament, and theology a sound and safe instructor. Let those who have received his instructions feel their responsibility, and never forget that their preceptor died in the same faith that he taught, and in which he lived, as will be seen by the following extract from his last will and testament:—

“I declare my belief in the Christian religion as revealed in Holy Scripture of both Testa­ments, and in the Reformed Presbyterian system, in all its parts, as the best exposition of that re­ligion which is known to me; and I embrace the Divine Author of that religion, the Lord Jesus Christ, as my own Saviour, for wisdom, righteous­ness, sanctification, and redemption. To Him I commit my body, soul, family, church, country — all, while once more I act faith on His blessed person, and complete and glorious sacrifice.”

In the councils of the church Dr. McLeod was an able and judicious adviser, and upon the floor of a church judicatory few men were his superiors. For twenty-five years he acted as Stated Clerk of General Synod, and with every detail in the order of judicial proceeding he had become perfectly familiar. His recollection of precedents was re­markably accurate ; and when the business of the court of which he was member would some­times become entangled, he could always indicate the way to consistent deliverance from difficulty.

In his affections the union of the Church of Christ had a large place. He deplored the divi­sions of Zion, prayed for her peace, and labored and longed for the day when the watchman shall see eye to eye.

In the year 1858 the subject of this memoir was appointed on the Standing Committee on Versions of the American Bible Society, of which, after the resignation of Rev. Dr. Gardner Spring, in 1864, he was elected chairman. In this position he was highly valued by his associates for his good judgment, kind spirit, sound scholarship, and great promptness and fidelity. And at a meeting of the Board of Managers of the American Bible Society, held May 6, 1874, a minute was adopted expressive of regard for their esteemed associate.

At an early period of its history he was con­nected with the Evangelical Alliance, and attended as a delegate its meeting in Paris in the year 1855. At the monthly meeting of the Executive Committee of the Evangelical Alliance of the United States, held- April 27, 1874, a resolution of respect was passed. For thirty-eight years he acted as chaplain of the St. Andrew’s Society of the State of New York.

He was one of a committee of fifteen of the American Tract Society, N. Y., to report as to the duty of the society in regard to issuing publica­tions on the subject of slavery. This committee reported that tracts against slavery should be issued, as well as against intemperance and other evils. He was one of the four clerical directors of the Presbyterian Hospital, New York, to whom are committed all matters relating to the spiritual and religious ministrations of the hospital. In all these public relations, so numerous and so varied, he possessed the esteem of every one who knew how to appreciate his love for truth and his regard for the glory of the Church’s Head. Nor should it be overlooked that while he was thus active in helping forward schemes which were designed to benefit and bless mankind at home, he was also busily engaged in concerting meas­ures for the advancement of the Redeemer’s kingdom abroad. And the success of the Re­formed Presbyterian Mission at Saharanpur, India, is largely due, to his earnest efforts on behalf of its establishment at first, and his continued sympathy and fostering hand during its subsequent progress. The memories of the past should still keep alive the missionary spirit in the Church, which is the spirit of the Gospel. But,

We pass on to notice briefly the religious life of our departed brother, particularly in its close.

And here it may be noted that his religious ex­periences were singularly unobtrusive. They took the form of the deep and quiet river, moving majesti­cally onward to the ocean, rather than that of the noisy cataract, which, notwithstanding its tem­porary din, is frequently lost in a short distance from the spot where it was first caught by the eye of the observer. Their reality and value must be judged more from their untiring and beneficent activity than from personal expression by words.

In his infancy he was dedicated to God. He grew up under the fostering care of a godly and distinguished parentage. He enjoyed the privilege of hearing the Gospel regularly from the lips of his illustrious father, while at the same time in the family and in the fellowship meeting, he was brought constantly into contact with doc­trinal and practical truth by catechising and other forms of instruction, still common in Reformed Presbyterian families. Head and heart received their appropriate culture. Under such influences, accompanied by the blessing of the Spirit, he was early led to make a profession of his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and to devote himself to the ministry of the Gospel. Our personal recollec­tions of him extend over a period of nearly twenty years. When we first saw him he was in the vigor of manhood, and his appearance as a man and a minister of Christ made an impression on us which no lapse of time can efface. But it was more particularly within the last fifteen years that we were brought into contact with his ripe schol­arship, profound acquaintance with the mysteries of the kingdom of God, rich Christian experi­ence, and unwavering trust in God. In his youth he had been mercifully delivered from the temp­tations which are so prevalent in a large city like New York. As he approached the close of his earthly sojourn, the bloom of youthful piety devel­oped into the clusters of religious manhood, and his heavenward thought and conversation more and more conspicuously lighted up the entire background of a life devoted exclusively to the service of the Master.

In the August of 1873, when in the act of moving from his own church door, he met with an accident, by which he sustained the fracture of an arm. Nothing could surpass the patience with which he bore up under this dispensation; and when it was feared that he would be unable to be in his place at the opening of the services of the Theological Seminary, to the surprise and pleas­ure of all interested, he was forward at the ap­pointed time. Although suffering from the pain of his arm, all his duties in the seminary were regularly and punctually performed. The prayer with which he concluded his last meeting with the class was noticeably fervent and affecting. His pleadings with God deepened and intensified, as his soul, burdened with concern for the Church and her students of theology, labored to bring down the Divine blessing upon the work of the session. He never met with the class again.

For several weeks before his death he was con­siderably indisposed, although it would appear that no alarming symptoms were manifest. That he was arranging for his removal from earth, nu­merous evidences have been disclosed since his decease. Upon his table, placed by himself in a conspicuous place, was found a little piece of newspaper, with the words, “ Meet me in heaven.” Stepping Heavenward, with other devotional books, lay upon his table at his hand. The
pic­ture of Dr. Andrew Black he always kept before him in his study. A short time previous to his death he had cut out a small picture of himself, and placed it beside that of his dear friend. In a corner of his study hung a picture of the church. In connection with this he had arranged a small vignette of himself also, while in another part of the room was a piece of rock bracket with a small copy of the Bible resting upon it.

These were symbolical acts, very like those of the prophets of old. They speak of heaven, of the communion of saints, of attachment to the Church, of the Bible as enduring as the rock, and of the grand meeting of the people of God in the house not made with hands.

In his diary he seems to delight in the expres­sion’s he closes his writing for the day, “Keeper of Israel, keep me.” The mediatorial headship was frequently uppermost in his thoughts, and the expression, “Let Messiah reign,” was with him a favorite. And then, as he meditates on death, he employs the language, “When mortality itself shall be swallowed up of life.”

He continued at his post until his death. On the nineteenth of April the Lord’s Supper was dispensed to the people under his pastoral care, and he was in his place. On the day of humilia­tion he preached, and he conducted the whole oi the preparatory services on the Sabbath, explain­ing the Psalm and preaching the action sermon from the words, “Thanks be unto God for His un­speakable gift.” With remarkable animation he addressed the communicants at the first and last tables. On this occasion his descriptions of heaven, and the meeting of its redeemed inhabi­tants to part no more, were peculiarly sublime and impressive. These duties were exhausting, and on Monday he was unable to attend to the closing exercises of the solemnity. In the even­ing, while ascending the stairs of his own house, he became exhausted, and sinking down he ex­claimed, “ My work is done.” On the following Sabbath a consultation of physicians was held, but no alarming symptoms were detected. During the night he rested comparatively well; but in the morning, as he arose, he was seized with pain in the region of the heart. While Mrs. McLeod was engaged in preparing breakfast for him, and his youngest son was in the act of applying friction to his back, his head dropped upon his bosom, and as he lay back upon his pillow, the long expira­tion was the only indication that the spirit had taken its flight to the world above. The imme­diate cause of his death was paralysis of the heart. It was just such a release as he desired. This would appear from a scrap of paper, which was subsequently found containing words in his hand­writing to the following effect: “ Erasmus declared sudden death one of the greatest blessings a human creature could receive.” The departure of our beloved friend from earth was more like a translation than death.

He died in the Lord, and his works follow him. But oh, how much the Church has lost, and how much we all miss him ! Well, indeed, may his family mourn; they have lost a father and head, whose affection for them was deep and constant. Well may the Church mourn; she has been de­prived of one whose whole life was offered up on her behalf. Well may society mourn ; they have been bereaved of a benefactor, and of one who, as a prince in Israel, had power with God.

But we do not mourn as those who have no hope. Our beloved brother sleeps in Jesus. His spirit is before the throne of God. To use his own language in reference to another servant of God, who had been removed by death, “He is gone to better company, to higher employments, to the sinless, painless, deathless state of immor­tality. His work was done, his crown prepared. Another mansion in the Father’s house is filled; another seat beside the throne is occupied; another harp is seized and struck in harmony with those of David, Paul, and all the other older sons of glory.” His body is on earth, but the Church’s dead shall live, and in body and in soul they shall be introduced into the bliss of the celestial city.

Such honor is to all His saints.” Praise ye the Lord.

Words to Live By:
During the past year an unusual number of distinguished men, both in church and in state, have fallen. Let us hear the voice of God in these providences. “Be ye therefore also ready, for at such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh”; and when pillars in the church visible are being removed, let us remember that the bride, the Lamb’s wife, is safe. Her origin is divine; her charter is the everlasting covenant; her foundation is the Rock of Ages. The eternal God is her refuge, and beneath her are the ever­lasting arms. To continue her in being, and to supply her with a succession of sanctified mem­bers and divinely qualified ministers, the Holy Ghost is poured out, and the earth is preserved as a theatre, upon which her missionary operations are to be conducted and her triumphs secured. As a consequence, however death may thin her ranks, she is immortal until her work is done.

[pp. 23-45 of “Endless Life the Inheritance of the Righteous: A Discourse delivered in the First Reformed Presbyterian Church, New York, on Sabbath, October 11, 1874, in Memory of Rev. John N. McLeod, D.D., the Pastor, by Rev. David Steele, D.D. [1826-1906], pastor of the Fourth Reformed Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia.]

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

MEDICAL MISSIONARY JOHN C. TAYLOR, SR.

taylor_JohnCOn December 13, 1973 the Lord called Home one of His faithful servants, Dr. John C. Taylor, Sr., who for more than fifty years had given of himself, his time and his talents to his Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and to the people of India. He was a man greatly beloved of the Lord and by the people of India whom he served so faithfully and so lovingly. Many are the people who will remember Dr. Taylor for his great love and sacrificial service to them as he sought to bring to them physical healing for their bodies through means of his medical knowledge, and spiritual healing for their souls through his know¬ledge of the Word of God and his personal testimony to the power of Christ to save lost sinners. John Taylor was not only a medical doctor but also an ordained minister of the Gospel and a real evangelist.

Born in Richmond, Kansas on April 9, 1886, of godly parents, John Taylor early came to know Christ as his personal Saviour. On August 14, 1913 he married Elizabeth Siehl, and together they went to India in November, 1914 and were stationed at Roorkee, U.P. where they labored for half a century, returning to the U.S.A. for retirement in October, 1967. They served under the Reformed Presbyterian Mission which, in 1965, became World Presbyterian Missions, the foreign board of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod. Mrs. Taylor passed to her Heavenly Home in March, 1970. Some years later, God provided another helpmeet for Dr. Taylor in the person of Mrs. Elizabeth H. Daniels, and the remaining years of Dr. Taylor’s life were enriched through her fellowship.

taylor_family_1931Dr. Taylor was survived by his widow, Elizabeth D. Taylor, three sons—John, Jr., Carl and Gordon, and two daughters, Margaret Courtwright and Gladys McGarey.

A friend of both the high and lowly, Dr. Taylor became almost a legend in India. He was a man of faith and action, a good example of the kind of Christian of whom James writes, “I will show thee my faith by my works.” Nothing was too hard or sacrificial for him if, by doing it, he could help ease the physical or spiritual suffering of his fellowman. He especially ministered to the poor and downtrodden people in the villages of Northern U.P., India. His work varied from village evangelism, medical clinic work, relief work during the awful days of partition between India and Pakistan, to the founding in 1945 of the Children’s Home and Baby fold for the children of leprous parents in Bhogpur, which is now under the direction of his son, Gordon, and which now houses some 200 children. Dr. Taylor had the joy of seeing a number of these children come to know Christ as their personal Saviour and then go out to serve Him full time. Several of the children studied in the Theological Seminary at Roorkee and are now preaching the Gospel in India, and several more are now students at that Seminary. Others have gone into other fields of service where they are also witnessing for the Lord whom they came to know while at the Children’s Home.

During his semi-retirement, Dr. Taylor wrote of his experiences in India, which have been published in book form, India—Dr. John Taylor Remembers. This book reflects his touch with people, an essential ingredient in the life of any servant of Christ.

taylorDr_wPaulTaylor_1948Dr. Taylor was a valued member of the Saharanpour Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod, and served his last years on the field under World Presbyterian Missions. To those who had the privilege of serving with him in India, he was a tower of strength and wisdom in so many matters concerning the work; but he was more than this—he was a kind and loving friend and counselor and a true “brother in Christ.” To many of the Indian Christians he was like a father. To the struggling National churches he was a guide and stay and inspiration. We rejoice that God gave him the great joy of seeing the beautiful church building at Bhogpur finished and used for the worship of Christ, before he retired from active missionary work in India. This building was erected largely through the efforts of Dr. and Mrs. Taylor and will be a continuing memorial of their sacrificial service for Christ and the people of India.

No doubt Dr. Taylor has entered with great joy into the presence of Jesus Christ, his Lord and Saviour, and has heard him say, “Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.”

The General Synod and World Presbyterian Missions are happy to pay tribute to such a saint of the Lord. We thank God upon every remembrance of him. “He being dead, yet speaketh.”

[excerpted from The Minutes of the 152nd General Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod, 1974, pp. 157-158.]

Words to Live By:
Please take the above testimony as a good reminder to pray for our many missionaries, wherever they may be serving.

Tags: , , , , , ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »