A Word of Warning and the Opening of Covenanter Pulpits to Non-Covenanters.
James Dodson
[from The Christian Nation, Vol. 32 no. 815, May 16, 1900. p. 4-6.]
In 1889, in the Synod of the Covenanter Church, an unsuccessful effort was made to throw open Covenanter pulpits to non-Covenanter ministers. The leaders in that movement have since been suspended or have voluntarily left our communion. When the defeat of the effort was announced, one minister arose in his place and defiantly declared that he would invite into his pulpit whom he pleased. In about two years thereafter he acceded to a Church which is without any of our distinctive principles, and drew most of his congregation after him.
Quite recently several Covenanter ministers have invited non-Covenanter ministers into their respective pulpits. We made inquiry, by letter and otherwise, as to the extent of this practice and how it was looked upon. A few ministers among those who have been faithfully guarding their people and their pulpits, replied that they were nevertheless without decided convictions as to the necessity for maintaining the historic attitude of the Church for safe-guarding her distinctive principles. Some others of our ministers, a very few, have, we will charitably say, thoughtlessly, opened their pulpits to non-Covenanter ministers, because it had not occurred to them that such a course involved any peril to the Church, or any violation of her Covenant and law. But there is a third class (names ready)—some of whom have disregarded their Covenant vows and given themselves, at times, and their influence to the corruption of the worship of God—who, with full knowledge of the nature of their act, have deliberately and repeatedly sought non-Covenanter ministers whom they knew to be opposed to our distinctive principles, to fill their pulpits and to preach to their people. We say, “with full knowledge of the nature of their act,” because they have shown themselves willing, by their public utterances or their personal practices, or both, to have the Covenanter Church recede and become like the non-witnessing churches about her. It is to this class, whether it be large or small, that the Rev. Prof. James Dick, in an article which we publish this week, refers.
When Covenanter ministers, and among them some who assume to be leaders, and who unfortunately have a following, publicly manifest their contempt for their Covenant with God and their disregard of the authority of the Church, by throwing open their pulpits to non-Covenanter ministers, it becomes our plain duty to warn the Church of her danger, and to lay before our readers, from the pens of competent men whose statements carry their own unanswerable proofs with them, the historical and only defensible position of the Covenanter Church in excluding non-Covenanter ministers from Covenanter pulpits.
With this purpose in mind we have already published the views of revered and now glorified fathers of the American Church. We are also promised and hope to be able to publish very soon an article from a minister in the Scotch Covenanter Church. In this issue we publish an article from the Rev. Prof. James Dick, of the Irish Covenanter Church.
We anticipate the objection, urged upon us before by some of the third class referred to above, that we are dragging in “outsiders” to make a disturbance in the Church. But who are the real disturbers of the Church’s peace? Let us see.
First—There is in the Bible the story of declension in Israel, in which is seen how liberalism in religion finally issues; then of Elijah’s effort to restore the pure worship of God. Naturally Ahab charged Elijah with disturbing the peace, and angrily determined to maintain the peace of Israel even if he had to kill off every prophet of the Lord, Elijah included, to do it; and there would seem to be those who are determined to maintain peace in the Church on Ahab’s plan, and who are not unwilling to kill off our distinctive principles to do it.
Second—The Covenanter Church in Scotland, in Ireland and in America is one Church. The men who resented the expression of views by a member of a sister Synod as the interference of an “outsider,” and who so referred to it in our Synod of 1899, were singularly harmonious as to the oneness of the Covenanter Church through out the world, when, in 1896, they were enjoying the hospitality, and seeking the applause of the Scotch and Irish brethren.
Third–Truth is truth, and not less so when it comes to us from across the sea. Right meaning men will receive it gladly. Only those will criticize its source whose purposes are foiled by it.
The Covenanter Church’s position that Covenanter pulpits are for Covenanter ministers is the same in all lands and in all mission fields. It is a part of that Covenanted uniformity which makes her testimony effective everywhere. No one of these Churches can yield this common vantage ground without injury to the other two. It is not strange that any signs of wavering in our ranks should call forth earnest words from faithful leaders in the Churches beyond the seas. Their words will be welcome to loyal-hearted Covenanters in America who feel the awful stress of the days of trial through which the Church is passing. Recalling the high resolves of the representatives of these three Churches in the Convention of 1896, let us be true to one another and to God.
Finally, one thing is certain. No Covenanter minister can ever again invite a non-Covenanter minister to occupy a Covenanter pulpit, for want of a faithful warning as to the nature of such an act.
The Opening of Covenanter Pulpits to Non-Covenanters.
By the Rev. Professor James Dick.
The Covenanter Church has been divinely entrusted to its unspeakable honor, with the maintenance of unpopular truth. The Covenanter testimony is uttered not only in behalf of all the truth held by other churches, but in behalf of truth that is ignored, despised, or opposed by all other churches. It needs no argument to prove to the spiritual mind that if the distinctive and therefore unpopular portions of our testimony are the very truth of Christ, then we ought joyfully to maintain those portions. A Gracious Saviour requires no less than this at our hands. And simply because His truth—especially regarding His absolute authority in the Church and in the State—is despised or opposed. Common fidelity to Him imperatively requires an uncompromising testimony, instead of any “liberal” bidding for popular favor.
But unhappily there is always a tendency in the human heart to love the praise of men; and when temptation arises from within or from without, many yield, and betray the truth which they have solemnly pledged themselves to maintain. Becoming tired of the word of Christ’s patience, they despise the honorable position of witnesses, and witness against little but the fidelity of brethren who will not follow them in their treachery and worldliness. Again and again the Covenanter Church has been sorely tried by the unfaithfulness of ministers and members who have become restive under the restraints of a holy testimony and Covenant, and have labored and plotted under the specious name of “liberalism” to have the testimony lowered and the Covenant broken. “Liberals” did all the harm they could in America prior to 1833, and then abandoned the position which they had vowed to hold. So, prior to 1840 in Ireland. So also, prior to 1863 in Scotland. And more recently, the Covenanter Church in America had an object lesson, in Divine Providence, in 1891, with what led up to the secession of that year. Will “liberals” themselves never learn anything from history? From Covenanter history? From the history of backsliding Israel and her treacherous sister, Judah? Must they rush on in spite of the indignation of the Holy One against all compromise of truth, against all treachery, against all breach of Covenant? God’s eyes are upon the truth, and He is jealous, with unceasing and uncompromising jealousy, for the honor of His truth. His eyes are also upon the sworn witnesses for truth; and if any such form plans in order to avoid unpopularity or self-sacrifice, even at the expense of grieving and wounding the faithful and high-souled witnesses who wish to utter all the truth, the God of truth sees the plans and abhors them. The false witness may call himself “enlightened” or “liberal”; he is neither enlightened nor liberal. True enlightenment never yet made a Covenanter careless about the maintenance of the pure doctrine and the pure worship of the sanctuary; and never led a man to expose either himself or others to strong temptation to corrupt either the doctrines or the worship of God’s house, by joining in or countenancing unscriptural and uncovenanting worship. It is not light but darkness that leads in such a direction. So true liberality is never liberal enough to give away what is not our own to give. It is not liberality but “selfishness” or “carnal ambition,” or something else that is “certainly not of God,” that leads any man to try to lower his church’s position of separation from corrupt political or ecclesiastical associations. The faithful men in past generations who, under God, made the Covenanter Church what it was and is, felt that the very existence of the Church depended on her separation from corrupt churches round about her. The Scripture precedent for such separation could not be clearer than it is. Moreover, the sole hope of effecting any reformation upon unfaithful churches consisted in remaining quite aloof from their unfaithfulness. The faithful fathers of the Covenanter Church knew, and intelligent Covenanters know to-day, that a faithful testimony for Christ can no longer be maintained if Christ’s witnesses run eagerly after union with churches that despise sound doctrine or pure worship. Hence Covenanters felt bound to safeguard the Church by keeping away from all ensnaring connection or association with impure churches. A question of tremendous importance may be put here, to be answered according to the clear teachings of the Word of God:—Has it been according to the mind of Christ that the Covenanter Church has kept separate from other churches these two hundred years? Or would it have been dutiful all along to join in the fellowship of other churches, or to admit their members indiscriminately to fellowship in the Covenanter Church? Has it been right for the Covenanter Church to exist at all? Ungodly men may answer: We do not inquire or care whether the dissent and separation of the Covenanter Church be according to the mind of Christ or not; we are not going to dissent and keep separate any longer; and in order to clear the way for getting quite out of our position of isolation, we are determined to admit to our pulpits, to teach our people, ministers of other churches who do not hold or teach our Covenanter principles; and so we shall constructively teach our people (who, like all other fallen beings, have abundant temptations already), to think that there is little difference after all between a Covenanter church and a non-Covenanter church. But genuine godliness will not answer or reason thus. The godly answer to the solemn question about the mind of Christ must be: We believe it is according to the mind of Christ that there should be a Church to witness faithfully for all His truth—a Church that has refused, and will still refuse, to be absorbed in, or identified with, churches that corrupt His doctrine or His worship.
No intelligent Covenanter can believe in “open communion,” for “open communion” completely destroys Covenanter communion. And no Covenanter can believe that there should have been “open communion” all along, for that would be equivalent to believing that there is no need for a Covenanter at all. If a man who now professes to be a Covenanter takes the ground that the Covenanter Church ought not to have maintained, or to maintain any longer, a separate existence, that man is in the Church under false pretenses, and it would be an indelible disgrace to the Church to follow his leadership. Moreover, he occupies his position as a minister or member of the Church in virtue of oft-repeated vows to maintain its separate position and full testimony, yet he is in the Church only to seek opportunity of breaking his vows and of drawing away disciples after him, and to harass and thwart faithful brethren who are resolved not only to keep their own vows but to try to save the Church from unreasonable and wicked men. Let it be distinctly understood that in speaking thus we are not dealing with any concrete case whatsoever, and that we have not any person before our minds. We suppose a case, simply, and try to show the character and issues of the opinions we condemn.
It is taken for granted that no Covenanter as yet has entered upon a crusade to throw open the sealing ordinances of the Church to non-Covenanters. That would be too bold a step to take with any hope of success in the meantime. Covenanter principles are necessary to the enjoyment of sealing ordinances in the Covenanter Church. A non-Covenanter may not sit down at the Lord’s table in a Covenanter Church, and may not have his children baptized. If any one proposed to alter this law, the proposal would probably bring about his suspension from membership in the Church. Yet, it would seem from hints in the religious press that a proposal is likely to be made to throw open the Covenanter pulpit to ministers of other churches. And a great many mischievous plausibilities may be urged in support of such a proposal. But this is a proposal vastly more revolutionary and destructive of Covenanter principles than occasional admission of a non-Covenanter to the Lord’s table would be. The argument that would exclude from communion in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper in the Reformed Presbyterian Church those who do not accept the Reformed Presbyterian Terms of Communion, would be much stronger to exclude the same persons from the pulpit. The minister who conducts a service, of course, occupies a position of far greater influence than the communicant at the Lord’s table, and precisely because of this greater influence there is all the stronger reason for guarding most jealously the pulpit of the Reformed Presbyterian Church against the intrusion of any minister who opposes any of the terms of communion. A Covenanter minister himself who should oppose any of the terms of communion would be prevented from retaining his pulpit, and that which would warrant the suspension of an inside opponent of the Church’s Terms or Testimony, would more than warrant the exclusion of an outside opponent.
Moreover, there is obviously no difference in principle between preaching at a Covenanter service, and dispensing a Covenanter Sacrament. Therefore, if opponents of our Terms of Communion may preach the Word to our congregations they may also dispense the Sacraments. And what is there, then, that they may not do? And what, then, is the need for Covenanter Terms of Communion at all? Are the Terms of Communion in our Church made to be a dead letter? Those who advocate interchange of pulpits with ministers of other denominations really make the Terms of Communion null and void, although they may be guided by the ignis fatuus of false charity or weak sentiment, rather than by deliberate malice against the Covenanter Testimony in doing so. The testimony condemns as an error the opinion, “That any person may be admitted to Communion who opposes any of the terms of Church fellowship”; and also the opinion, “That occasional communion may be extended to persons who should not be received to constant fellowship.” But one “who opposes any of the terms of church-fellowship” cannot “be received to constant fellowship” and, therefore, cannot be received to “occasional communion.” And if he cannot be received either to the occasional or constant communion in the way of participating, even as a private person, in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, much less can he be received to either occasional or constant communion in the way of participating in the unspeakably higher function of the official preaching of the Word or the official dispensation of the Sacrament. This one consideration ought to settle the matter decisively and finally for everyone who honestly accepts the Covenanter Testimony. The man who professes to accept and yet does not honestly accept or hold the testimony will not, of course, regard the question as settled in this way; nor is his opinion of the very slightest weight, because the dishonesty of his position inevitably warps his judgment on the whole question. He cannot but know himself that his professed acceptance of a testimony which he does not purpose to maintain is false before the Lord, and he has no good ground for feeling aggrieved if others estimate him and his contention by the standard of common honesty and truth.
As already hinted, plausible arguments for the innovation of interchange of pulpit with ministers of non-Covenanter churches may be urged. When was there an error or corruption or treacherous conspiracy against the truth of God that could not be supported by plausibilities? It will be asked: Are there no good men in other churches? We thankfully admit that there are good and pious ministers in other churches—a thousand times better men, for that matter, than those nominal Covenanters whose zeal is mainly given to the undoing of Covenanter work. But the question here is not at all about “good men,” but about non-Covenanter ministers who, of course, oppose Covenanter Terms of Communion. If they are admitted to one of the most commanding official positions in the Church, and are permitted to assume the functions of one whose duty is to declare “the whole counsel of God,” they are placed in a false position, for we know beforehand that they cannot and will not declare the whole counsel of God. And if they preached day after day for a hundred years, their opposition to a Covenanter Testimony would lead them uniformly to suppress if not to flout Covenanter Terms of Communion. The Covenanter minister who would place “good men” in such a position is, most likely, a man who himself suppresses at least, if he is afraid as yet openly to flout, the Terms of Communion of his Church.
But even supposing that the argument for the admission of “good men” were sound, instead of being hopelessly rotten, who is to judge of the “good men?” If the Synod be asked to sanction or wink at the proposed interchange of pulpits, where are the good men to be found? By what standard are they to be judged? The Synod is required to judge through its Presbyteries not of the sort of men to fill its pulpits, but of the very men themselves! This applies, so far as the present argument is concerned, to ministers or licentiates who are under the jurisdiction of the sister Synods of Ireland and Scotland, for they have all been tried by, and have formally accepted, Covenanter Terms of Communion. Will it be proposed to single out “good men” out of other churches and formally authorize them by name to occupy Covenanter pulpits? We can imagine the advocates of interchange of pulpits laughing such a proposal to scorn. Let them have their laugh while we look at the other alternative. Will the Synod be asked to sanction the interchange of pulpits with “good men,” and so become responsible to the Lord and to the congregations which He has placed under its care, for the teaching of men of whom it knows nothing but that they will not teach any distinctively Covenanter doctrine? Could any Synod without a species of self-extinction sanction such a course as this? Could any Covenanter Synod consistently with its functions as the guardian of God’s truth and of the purity and fidelity of the Church, sanction the admission to its pulpits of men who reject Covenanter principles, who are not responsible directly or indirectly, to any court of the Church, and who are admitted on the judgment, that is, according to the whim or caprice, of some individual Covenanter minister? Should such a fatal sanction be given, it will come to this, that any Covenanter minister may put into the pulpit for the time being any outsider he pleases. And if we might judge from the type of mind or of principle of the man who, in the face of the facts, would insist on the sanction of Synod in this case, we should be warranted in concluding that the outsider so chosen might not always be even a “good man.”
Belfast, Ireland.