REPORGM: © beat: | Special Commission of 1925 TO THE General Assembly oO) tel 1 Es PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE U.S. A. BALTIMORE :: MARYLAND MAY, 1926 = if ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE THE SECRETARY |e cs 514 WITHERSPOON BUILDING, PHILADELPHIA J —— Bresbytérian Church in the U.S.A. General Assembly. Report of the Special CR aati 8G Peto BE es tae BA? BPA * : a « < fats ¢ a aby 4 a 4 » ¥ .* ‘ t * A = ; pies xed bi i 1 en al 7 ‘+ SS s 7 , . ’ oe ae oy ? io : > "lee - z= z si f a de! es pee ‘aad REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION OF 1925 TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MEETING AT BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, MAY 27, 1926 Authority for the existence and the work of the Special Commission, and for the presentation of this report is con- tained in the following resolution adopted by the General Assembly of 1925: “That a Commission of Fifteen members be ap- pointed to study the present spiritual condition of our church and the causes making for unrest, and to report to the next General Assembly, to the end that the purity, peace, unity and progress of the Church may be assured.” In accordance with an accompanying action of the same General Assembly, the Moderator appointed the following mem- bers of the Special Commission of 1925: Ministers: Rev. Henry C. Swearingen, D.D., LL.D., St. Paul, Minn., Chairman; Rev. Prof. Alfred H. Barr, D.D., Chicago, libs sRev. Hugh T. Kerr, D.D.,.LU-:D., Pittsburgh,.Pa.; Rev. Mark A. Matthews, D.D., LL.D., Seattle, Wash.; Rev. Lapsley A. McAfee, D.D., Berkeley, Cal.; Rev. Harry C. Rogers, D.D., Kansas City, Mo.; Rev. William O. Thompson, D.D., LL.D., Columbus, Ohio; Rev. Edgar W. Work, D.D., New York, N. Y. Ruling Elders: John M. T. Finney, M.D., Baltimore, Md., Vice-Chairman; Judge John H. DeWitt, LL.D., Nashville, Tenn.; Hon. Edward D. Duffield, LL.B., Newark, N. J.; Pres. Cheesman A. Herrick, Ph.D., LL.D., Philadelphia, Pa.; Hon. Nelson H. Loomis, LL.D., Omaha, Nebr.; Hon. Nathan G. Moore, LL.D., Oak Park, Ill.; Robert E. Speer, D.D., New xorksNY; The Special Commission has held four meetings as follows: Atlantic City, N. J., September 22-24, 1925, the Commission convening at the call of the Moderator of the General Assem- bly, and completing its organization by the election of the Rey. Lewis 8S. Mudge, D.D., LL.D., Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, as Secretary; Atlantic City, N. J., December 1-3, 1925; Chicago, Ill., March 11-12, 1926; Philadelphia, Pa., May 24-25, 1926. The Commission appointed a number of Committees, and has pursued its inquiry in a spirit of harmony and unity. It is now privileged to present the following unanimous report. 4 The report comprises five main sections: I—Preliminary Statements. II—Spiritual Condition of the Church and Causes of Unrest. I1I—Constitutional Principle of Unity With Its Historical Background. ; IV—Power of the General Assembly, and Effect of Its Actions. V—Conclusions and Recommendations. I; PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS The Commission feels that the General Assembly has given to it a mandate to promote the purity and peace of the Church. If there be any constitutional way of stilling unrest and of adjusting differences, the Commission believes itself obligated to find that way. By the terms of its appointment, it is not permitted to consider any alternative; it has no business except this. With impressive unanimity, the Assembly voted to erect such a Commission. Doubtless it spoke for the whole Church. The Church desires that an end be made of the present unrest. The Church is praying and longing for such a result and, we believe, expects it to be attained. Accordingly, the Commission began its work with a deter- mination to face the facts, whatever they might prove to be. It consulted with representatives of those who were believed to be well advised as to causes of unrest, and tried to get their views at first hand. It sought to understand their fears, whether these be fears for the purity of the faith, or fears for the rights of individual liberty. The Commission is not willing to deceive itself as to the gravity of the situation confronting the Church, nor does it desire to see others misled. Neverthe- less, there are conditions which are encouraging. The Com- mission does not permit itself to assume the role of alarmist nor to magnify problems unduly. Certain facts seem to stand out clearly: 1. Itis not within the province of the Commission to review any judicial case decided by the General Assembly. Indeed it is a serious question whether the Assembly itself possesses any such power, although it has exercised it in a few instances and has claimed authority to do so where manifest injustice has been done, or where new facts have come to light. But the limitation upon the authority of a special commission in this respect seems to be clear. Accordingly, this Commission will not discuss any case already adjudicated. 2. There is practically no demand for change in the Consti- 5 tution of the Church. Such suggestions to this effect as have been made have not met with appreciable response throughout the Church. All parties appear to be willing to rest upon the Constitution of the Church as it stands. They are agreed that remedies for our troubles are within the Constitution itself. This is an immense advantage. It leaves to be decided the question of interpretation only. If there were insistence upon alterations in the substance of our organic law, if it were pro- posed to add new articles, or to amend old ones, our difficulties would be multiplied greatly. So long as the Church is satisfied with the Constitution as it is, we have not broken the continu- ity of our history, and are in position to be guided by courses adopted in the past when the fathers faced conditions similar to those existing today. II. PRESENT SPIRITUAL CONDITION AND CAUSES OF UNREST 1. In accordance with the instructions which the Assembly gave the Commission, we have studied the present spiritual condition of our Church. Measured by the standard of the perfect Church of Christ, “glorious and without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and without blemish,” our Church falls far short, and can only bow in penitence before its Head. But judged as an institution of men and women seeking to serve their Saviour, we believe that with all its imperfections, it is a true and sincere Christian Church, loyal in faith and truly devoted in service. Throughout its history our Church has grown steadily. It has increased faster in proportion to the total population of our country than have our sister protestant denominations. In the matter of church attendance, the conditions are better than they have been within the memory of this generation. The number of accessions on confession of faith during the Church year 1924-25 was the third largest ever reported. The gifts of our churches for their missionary and educational work, and for their own support have grown with steady increment from decade to decade. The question must be asked, however, as to the quality of all this. There are more Presbyterians than ever, but are they as good and true Christians as were the Presbyterians of the past? Is prayer a living reality? Is the Bible studied and read as much as in the past? Are our people as well instructed in the truth? Is our faith Scriptural and practical and fruit- ful? Without attempting any comparative statement, there is 6 eround for an answer which declared that there have been both gains and losses, which holds to a hopeful view and which, nevertheless, realizes the need for a far richer and truer faith and life among us. We believe that Christian character and faith have not deteriorated. It is our deep conviction that the great body of the Church is sound in faith, even when that faith is tested by the strictest standards. It holds fast to its historic faith in God’s relation to this universe as its Creator and as the vital and unifying and governing Personality who imparts to the system order, stability and moral purpose; in the true deity of our Lord Jesus Christ and His true incarnation and His Virgin Birth and His resurrection from the dead; in His sinless holiness, the atoning sacrifice of His Cross, and His power to forgive sins. It stands fast in its faith that He is the only Saviour and that He is able to save to the uttermost them that come unto God by Him; that the new life from above which is essential to entrance into the Kingdom of God is created,in the soul by the power of His Holy Spirit; that His Kingdom covers all hu- man relationships and actions and that it includes the exercise of all power in heaven and on earth. It holds fast to its historic conception of the nature of the Church and to the Constitution which we have inherited from the fathers. It stands upon the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, whatever divergences there may be in their interpretation. It is the unshakeable assurance of the Church that, once the true content of the Scriptures is ascertained, their authority is supreme and final. That God by His Holy Spirit has made a revelation of His grace in Christ, and of His righteous will, that we have this revelation in the Scriptures, ‘‘the only infallible rule of faith and practice,’ that they are sufficient to give knowledge of salvation, and of the way of Christian living, and that “the Supreme Judge, by whom all controversies of religion are to be determined . . . can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture,” is a position upon which the Pres- byterian Church stands firmly and for which it is ready earnestly to contend. In these weighty Christian verities as held by the Presby- terian Church throughout its entire history, and only briefly catalogued here, we have a body of doctrine and a system of polity which bind us into a close and abiding unity, a price- less and common inheritance from the past which vests the title of heirship in every one of us without distinction. This is a tremendous fact that must not be forgotten when we are reflecting upon differences. In spite of wide geographical distances separating our churches and ministers, in spite of tf varying racial roots which reach back into the centuries, and which are fed on sentiments that provoked national wars and reddened the earth with the blood of historic conflicts, in spite of every extreme of difference in residence and education, in social contacts and life-long customs, here we stand, a Church, with one heart beating at the center of its corporate life, bound together by the firm ties of a shining record that embraces the sacrifices and triumphs of the past, of a faith engaging the rich loyalties and abundant labors of the present, and of a hope, yearning, but sure, and drawing into its stimulating experience the holy promise of a fairer future—bound into a unity which, we believe, our generation will not break. There are invaluable moral and spiritual resources in the life of our Church which must not be overlooked even in so brief a survey. Some of these are the deposit and tradition of life and character which we have inherited from the past, the product of home life and training, of Biblical preaching, of a faithful, educated and evangelical ministry, of a loyal and living faith in Christ as the complete and absolute revelation of God, our only and sufficient Saviour. This great deposit and all that lies back of it and produces and sustains it, we all desire to keep and to pass on to the generations following. At the same time, we believe that the Church, while grateful for its inheritance, realizes how far short we come of the ideal of the New Testament. We believe that worship expressed in Service is good, but we believe also that the service which is needed today must be fed from still deeper springs of devotion and faith. We believe that the influences and interest of the Church in the work of moral and social progress is right, but we believe also that if this progress is to be true and lasting, there is greater need than ever of deep personal spiritual char- acter and of definite evangelical faith and teaching. We believe that our Church, fundamentally loyal and true, in spite of all its shortcomings and deficiencies, wants to find the way of largest obedience and service, the way, to use the language of the last General Assembly, “of purity, peace, unity and. progress.” 2. It is with the conviction that this is the earnest and united longing of the whole body of the Church that we turn now to consider, as we have been charged to do, “causes mak- ing for unrest in our Church.” These causes we would venture to analyze as follows: (1) We feel in our Church those general movements and tendencies which make for unrest not only in the churches but in all the thought and life of the nation and of the world. The war brought with it a general unsettling of men’s minds, 8 but previous to this the pressure of modern inquiry had per- vaded every department of thought, political, economic, social and religious, and everything old and established was being called in question. In one sense there was nothing new in this. Again and again humanity has faced just such great times of upheaval and unsettlement. But in another sense, the unrest of our day is new. It touches all things, reaches everywhere, and is raising the most fundamental questions about God and the world, about man and human society. We and the Church to which we belong are a part of human life and it is inevitable that we should feel the effects of these deep movements of our day. The modern world is feeling its way. The Church is living in this modern world. There is a vast opportunity as well as a vast danger. Perhaps in five respects, especially, these general tendencies have contributed to unrest in our denomina- tion as in all others. (a) The so-called conflict between science and religion, due to the false ideas either of science or of religion, or of both, has disturbed all churches. The only end of this disturbance is to be found in the truth. All truth is God’s truth, and all truth is one as God is one. In His own time and way, God will make it known according to the Scriptural promise, so clearly that all earnest seekers will recognize and grasp it. We can afford to wait patiently until men see this come, seek- ing ourselves meanwhile to be led on from any error we may hold, to the full truth of God. (b) Naturalistic or materialistic views of the world which threaten and would destroy the Scriptural view of God and Christ and of the Gospel, have inevitably affected religious thought in all the churches. (c) Part, but not all, of this conflict between science and religion and between different religious views, would seem to be due to the divergent interpretations of religion and of the unseen in terms of the immanence or the transcendance of God. Back of much of the general unrest would seem to be this failure to co-ordinate, as men sometime will be enabled to co-ordinate, these two different and yet true and mutually essential thoughts about God. (d) The lack of religious teaching or the presence of teach- ing subversive of religious faith and character in some institu- tions of learning, the dearth of religious instruction and influence in homes, discontent with old and established ideas and practices, the temper of youth, profound changes affect- ing all departments of human thought, have inevitably had their strong effect upon conditions within the churches. 9 (e) Changes in the meaning and use of language and diverse understandings and interpretations of the same words, have led to much confusion and uncertainty. Some are dis- turbed because they believe that others are departing from the faith while making use of its forms of speech, and some are disturbed because they believe that they are accused of such departure, though they declare that in their own consciences they are confident of full loyalty to all essential truth. These are five of many causes of unrest which, perhaps, can be dealt with ultimately only through the general tendencies from which they originate. It is well to discern what these general causes are so that we may see them and other causes, and the whole problem of our Christian life and work, in right perspective. (2) Perhaps to these causes coming in from outside, we should add the causes coming down from our past. There are some who hold that there have always been two types or schools of Presbyterianism, merging together at the center, and in the main body of the Church, but more or less discern- ibly different at the extreme. There are some who hold that the Westminster Confession shows traces of two types of thought and that the Old and the New Schools are self-per- petuating forms of Presbyterianism. The present so-called conservative and liberal elements in the Church, it is held by some, represent in a sense these old divisions. Neither element is willing to accept the reproach of departure from the historic position of the Church. Both are convinced of their loyal evangelical character. But one cause of unrest is found in the fear, on one hand, that the liberal element embraces some who have been too much influenced by the naturalistic tendencies of today, and the fear, on the other hand, that the conservative element embraces some who would abridge the just liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of the Church. There is distrust between those who believe that they stand for proper freedom and flexibility, and those who believe that they stand for the true authority of the Church and the integrity of its faith. Some feel that the differences here are not too great to be comprehended in our Church. Others feel that they represent irreconcilable divergences. (3) Causes arising in the realm of constitutional and administrative questions. (a) There are misunderstanding and diversity of views as to the authority of the General Assembly in the matter of interpretations and deliverances affecting doctrine. The As- sembly has made such interpretations and deliverances and ‘has declared its competency so to do, but there are some who 10 hold that in all such actions the Assembly has exceeded its constitutional power, or that it has done so in some of the particular actions which it has taken. Others deny this and believe that in these matters the Assembly has been wholly within its powers. Still others hold that the Assembly is com- petent to make interpretations of doctrine, but not to issue doctrinal deliverances. (b) There is difference of view also as to the authority of the General Assembly over the Presbyteries in the matter of licensure of candidates. The Assembly has held that it had constitutional power of review and control, and that it was both competent and obligated to determine under this power the essential conditions of licensure. There are Presbyteries and ministers and laymen who hold that, either in whole or in a measure which recent actions of the Assembly have invaded, the rights of determining the conditions and requirements of licensure belong under our government to the Presbyteries. On the other hand, there is unrest because of the claim of some Presbyteries of the right to license candidates in contravention of the admonition of the Assembly. (c) There has been and is divergence of view with regard to the so-called “Five Points” of the General Assembly’s deliverances of 1910, 1916 and 1923. Some have held that it was altogether competent and right for the Assembly to single out these doctrines and to declare them “essential.” Others have held that such a discriminatory selection was not war- ranted, that some of the doctrines are not stated in terms either of the Scriptures or of the Standards, and that the word “essential” is itself indefinite and open to misconception. For whom and to what are these doctrines “essential ?” (d) There are differences of opinion, too, in connection with the question of the true principle of tolerance, the just bounds of confessional freedom of interpretation of the Standards, and the nature of our terms of subscription. There are some who hold that no real issue exists here, that there is full recognition of the right of diverse interpretation of what is in the Standards, but that the real issue is over the denial of plain and essential statements of the Standards and even of plain statements of fact in the Scriptural account of the life of our Lord. Among those who take a different view of this matter, are some who think that there is need for revision of our terms of subscription or for some clearer declaration of the rights of those who subscribe to the Standards, and of their obligation only to the system of doctrine which the Standards contain; but others think that the present terms and declarations and guarantees are adequate and that all that is necessary is a 11 spirit of trust among us and a recognition of divergences of view which are within our just liberties and do not affect our essential evangelical faith. (e) Involved in these causes of unrest is the general issue already stated, namely, on one hand, fear that the integrity of the doctrine of the Church and the constitutional powers of the General Assembly were in peril, and, on the other hand, fear that just liberties of thought and conscience in the Church and the constitutional power of Presbyteries were threatened. (f{) The process of Board consolidation and reorganization has not been a smooth and easy one, and there are problems still to be worked out in connection with the new system. Whether justly or unjustly, the Boards have been criticized for their constitution, their administration and their expendi- tures. Further questions have been raised also in connection with new plans of administration, budget and finance, which have brought discussion and unsettlement. (g) And lastly, there are many women in the Church who are not satisfied with present administrative conditions. Some of them fear the loss of the organizations through which they have worked so long. Some regard as unjust the lack of repre- sentation of women in the Church. 4, Doctrinal and theological causes. Is our unrest due to radical theological differences affecting our fundamental evangelical convictions, which cannot be met by our constitu- tional provisions, and which make our continued unity impos- sible? There are some who declare that this is the fact. We have given careful consideration to all the evidence which has been available. (a) It has been declared by some that there has been a general and fundamental departure from evangelical faith. A statement has been brought to the attention of the Commission setting forth the view which some hold of general religious conditions at the present day as follows: ‘This controversy centers about two great questions; the divine character and authority of the Bible and the deity and work of Christ. One party to the controversy believes and stoutly affirms and maintains that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, in- fallible Word of God, the only rule of faith and practice; that Jesus Christ is truly God as well as truly man, and as such, an object of worship; that by His life upon earth, and, above all, by His death on the Cross—in which event He offered up himself as a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and to recon- cile us to God—He did that apart from which there could have been no forgiveness for the sons of men; that after haying 12 made atonement for our sins, He arose from the dead and sat down at the right hand of the Father, where He reigns as King, and by the operation of His kingly power, through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit, regenerates and sanctifies His people; that He will return to the earth, according to His promise, and create a new heaven and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. The other party, with great violence and ridicule, denies all this, and declares that the Bible is only traditional literature, that Christ was nothing more than aman filled with the Spirit of God, and of service to us chiefly as an example. His death is nothing more or less than that of any good man. He never rose from the dead, and He will never return to the earth.” This statement was not specifically declared to apply to the Presbyterian Church, but there are some who express fear of such condition in our own body. As far, however, as the Commission has been able to learn, there is in the Presbyterian Church no second party such as is described in this quota- tion. And we believe that the action of the last General Assembly in appointing this Commission to study causes of unrest and to make a report to the next General Assembly “to the end that the purity, peace, unity and progress of the Church might be assured,” is evidence that the Assem- bly believed in its own evangelical unity and in the evangelical unity of our Church at large. (b) But even though our Church as a whole is evangelically united, it is held by some that ultra liberal views have crept in and that there are ministers from whose preaching and faith the supernatural note of the Gospel has faded. On the other hand, it is held by some that there are men of ultra exclusive views who deny the true liberty of Christ and who misrepresent the Gospel to men. To the extent that these things are true, they constitute grave causes of unrest which should be dealt with first by brotherly counsel and then, if need be, by suitable Presbyterial action. Indeed, we are persuaded that one chief ground of dissatisfaction is the failure of Presbyteries to exer- cise their proper functions in connection with the life and faith of the Church, and in accordance with the clear provi- sions of the Form of Government, (Chapter X, Section VII,) and of the Book of Discipline. Many ministers and elders are without knowledge of the Constitution and history of our Church. During the past fif- teen years, of 5,186 new names on our roll of ministers, 1,883 came from other denominations. They now represent some of our most useful and devoted ministers, but they and all of us, both ministers and elders, need to study diligently the Confes- 13 sion and polity of our Church, to the end that Presbyteries may fulfil their indispensable duties toward maintaining “the peace, purity, unity and progress of the Church.” (c) It is believed by some that there are certain differences of doctrinal view that have developed, which lie beyond the bounds of any questions of interpretation or meaning of terms of subscription, such as the doctrine of Scripture and the fact of the Virgin Birth, and that these represent a fundamental and unavoidable ground of division of opinion. 5. There isa further group of causes of unrest to be con- sidered. We refer to the misunderstandings and misinforma- tion of which we have learned, but far more to the misjudg- ments and unfair and untrue statements which have been made in speech and in printed publications. Whether or not these be actionable under the laws against slander and libel, they are in clear violation of the injunction of the Church. No one can realize how grave and extensive the moral, and pos- sibly the legal offense in this matter has been unless he goes over, aS we have had to do under the instructions of the As- sembly, the statements which have been made. If we are to have peace and purity in the Church, all slander and mis- representation must be brought to an end. The Spirit of Christ must be allowed to bring forth His fruits among us and all evil speaking must be put away, to the end that “speaking truth in love, we may grow up in all things into Him, who is the head, even Christ; from whom all the body fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplieth, according to the working in due measure of each several part, maketh the increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love.” ITT. CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE OF UNITY WITH ITS HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Foremost among the forces making for unity is a common faith expressed in our confessional symbols, but intimately related to this, and defining the way in which the faith is to be held among brethren in the Presbyterian Church, is the constitutional principle of toleration. This principle has been obscured in the recent controversies which have agitated the Church, and this obscurity underlies many of the causes of unrest set forth in the preceding section. Thus far the Commission has put emphasis upon the opinions of others and has attempted to present fairly the differences of view which are unsettling the thought of the Church and 14 impairing its spiritual life. The Commission desires now to submit some of its own considerations with special reference to the best method of approach to the problem before us. A spiritual revival and a reconsecration of every life to Christ are imperative if harmony is to prevail and our Church is to render full service. Doubtless everyone will assent to this statement. In all our discussions its truth should be assumed as a prime condition of accord. We must begin on our knees, with confession of our sins and sincere repent- ance, and must move forward in the spirit of renewed alle- giance to the Master and of closer fellowship with Him which will conquer our selfishness, pride and hardness, and will insure in us humility of mind and the purity of heart which yields a vision of God. Following this, our only safe and successful method will be found in the field of constitutional processes. Our Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has been bound together by its Constitution, and the Constitution must keep it together. Some brethren in the Church hold that the provisions and statements of the Constitution are specific and definite, that the very language itself makes an end of controversy, and that this language has been confirmed by official deliverances of a number of General Assemblies. On the other hand, there are those who claim that such reading of the Constitution is unwarranted, that it cannot fairly carry the restricted and limited construction often put upon it, and that some official deliverances of the Assembly have had the effect of adding to the Constitution, and so vir- tually amending it by extra-constitutional processes. In sup- port of their position, they quote the words of the Constitution itself, which say, “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 author- ity; and that all their decisions should be founded upon the revealed will of God.” (Form of Government, Chap. I, Sec- tion VII.) These differences, we are convinced, do not exclude the ele- ments of a basic unity. Ardently devoted to the Presbyterian Church, the supporters of both views wish to promote its wel- fare; both desire to see it become a mightier agency in the hand of God for extending His kingdom. Surely they are not hope- lessly apart if both are moved by a deep loyalty to our Lord, 15 and also to that branch of the Church in which both are now privileged to serve. The Commission ventures to remind the General Assembly that while the Constitution does contain affirmations of doc- trine and provisions for order that are both specific and defi- nite, there is also built into its fabric the Christian principle | of toleration. The language of some of the central doctrines of the Confession of Faith is so broad as to give an im- pression that these were cast in such terms with a studied purpose of covering differences already in existence when the document was framed; and it is a significant fact that when- ever, in its entire history, divisions and separations have vexed the Presbyterian Church and weakened its work, these breaches have been healed, if healed at all, by a return to the simple and hospitable statements of the Confession. What stronger witness can there be that, if the principles woven into the Confession of Faith and the phraseology in which they are expressed tend to effect reunions, cordial acceptance of the same principles and a correct reading of the language defining them will tend to prevent disunion ? A brief review of the discussions which have troubled our Church in the past throws a revealing light upon the path which we are now treading. Controversy within the Presby- terian Church is not a new thing. We have passed this way before. 1. The first of these controversies within the American Presbyterian Church ended with the acceptance of the Adopt- ing Act in 1729. The first Presbytery, formed in 1706, and the first Synod, organized in 1716, fell heir to the discussions over subscription to the Confession of Faith which had dis- tressed the churches in the motherland and had brought divi- sion into the Irish Church. Before 1729 the American Presbyterian Church was divided in its sentiment regarding subscription to the Confession of Faith. Jonathan Dickinson, the first President of Princeton, and one of the ablest men in the Church, opposed it. He said, “I have a higher opinion of the Assembly’s Confession than of any other book of the kind existent in the world, yet I don’t think it perfect. I know it to be the dictates of fallible men, and I know of no law, either of religion or reason, that obliges me to subscribe to it.” The matter was keenly debated and in the end a compromise was effected. The Adopting Act was worded so as to be acceptable to everyone, and laid the basis of a creedal church. The Adopting Act reads: “Although the Synod do not claim or Rrevend Jf any author- ity of imposing our faith upon other men’s consciences, but 16 do profess our just dissatisfaction with and abhorence of such impositions, and do utterly disclaim all legislative power and authority in the Church, being willing to receive one another as Christ has received us to the glory of God, and admit to fellowship in sacred ordinances all such as we have grounds to believe Christ will at last admit to the Kingdom of heaven, yet we are undoubtedly obliged to take care that the faith once delivered to the saints be kept pure and uncorrupt among us, and so handed down to our posterity. And do therefore agree that all the ministers of this Synod, or that shall here- after be admitted into this Synod, shall declare their agree- ment in and approbation of the Confession of Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, as being, in all the essential and necessary arti- cles, good forms of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine, and do also adopt the said Confession and Catechisms as the Confession of our Faith. And we do also agree, that all the Presbyteries within our bounds shall always take care not to admit any candidate for the ministry into the exercise of the sacred function unless he declares his agreement in opinion with all the essential and necessary articles of said Confession, either by subscribing the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms, or by a verbal declaration of their assent thereto, as such minister or candidate shall think best. And in case any minister of this Synod, or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any scruple with respect to any article or articles of said Confession or Catechisms, he shall at the time of his making said declaration declare his sentiments to the Presbytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exercise of the ministry within our bounds, and to ministerial communion, if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge his scruple or mistake to be only about articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship or government. But if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge such ministers or candidates erroneous in essential and necessary articles of faith, the Synod or Presbytery shall declare them uncapable of com- munion with them. And the Synod do solemnly agree that none of us will traduce or use any approbrious term of those that differ from us in these extra-essential and not necessary points of doctrine, but treat them with the same friendship, kindness and brotherly love, as if they had not differed from us in such sentiments.” The phrase “essential and necessary articles’, thrice repeated, contains the germ of differences that still vex the Church. When the adopting Act was enacted the particular doctrine objected to was the submission of the Church to the State; 17 those submitting to the Act objected to including this doctrine as one of the essential and necessary articles. The principle incorporated in the Act, however, has a wider application. 2. The second controversy resulted not in union but in separation. It is not necessary here to discuss the issues which led to the division of the Church into the Synod of Philadelphia and the Synod of New York. The separation took place in 1741. Differences developing out of the revival with which Jonathan Edwards was identified led, in time, to misrepresentation, suspicion and distrust. Men in the min- istry were openly charged with insincerity and heresy. The immediate cause of the disruption, however, was the conten- tion on the part of the Presbytery of New Brunswick that, as a Presbytery, it had exclusive right to ordain men to the Christian ministry in opposition to the expressed will of the Synod. The Synod divided on a vote of 12 to 10, and Dr. Charles Hodge calls it “a disorderly rupture.” The breach existed until 1758, when a union was effected on the basis of mutual confidence and the Standards of the Church. The question of the right of Presbytery to the final decision in the matter of ordination of candidates for the Gospel ministry was left undecided. 3. The third controversy led, in 1810, to the formation of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. The General Assembly had been instituted in 1789, its powers defined and restricted by a written constitution, and the present form of subscription to the Standards of the Church adopted. A wide-spread re- vival, having its origin in Kentucky, stirred the Church into renewed activity. It was attended, doubtless, by some fanati- cism, but was a genuine work of grace, and the Church was brought face to face with new problems and new needs. Candi- dates for the ministry were ordained who made a qualifying subscription to the Standards of the Church, and the crisis came when the Presbytery of Cumberland, standing upon what it claimed to be its rights, and in opposition to the expressed will of the General Assembly, ordained men who were not able to subscribe to all the doctrines of the Confession of Faith, and in 1810 the Cumberland Presbyterian Church was formed. This breach lasted for almost a century and was healed after the Revision of the Confession of Faith and the adoption of the Declaratory Act in 1903. In the deliverances of the General Assembly of 1906, preparatory to the union with the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, the General Assembly made the following pronouncement: “That ministers, ruling elders, and deacons, in expressing approval of the Westminster Con- fession of Faith as revised in 1903, are required to assent only 18 to the system of doctrine contained therein, and not to every particular statement in it; and inasmuch as the two Assem- blies meeting in 1904 did declare that there was then a suffi- cient agreement between the systems of doctrine contained in the Confession of the two Churches to warrant the Union of the Churches, therefore the change of doctrinal Standards resulting from the Union involves no change of belief on the part of any who were ministers, ruling elders, or deacons in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church.” The reunion of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, was effected in 1906 by constitutional processes on the basis of mutual confidence and the Standards of the Church as amended in 1903, no action being taken on the right of the l’resbytery to have absolute jurisdiction over the ordination of candidates to the Gospel ministry. 4, The fourth crisis in the Church issued in the division known as the Old School and the New School. The history which led up to this separation in 1837 is complex and involved. There were several contributing causes. The Act of Union adopted in 1801, by means of which Congregational ministers had voting power in the General Assembly and Presbyterian ministers the right to vote in Congregational Associations, was the chief contributing cause, but doctrinal differences also created suspicion and mistrust. It was declared in the so-called “Act of Testimony”, that “Presbyteries were convulsed by collusions and Synods and Assemblies made theatres for the open display of humiliating scenes of human passion and weakness.” The issue ebbed and flowed with successive Assem- blies and in 1887 the disruption took place. The separation lasted until 1870, a period of thirty-three years, and was finally healed on the basis of mutual confidence, the spirit of tolera- tion and the Standards of the Church which had been accepted and subscribed by each of the uniting Churches. From this brief review one conclusion is inescapable; divi- sions and schisms have not cured theological controversy in the Presbyterian Church. If the question be raised as to whether the issues under consideration today are more impor- tant than those which occasioned unrest and division in the past, the answer is that those engaged in debating them believed that the questions then at stake were vital to the Gospel of redemption. Prior to the division of 1741 it was stated before the Synod that certain views held by Presby- terian ministers “do entirely overset all supernatural religion, render regeneration a vain and needless thing, and involve a crimson blasphemy against the blessed God.” In the circular 19 letter sent out by the General Assembly of 1837, this Assembly set forth the doctrines of the New School as being “in fact another Gospel; and it is impossible for those who faithfully adhere to their public standards to walk with those who adopt such opinions with either comfort or confidence.” The experience of the past teaches us many valuable lessons. Certain of our State constitutions set forth the principle in these terms: “A frequent recurrence to the principles of self government is essential to maintain the blessings of liberty.” From the events of our own history we cull the remedy for many of our present ills. Two controlling facts emerge. One is, that the Presbyterian system admits of diversity of view where the core of truth is identical. Another is, that the Church has flourished best and showed most clearly the good hand of God upon it, when it laid aside its tendencies to stress these differences, and put the emphasis on its unity of spirit. Our constitution, like the tables of the law, has two aspects. It deals not only with our duties to God, but also with our relations to each other, and these are equally imperative. Our Lord Himself condensed all the commandments into two, which are specific on the divine and human relationships, and said “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” The Church at large should illustrate, as well as demonstrate, the power of the Gospel to bind up wounds and to soften animosities; and such, we are convinced, was the pur- pose of incorporating in the Presbyterian Constitution, the obligation for brethren to maintain a patient, considerate and brotherly attitude toward each other. The various groups in the present discussion declare their approval of and adherence to our Constitution. These declarations must be accepted as sincere. All assert that the Constitution is the only adequate test of Presbyterianism. The Church has many times solved its difficulties by this criterion alone. The principle of toleration when rightly conceived and frank- ly and fairly applied is as truly a part of our constitution as are any of the doctrines stated in that instrument. Not only is the principle expressed in definite terms, but its place and authority as a part of our organic law is further indicated in a number of articles by clear and necessary implication. Furthermore, it is recognized through unbroken practice in the administration of our form of government and our dis- cipline. 3 Toleration as a principle applicable within the Presbyterian Church refers to an attitude and a practice according to which the status of a minister or other ordained officer, is acknowl- edged and fellowship is extended to him, even though he may 20 « hold some views that are individual on points not regarded as essential to the system of faith which the Church professes. Presbyterianism is a great body of belief, but it is more than a belief; it is also a tradition, a controlling sentiment. The ties which bind us to it are not of the mind only; they are ties of the heart as well. There are people who, despite variant opinions, can never be at home in any other communion. They were born into the Presbyterian Church. They love its name, its order and its great distinctive teachings. In its fellowship they have a precious inheritance from their forbears. Their hearts bow at its altars and cherish a just pride in its noble history. Attitudes and sentiments like these are treasures which should not be undervalued hastily nor cast aside lightly. A sound policy of constitutional toleration is designed to con- serve such assets whenever it is possible to do so without endangering the basic positions of the Church. The liberty which toleration allows is not to be judged finally by individuals. It is freedom with boundaries, and these boundaries are fixed by constitutional authority. Perhaps we are prone to forget that toleration begins with the mass. It is the self-imposed restraint which an organized body lays upon its own action. Either by a written constitu- tion or by prevailing practice an organization draws lines beyond which it pledges itself not to pass. It delimits areas which it will not invade, and within these areas the individual member of the organization has freedom. The entire body exercises its own liberty first, in voluntarily circumscribing the field of its action, and this, in turn, guarantees the liberty of the individual outside of such limits. It follows, therefore, that whenever a question arises as to where these limits are, the issue must be decided by the organi- zation and not by the individual member of it. Ags applied within the Presbyterian Church, this means that such issues will be determined either generally, by amendment of the Constitution, or particularly, by Presbyterial authority, sub- ject to the constitutional right of appeal. Toleration does not involve any lowering of the Standards. It does not weaken the testimony of the Church as to its assured convictions. It does not imply that support is offered to what may be regarded as a brother’s error. But it does mean that in the spirit of Christ, patience is exercised by the body of the Church toward those deemed to be at fault in some of their beliefs, remembering our own proneness to err, in order that by the manifestation of such graces, and by prayer, together with fidelity in our own witnessing, all, finally, may 21 be brought to see eye to eye in a fuller apprehension of the truth, and led into a convincing compliance with the Master’s new commandment that His disciples should love one another. The principle here set forth can not be better stated than is done in the Form of Government, Chap. I, Section V: “That while under the conviction of the above principle, they think it necessary to make effectual provision, that all who are admitted as teachers, be sound in the faith; they also believe that there are truths and forms, with respect to which men of good characters and principles may differ. And in all these they think it the duty both of private Christians and societies, to exercise mutual forbearance towards each other.” LVe POWER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND EFFECT OF ITS ACTIONS Another constitutional principle which must be recognized and applied, relates to the power of the General Assembly and the effect of Assembly actions. There appears to have been much confusion in the thinking of the Church regarding this general subject. F Until recently our Church has labored under the disadvan- tage of having no continuing body of judicial officers whose duty it was to study and define the principles, and to analyze and classify the precedents and deliverances which express our conceptions of applied ecclesiastical authority. Even now the tenure of membership in the Permanent Judicial Commission is so brief that one scarcely becomes settled in the perform- ance of his duties, before his term of office expires. Previous to the institution of the Permanent Judicial Commission, these matters were handled usually by bodies appointed by the Gen- eral Assembly as need for them might arise. The result has been that until a comparatively late date, no person or group of persons has been designated officially to keep these matters under continuing investigation. Only as individual minds and temperamental interest may have inclined in that direction, and this without authority, has there been any orderly and sustained canvass of the problems involved. As a consequence, inconsistencies, and even some contradictions appear in this field along the path of our Church’s history. Nevertheless, there are some principles which, in the opinion of the Com- mission, appear to be sound in logic and well established in practice. 1. The General Assembly is not heir to all the powers of The (General) Synod. This is a distinction often ignored by 22 those who quote the actions of The (General) Synod, as though its authority passed over unchanged to the General Assembly. The (General) Synod was composed of all the ministers in the denomination and of a representative from the session of every particular church. The (General) Synod was the whole Church. Supreme authority inhered in it. The (General) Synod had no constitution except that which belonged to its own nature and to the nature of the Presbyterian system, besides such statements and decisions as, in the exercise of its supreme power, it chose to make. By the same power, it could rescind or alter any of these actions without reference to any superior authority. The Adopting Act is a case in point. This measure was not referred to the Church through any other channel, because the Church was deemed to be fully present in The (General) Synod itself. The same is true of the reunion, in 1758, of the two divisions of the body which had separated in 1741. It is true also of the adoption of our present Constitu- tion. This organic law in its original form was never remitted to the Presbyteries for ratification. Even in so vital a matter, the power of The (General) Synod was complete and final. There was some similarity between The (General) Synod and the British Parliament in respect to the freedom of both bodies from restraints, except as those restraints inhered in the character of the institutions themselves, and in the will of their members, guided, but not controlled, by precedents. There was no formal, defined or written constitution. Prece- dent and history and the experience of similar bodies through- out the world had their effect, but the force of all of these could be set aside. To quote actions of The (General) Synod therefore, as though they constituted controlling precedents as to the methods by which similar actions may be taken by the General Assembly, is clearly inadmissible. A fact supporting this last statement is that the General Assembly has limited, defined, and delegated powers. It has another authority above it, namely, the Constitution of the Church. The General Assembly did not make the Constitution [although the (General) Synod did make it], but the Con- stitution made the General Assembly. Herein is the chief difference between the two bodies. The only way by which the General Assembly can bring about a change in our Form of Government, Book of Discipline or Directory for Worship is by proposing the change to the Presbyteries, and having it approved by a majority of all the Presbyteries. Before any amendments or alterations in our Confession of Faith or the Larger and Shorter Catechisms can be brought about by the General Assembly, they must be 23 favorably acted upon by a committee of ministers and ruling elders, in numbers not less than fifteen, appointed by the General Assembly and its action adopted by the Assembly, - and they must thereafter be approved by two-thirds of all the Presbyteries. If The (General) Synod, as respects its powers, may be compared with the British Parliament, the General Assembly may be likened to the three departments of the United States Government combined in one, the executive, the legislative and the judicial. The General Assembly exercises all of these functions though without confusing them. In our system of national government, each of these departments exercises lim- ited and delegated authority. No one of them is a law unto itself—not even the Supreme Court. The powers and juris- diction of the Supreme Court are conferred by the Federal Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot transcend these powers against the will of the people expressed in the Con- stitution, without introducing anarchy into the people’s gov- ernment. The General Assembly sits sometimes in an executive and administrative capacity; again it may act as a legistative body; and yet again as a judicial tribunal; but always with restricted powers. In the performance of each of these functions, the General Assembly possesses a somewhat different character. The failure to distinguish among these functions performed by the Assembly, as they have been distinguished in our American civil government, is the cause of some of the confusion which has crept into our minds regarding this matter. 2. From the above statement of principles it follows that at least three differing methods of setting precedents and enacting laws within the Presbyterian Church must be sep- arated in our thinking. (1) There will be no question, perhaps, regarding the legis- lative and administrative acts of the General Assembly. Kvery one recognizes the scope and effect of these powers when exercised. It is necessary to remember, however, that deliver- ances of the General Assembly, when it is sitting ether in its legislative or administrative capacity, should be clearly distin- guished from decisions in judicial cases when the Assembly exercises the powers of a judicial court; and these in turn are not to be confounded with the ordainment of organic law by the processes provided in the Constitution and referred to above. When the General Assembly as a non-judicial body makes deliverances, they are entitled to great respect and deference, but they are subject to modification or repeal at any time by a majority vote of the General Assembly. 24 (2) When, however, the General Assembly acts in its judicial character, the effect is different, that is, if we are to follow the practices established in the civil sphere, now become a part of the thought of our people, and we know of no other course so safe. A judicial case is heard upon issues clearly presented, upon notice to and full argument by the parties, and it is decided after mature deliberation. No rule is laid down in such a case that is not applicable to the facts and determinative of the issues. | When a judicial case which comes to the General Assembly by constitutional procedure, a case which is issued by the General Assembly and judgment entered, the matter is dis- posed of, and the judgment in that particular case is final. The reason is that the Constitution of the Church does not provide for any higher judicial tribunal than the General Assembly, and an end of litigation must be reached somewhere. The decision in such a case stands as a powerful and persuasive precedent until altered or reversed. The General Assembly has the power in its judicial capacity to record a contrary judgment in another case, resting upon a state of facts similar to, or precisely the same as, those of the former case. The General Assembly has power to do this at the same sitting of the court (though it is highly improbable that it would do so), and any succeeding Assembly also can create such new precedents, by the same means of a judicial decision in a specific case. (3) It will be seen that this is something dudes different from the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution. It would be intolerable if the General Assembly, whose powers are limited by the Constitution, could, even when sitting as a judicial court, amend by indirection, the organic law of the Church, which contains within itself provisions for effecting orderly change. No one contends that the Supreme Court of the United States has the power to amend the Federal Con- stitution by adding to or taking from it, its function being limited to interpretation of the Constitution in cases of am- biguity. The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church can be amended only by the General Assembly and the Presbyteries acting concurrently, according to methods defined in the Constitution and already referred to. 5. It is important in this connection to make a clear dis- tinction between the judgment which is rendered in any particular case, and the reasoning on which that judgment rests. The reasoning may be faulty, and may be open to attack in another action, but so far as that original case is concerned, the judgment stands. It is not unheard of that 25 a court may accept the contentions of a litigant, but for entirely different reasons from those adduced in the briefs. It has also been known that a court may arrive at a correct conclusion, but may support it by reasoning which is not correct. Thus it is that a principle enunciated in the decision of a court of last resort is always subject to challenge when it is sought to apply that principle in later cases, either because the principle itself is deemed to be faulty, or because the rea- sons presented in support of it are thought to be not sound. At this point the utmost caution is necessary. It is to be presumed that the challenging of a principle laid down in a decision of any supreme judicial tribunal will be undertaken with great reluctance and under a sense of the heavy respon- sibility one assumes in doing so. As a matter of practice in the civil courts, there has been strong disposition, which las hardened almost into a fixed rule, to let such principles stand. However, the fact is plain and unquestioned that courts of supreme authority have been known, on sufficient occasion, to reverse their own conclusions and not infrequently they modify them appreciably. And anyone in the Presby- terian Church who believes the issue at stake to be vital and imperative has the right, in a new case, to plead for relief in later decisions and should have the privilege of doing so, if he show sincerity and conscientiousness, without subjecting himself to any reflection upon his loyalty to the Church and to its institutions. The above principles, if rightly applied in a spirit that seeks accommodation and concord, should be capable of meeting, in so far as legal procedure can meet them, some phases of the situation which we are now facing. Wh CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The principles which we have discussed in the two preceding sections, by no means exhaust the questions at issue. One of the most important of those remaining to be considered is the relative powers of the General Assembly and of the Pres- bytery as regards matters over which the Presbytery has original jurisdiction. The rights of the Presbyteries and the limits of their independency is a question that has been involved in at least two of the historic divisions of the Pres- byterian Church, that of 1741 and that of 1810, but it never has been fully and definitely settled. Divisions in which it played a part have been healed by passing it over. The respon- sibility of the Presbyteries in licensing and ordaining candi- 26 dates for the ministry runs down and roots itself in this broader principle of the relation between Presbytery and Assembly, and of the full discharge by each body of its con- stitutional functions. Another aspect of the same general problem is the meaning of the phrase “review and control” as used in our Constitution, There are a number of questions which can be asked on this point, and they are being asked, as already indicated in the paragraphs of this report dealing with causes of unrest. They demand an answer. It is desirable also to secure a more exact definition of the phrase “essential and necessary articles of faith” and of the authority to determine such articles. This phrase has long been prominent in our terminology, and has proved to be a cause of uneasiness and confusion. It has not been possible to deal adequately with these sub- jects. The Commission believes that the work which it was appointed to do will not be complete until a study of them has been made and conclusions reported. It is evident to the Commission that these matters cannot be dealt with successfully off-hand. A hasty settlement may prove to be no settlement at all. Interests are too sacred and feeling too strong to admit of a treatment of the subject which does not take account of the healing ‘effects of time. There must be time for conference and fellowship, for the modifica- tion of opposing attitudes, the harmonizing of divergent opin- ions, and for the bringing together of positions that seem to be apart. There must be occasion and opportunity for those not in accord to try to work together upon the basis of principles acknowledged by all, but freshly defined and commonly under- stood. The Church seeking peace must wait for the spirit of peace to spread and for a full maturing of the purpose to attain peace. The Commission is profoundly convinced that above all issues in importance and before every other proposal designed to unite our thinking and our spiritual interest, is the impera- tive necessity of a quickened loyalty to our Church, to its historic standards, and to our living Lord. Any settlement which promises to hold together the great masses of our min- isters and members must be one which guarantees that through their unbroken ranks shall ring the note of undying allegiance to the Son of God as he is presented to us in the Scriptures. IT IS RECOMMENDED: 1. That the General Assembly approve the foregoing report and commend it to the Church for study as a statement of 27 facts and a definition of certain general principles which tend to clarify the issues involved in the recent discussions, and as furnishing a common ground upon which all members of the Church may stand, and from which, by the blessing of God and the leading of His Spirit, all may move forward to more complete harmony of opinion and to full brotherly accord in spirit. 2. That in furtherance of these purposes, the Commission be continued for another year and be charged with the duty of considering further the questions referred to in this report as not yet having been brought under full investigation, and all other remaining questions relating to the general subject, and that it report on these to the next General Assembly. 3. That the General Assembly while welcoming the discus- sion of great theological and practical issues lays upon the consciences of ministers and members, the duty of exercising patience and forbearance, and of refraining from public ex- pression of hasty or harsh judgments of the motives of breth- ren whose hearts are fully known only to God; especially from bringing against individuals “in a calumniating man- ner,” and not in the legally prescribed way, charges which assail their loyalty as Presbyterian ministers or ruling elders, and even their Christian belief, and which otherwise tend to weaken their influence as servants of Christ in His Church; so that discussion of the serious problems affecting the welfare of our Church, in so far as discussion may seem wise or necessary, may proceed in a way that will persuade the minds and win the hearts of men, stimulate the Church to greater activity in carrying forward its task and encourage all to provoke one another to love and good works. 4. That this Assembly records its unshaken loyalty to the whole body of evangelical truth, and more specifically, that it declares its purpose to uphold the Constitution of our Church and to maintain the integrity of its historic and corporate witness to our Lord Jesus Christ as He is represented to us in the Scriptures, and to the system of doctrine set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Respectfully submitted, (Signed ) ALFRED H. BARR. JOHN M. T. FINNEY. HUGH T. KERR. JOHN H. DEWITT. MARK A. MATTHEWS. EDWARD D. DUFFIELD. LAPSLEY A. McAFEE. CHEESMAN A. HERRICK. HARRY C. ROGERS. NELSON H. LOOMIS. WILLIAM O. THOMPSON. NATHAN G. MOORE. EDGAR. W. WORK. ROBERT E. SPEER. HENRY C. SWEARINGEN, Chairman, Se eee eee ere ee ee a wen BX 8969.1 .P74 1925 Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. General Assembly. Report of the Special Commission of 1995 to tha