More on the Preliminary Principles

You will look long and hard to find any commentary on the Preliminary Principles. I’m referring to that document penned by the Rev. John Witherspoon in 1788 and adopted in 1789 as something of a foundational preface to the  Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. When the Orthodox Presbyterian Church was formed in 1936, they saw to the inclusion of these Principles in their Form of Government. So too fro the Bible Presbyterian Church which split from the OPC in 1938. Then several decades later, when the Presbyterian Church in America was organized in 1973, the Preliminary Principles were again included as part of the Preface to the Book of Church Order.

Digging a bit deeper, the story becomes more interesting. In the most recent edition of the OPC’s Book of Church Order [2011], I don’t find the Preliminary Principles included in that volume, nor do I see any explanation of their omission. Perhaps someone can provide that information. The Principles remain in the PCA’s BCO, but if we go back to their inclusion in 1973, it is intriguing to find out that the Principles were not part of the Southern Presbyterian tradition. In 1857 the PCUSA had begun an effort to revise its Book of Order, and the committee erected to perform that work completed a revision of the Rules of Discipline section. The War interrupted further progress on that effort for the PCUSA, but the newly formed Presbyterian Church, US had the motivation to continue the effort as they sought to define who they were as a separate Church. They began that work in earnest immediately at the close of the War and by 1867 the first draft of their new Book of Church Order was presented to their General Assembly. The process of revision continued on until 1879 when their BCO was finally adopted. However, it was notable that almost from the start, they rejected the Preliminary Principles. The reasons given by Rev. John Bailey Adger and others included the idea that the Principles were suitable only to a young church, and that they tended towards congregationalism.

What I find interesting is that the PCA, by including the Principles, was reaching outside of its own tradition and laying claim to something more of the breadth of American Presbyterianism.

Here now is a brief commentary on Principles III – V, with the conclusion to post next week. I have previously posted the first part of this commentary by the Rev. David S. Kennedy, covering paragraphs I and II, and the entire work is part of a serialized study by Dr. Kennedy which appeared on the pages of THE PRESBYTERIAN in 1926 and 1927, shortly after he had retired as editor of that journal.

Studies in Presbyterian Government
by Rev. David S. Kennedy, D.D.
[The Presbyterian 96.43 (28 Oct. 1926): 9.]

In our last article, on “The Form of Government, we discussed Principles I and II, which covered the right of private judgment and also the right of a company of people to organize for religious purposes and their right to determine terms of membership in such organization and the means for preserving its integrity and laws for its defense and promotion.

We now call attention to Principles III, IV and V.

It’s A Fact!

The following editorial appeared on the pages of THE PRESBYTERIAN in November of 1924 [vol. 94, no. 45 (6 November 1924): 3-4].
It was provided without indication of authorship, but the Rev. David S. Kennedy was editor-in-chief at that time and thus was the likely author. Associate editors included William L. McEwan, Maitland Alexander, Samuel G. Craig, Clarence E. Macartney and J. Gresham Machen, and I suppose any of these men could also have authored this editorial. The editorial itself speaks a basic truth about the foundation of the Christian faith, while also providing an example of a straight-forward apologetic method for the modern era.

The Factual Basis of Christianity

One of the outstanding characteristics of modern religious liberalism—that which as much as anything else differentiates between it and historical Christianity and especially between it and evangelical Christianity—is its open or implied denial of the factual basis of the Christian religion.

This is particularly evident on the part of Dr. Fosdick, whose pen and tongue are doing so much to commend it to the present generation. His recent letter to the Presbytery of New York makes clear that his refusal to subscribe to the Westminster Confession is due not to the fact that he regards this creed as false as compared with other existing creeds, but rather to the fact that in the nature of the case, no creed can be true in any strict sense of the word. All creeds, all expressions of belief, according to Dr. Fosdick, are but the transient phrasing of what men have experienced within their own souls, with their fellows, or with God. That this holds good, in his estimation, of the doctrinal statements of the Scriptures as truly as it does of the Westminster Confession, is made perfectly clear in his recent book, The Modern Use of the Bible, which is being so widely and persistently advertised at the present time. Apart from the fact that Dr. Fosdick believes that the reduced Jesus left [to] us after literary and historical criticism has done its work was a real, historical person, there is virtually no recognition whatever of the factual basis of Christianity in this book. Everywhere it is maintained that the essential value of the Bible lies in its “reproducible experiences,” not in the historical facts or happenings it records. Dr. Fosdick has the Bible in mind as well as the creeds when he writes : “Christianity is a way of life, incarnate in Christ, that has expressed itself in many formulas, and will yet express itself in many more, and the world will ultimately choose that church which produces the life, whatever the formulas may be in which she carries it” (page 205). When it is considered that a few paragraphs preceding this he says, with the emphasis of italics, of the differences between Lutheranism, Calvinism, Episcopalianism, Methodism, Congregationalism, Unitarianism— defined as an “intellectual” revolt against an incredible metaphysic”—that “nothing matters in all this except the things that lead men into more abundant life” (page 201), it is evident that facts in the sense of events that have happened do not enter into his conception of Christianity at all in any vital way.

“Ye shall be My witnesses”

Another editorial by the Rev. David S. Kennedy, during the pitch of the modernist controversy.

The Main Function of the Church
[The Presbyterian 95.26 (25 June 1925): 3-4.]

THE church of Jesus Christ has many functions. Among these functions, however, there is one that takes precedence of all others. This function was given initial and summary expression by the supreme Head of the church himself immediately after his ascension and his resumption of that glory which he had had with the Father before the world was — in what were therefore the final instructions he gave to his church — in person rather than through the instrumentality of his apostles — in the words that are recorded in the eighth verse of the first chapter of the Book of Acts, “Ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth.”

The primary function of the church is to bear witness, to make known its message of truth. The campaign launched by the apostles, at the command of Christ himself, was a campaign of witnessing. It was by the “foolishness of preaching” that they began the task, not only of bringing the thoughts and activities of individuals into captivity to their Lord, but of transforming the kingdoms of this world into his kingdom. It is not strange that it seemed foolishness to the then-living wise of this world that the apostles should expect to achieve any significant results by the use of such a method. One might think that the history of the last nineteen hundred years had abundantly justified the wisdom of their method; and yet there are still many, even within the Christian church, to whom the method seems foolish to such a degree that they have largely subordinated it to other methods. For the “foolishness of preaching” they substitute organization, mass movements, programmes, and such like, so that instead of being primarily “men with a message,” they are rather “men with a programme.” Plans and programmes and organizations have an important part to play in the great task of Christianizing the world, but in view of the method commended by Christ himself and followed by the apostles, it is clear that our chief dependence should be on the purity and sincerity of our testimony to the truth as it is in Jesus Christ.

From the very beginning the campaign of witnessing carried on by the apostles included two elements — both of which were kept constantly in the foreground. In the first place, they made known what had taken place, the great historical events that lie at the basis of the Christian religion. In the second place, they expounded the meaning and significance of those facts or events.

The Crisis Then (1925)

Some eighty-six years ago, the Rev. David S. Kennedy, editor of THE PRESBYTERIAN wrote this assessment of the battle already then underway for the heart and soul of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. 

The Crisis in the Presbyterian Church
Rev. David S. Kennedy, Editor
[excerpted from THE PRESBYTERIAN 95.9 (26 February 1925): 4-5.]

THE individual, the family, the state and the church pass through crisis hours. These crises determine the whole course of human history. There is locked up within them the unseen of the future. The whole church of God is now facing one of the most intense crises in its history. We do not now attempt to present all the elements of this crisis of the church general, but restrict what we have to say to that crisis as it appears in the Presbyterian Church, U. S. A. Let us consider some of the elements involved.

The One-Hundred Years’ War

CONSERVATIVE PRESBYTERIAN RESPONSE TO THE AUBURN AFFIRMATION:

Next in our series on conservative Presbyterian response to the Auburn Affirmation is this editorial from the 18 March 1926 issue of The Presbyterian.  The editorial comes from the pen of either Rev. David S. Kennedy or Rev. Samuel G. Craig, both men serving as co-editors at that time and the editorial is unsigned.  What is noteworthy in this particular editorial is the estimation by the author that the incursion of modernism into the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. was not severe.

Are There Two Religions in the Presbyterian Church?

It has long been recognized by leaders of Christian thought that the triumph of Modernism would spell defeat for Christianity.  That Modernism and Christianity are diametrically opposed, all along the line, has been set forth most fully and convincingly by Dr. Machen in his well-known book, Christianity and Liberalism.  It is not to be supposed, however, that Dr. Machen was the discoverer of this fact : it had found clear and cogent expression long before Dr. Machen had been heard of in the theological world.  For instance, as long ago as 1891, Dr. F.L. Patton is on record as saying :

A Brief History of The Presbyterian Magazine

With the start of its 96th year of publication, the editors of The Presbyterian saw fit to review briefly the magazine’s history.  On the front cover they published the following information:

ENTERING OUR NINETY-SIXTH YEAR

Early in 1831, a group of Presbyterian men in Philadelphia, and vicinity conceived the idea of founding a religious paper, to advance the interests of the kingdom in general and of their own denomination in particular.  Throughout these years the following have been the editors, in the order of their service:

• Rev. John Burtt,
• Rev. James W. Alexander, D.D.
• Rev. William M. Engles, D.D.
• Rev. John Leyburn, D.D.
• Rev. Matthew B. Grier, D.D.
• Rev. E.E. Adams, D.D.
• Rev. Samuel A. Mutchmore, D.D.
• Rev. W.W. McKinney, D.D., LL.D.
• Rev. Edward B. Hodge, D.D.
• Rev. Walter A. Brooks, D.D.
• Rev. David S. Kennedy, D.D.
• Rev. Samuel G. Craig, D.D.

and various leaders of the Church or active workers, who have served as associates or on the editorial staff.

“The Present Attack Upon Historic Christianity”

Continuing in our series on conservative Presbyterian responses to the Auburn Affirmation and events following, this editorial from The Presbyterian moves the discussion to the root of the matter, as seen by the editor.  There are references to other developments, such as the Committee of Fifteen, and these will have to be explored later.  Of particular note in this editorial is what might arguably be one of the first inklings of a general call for separation from unbelief.  The editor states in his concluding paragraph, “The necessity for all true evangelicals uniting in one solid body against these united and determined attacks is most apparent and vital…evangelicals will be most effective if each company or denomination proceed under their respective organization.”
I should also mention that in one of the next issues [11 February], it is noted that the Rev. Samuel G. Craig took over the post of editor.  It is possible therefore that he, rather than David S. Kennedy, may have been the author of this unsigned editorial.   

The Present Attack Upon Historic Christianity [The Presbyterian 96-3  (21 January 1926): 2.]

No sincere, intelligent man, Christian or non-Christian, will deny that an open and avowedly destructive attack is being directed with violence against evangelical, historic Christianity. It is of the first importance that all true Christians be aroused and informed as to the nature and extent of this conflict and the consideration of the best means of resisting it.

This present conflict against evangelical Christianity is the first geographically universal conflict in the history of the Church. It appears in every continent, in every mission field, home and foreign, in the long-established churches, and in every denomination.

The purpose of this conflict is to destroy the very foundation of evangelical Christianity, including both doctrine and morals.

“The Mission of the Church,” by J. Gresham Machen (1926)

The initial motivation in this series on conservative Presbyterian response to the Auburn Affirmation was to find if there was in fact any response prior to the 1930s.  The first critiques that I could locate were dated well into the 1930s.  But digging a bit deeper, the prevailing conservative Presbyterian voice of the 1920s turned out to be The Presbyterian, a long-standing publication whose final two conservative editors were the Rev. David S. Kennedy and  the Rev. Samuel G. Craig.  As it turns out, there was initial opposition to the Auburn Affirmation published on the pages of The Presbyterian (and perhaps elsewhere–time will tell).  It’s just that this particular publication is all but lost to history.  We are striving to bring back some of this important content, as it continues to speak abiding truths.

The Mission of the Church*
By Professor J. Gresham Machen, D.D.

[*An Address delivered under the title, “Safeguarding the Church,” before the Presbyterian Ministers’ Association in Philadelphia, 1 March 1926, and (under the title, “What the Church Stands For”) previously in the Washington and Compton Avenue Presbyterian Church, St. Louis, 12 February 1926.  Excerpted from The Presbyterian and Herald and Presbyter 96.14  (8 April 1926): 8-11.]

Before we can consider the mission of the Church, we must determine what the Church is. What are its limits? What forms a part of it and what does not? Where is the true Christian Church to be found?

According to the Westminster Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, the invisible Church is to be distinguished from the visible Church. The invisible Church consists of the whole number of those who are saved; the visible Church consists of those who profess the true religion, together with their children. There is absolutely no warrant in Scripture for supposing that any particular branch of the visible Church will necessarily be preserved. Always, it is true, there will be a visible Church upon the earth, but any particular Church organization may become so corrupt as to be not a true Church of Christ, but (as the Confession of Faith puts it), “a synagogue of Satan.”

“Liberty Within Evangelical Bounds,” by David S. Kennedy (1925)

Continuing with our recent series on conservative responses to the Auburn Affirmation, we’ve been searching out some of the earliest responses and have located the following editorial from The Presbyterian appeared in the 5 March 1925 issue (vol. 95, no. 10).  Another reply, by Dr. J. Gresham Machen, will post shortly.

“Liberty Within Evangelical Bounds,”
by David S. Kennedy, editor of The Presbyterian

Under the title, “For Peace and Liberty,” a committee of thirty-one ministers—all or most of whom signed the Affirmation of 1924 — have addressed an appeal to the ministers and people of the Presbyterian Church to “stand firmly for the maintenance of our historic liberties, to discourage un-brotherly judgments, to cherish the ideal of an inclusive Christian church, and to unite the whole strength of our communion in forwarding the work to which our Master has called us.”

The appeal for peace contained in this statement is incidental to its appeal for liberty. The question whether its appeal for peace is warranted, or whether it is merely a case of crying, “Peace, peace, when there is no peace,” is inextricably bound up with the question whether its appeal for liberty is an appeal for such liberty as is guaranteed by the Standards of the Presbyterian Church.  These thirty-one ministers unite in telling us that “the affirmation issued in, 1924, signed by over thirteen hundred of our ministers, asserted the historic freedom of teaching, within evangelical bounds, guaranteed to ministers of our communion.” Ostensibly, therefore, this is an appeal for the liberty of a Presbyterian minister to teach within the bounds of evangelical Christianity.

Commentary on the Preliminary Principles (1926)

I have looked for a long time trying to find some commentary on the Preliminary Principles.  There are a few sparse paragraphs in J. A. Hodge’s class What Is Presbyterian Law?  But otherwise, it was difficult to locate anything, until I ran across a series of articles that appeared in The Presbyterian, an old Philadelphia journal that was a mainstay for conservative Presbyterians up until about 1929 and the time of the reorganization of Princeton Seminary.
The Preliminary Principles were authored by John Witherspoon in 1788, in preparation for the first General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.  The Principles technically remain a part of the constitution of the PC(USA) to this day, though they are sequestered into a section of “historical foundations”.  The Orthodox Presbyterian Church also adopted the Preliminary Principles into its constitution (1936), as did the Presbyterian Church in America in 1973.  The OPC was coming out of the PCUSA, so it was understandable that they would include the Principles.  But the PCA was formed by churches leaving the old Presbyterian Church, U.S. (aka, Southern), and interestingly, the Southern Presbyterians did not see fit to include the Principles as part of their constitution when they adopted their Book of Church Order in 1879.
But to get to the matter, presented here is the first part of Studies in Presbyterian Government, by David S. Kennedy.  More about him in preface to some subsequent post, but for now, here is his treatment of the first two paragraphs of the Preliminary Principles.  I do hope you will find this useful.