                                                                                                      I




                                                 T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                             197
                          I -          -                                                -

         DR. MARTIN LUTHER ON THE STAGE                                read that a Christian Reformed Young `Men's -Society
           Under the Auspices  ,of Christian Reformed                  offered a movie-picture as their program. Today hardly
                              Y. M. Societies                          a soul raises his voice of protest even when a professor
                                                                       of the Seminary of the Churches openly endorses such
        There are signs, many signs and various,' which indi-          things !
     cate that the development of the Christian Reformed                  Or is it not sad, even apart from the question whether
     Churches in the wrong direction is both fast and beyond `*a good movie is not bad" and apart, too, from the further
     all the control even of those leaders who woitld  fain stem inquiry whether the film in question is such a good movie,
     the flood of worldlimindedness that is sweeping over the that in these deeply serious times Reformed Societies,
     Churches.                                                         who should chiefly exist for the purpose of the mutual
        The "leaders" of the Churches are still discussing the         founding of the members in the strong principles of the
     apparently difficult problem of wholesome and unwhole- Reformed Faith, are so poor and miserable that they must
     some amusements, the question how to gratify in a proper offer a movie as their program to the general public?
     manner the  wellnigh   insave  modern craving for enter-          Does it not indicate how fast the decline is?
     tainment and excitement. T&e question is urged upon                   Most of  US  can recall the history from memory.
     them by actually existing conditions.                                There was a time when our Young Men's Societies
        The last synod of those Churches had before it a               offered their own program, parts of which, at least, con-
     couple of overtures relative to this serious problem.             sisted of contributions by members of the societies, and
        If I am not mistaken, one of these overtures originated        which reflected more or less the life and work of the
     in the Consistory of the Christian Refdrmed Church of societies.
     Oakdale  Park, Grand Rapids.                                         Gradually the character of these programs degener-
        And in the meantime the tide is rising, the flood is           ated. It was then, not so very many years ago, that the
     sweeping onward, and the young folks are seeking amuse- League of Y. M. Societies in Grand Rapids attempted to
     ment in their own ,way  and finding or creating it accord-        save the day by appealing to the leaders of the Church
     ing to their hearts, desire.                                      and offering a regular lecture course, some of whose
        Recently, last  Tha'nksgiying-evening,  they presented numbers were of a seriotis  and instructive character. It
     a drama, which, according to reports that reached us, soon became evident, however, that the more serious pro-
     r&ght  have been a credit to any theatre in the city and          grams on the course were badly attended, while  the.
     could have been performed  o'n any stage.                         entertaining numbers drew the crowd.
        And only a few days ago I received throuih  the mail              Then another mistake was made and the next step was
     an elaborate, printed announcement of a movie-show taken. The attempt to offer a somewhat serious pro-
     under the auspices of the Christian Reformed Young gram was abandoned. And the entertaining programs
     Men's Society of the  Oakdale  Park Christian Reformed remained. These only could apparently find grace in the
     Church, of Grand Rapids. The film to be shown on the eyes of the adolescent public.
     screen is entitled: "Martin Luther, His Life and Time."              And today the societies offer dramas and films. At
     It is the film that was  presenred before under the auspices be&  they can offer a musical program. But a program
     of a Christian Reformed Y. M. Society in Chicago, and that reveals that they are giving themselves to serious
     that enjoys the sheltering protection of the big wings of         work, that is actually  instr,uctive  and edifying, they can
     Dr. Clarence Bouma. A good movie is not bad ! At that no more produce.
     time we raised our voice against it in an article in the           _ That is deplorable. And the "leaders" follow.
     Standard Bearer. We advised Dr. Bouma to burn his                    Follow reluctantly, some of them, but follow neverthe-
     speech on the movies and gave our reasons.           But it is    less.
     evident, that it was of no avail. Sad to say, Dr. Bouma
     wins. The young men are evidently glad to follow his                  It is a sad thing to receive such an announcement of
     advice. And it would be no surprise to us now, if before          a moving-picture under the auspices of a Christian Re-
     very long we wake up to the fact that all the Christian           formed Y. M. Society, in the second place, because, as
     Reformed Young Men's Societies have engaged in the                we have previously argued, a good movie.is impossible.
     movie-business !                                                     The movie is not essentially different from the theatre-
        The situation is deplorable, indeed !                          play-
        It is so deplorable, first of all, because all these phe-          Befdre'~the film is ready its contents have been played
     nomena mark the fast decline and degeneration of our              by living men, impersonating the characters in the film.
     Reformed Young  Me&s   SociCties.  You do not have to                 You cannot dramatize life.
     look up past histories and records to verify this state-              You may not play sin.
     ment. The decline is so fast that one is an eyewitness                And it is equally impossible to imitate holy things.
     to it. One is able to picture the downward process from               The film on the life and time of Dr. Martin Luther
     experience and memory. Ten or fifteen years ago the               offers no exception to this. By it Dr. Martin Luther is
     general Christian Reformed public would have been                 thrown on the screen, is forced on the stage, is  co&-
*    aroused, amazed, thunderstruck, deeply grieved, had they          pelled to play  oYer a large part of his life. Were he


       l98        .._ ---._-- ---........  )           T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R
                                                ___ l_l _-..
       still among the living,  be would surely refuse to appear              The film is Lutheran, decidedly so, with respect ro its
       on the stage for the purpose of re-enacting his life for           view on the Lord's Supper.
       the entertainment of the public that is too spiritually                Luther believed that the body and blood of the Lord
       weak and disinterested to make a serious study of the              were actually present with and under the signs of the
       history of rhe Reformation, that has forgotten to  com-            broken bread and the wine that is poured out at the table
       memorate  the thirty-first of October as Reformation-day,          of communion. And, therefore, he that partakes of the
     and that rather indulges in the "fun" of  halloween   par-           signs with his mouth, actually partakes of the body and
       ties. But what he would surely refuse to do, others do the blood of rhe Lord. This conception of the Lord's
       for him and by imitation and impersonation rhey force              Supper stands connected with other serious errors  con-
       him on the stage "to play for us,)' even as Samson before          cerning the natures of Christ, particularly concerning the
       the Philistines.                                                 - character of the Lord's human nature after His  exalta-
              Men have imitated Martin Luther as the seeking soul,        tion.
       hungering and thirsting after peace with God and seeking               This Lutheran view is presented in the film. And in
       the righteousness which is by faith; they have mimicked            the literature that is distributed under the auspices of the
       the indignation of his soul at the corrupt practices of the        Christian Reformed Society of Young Men of the Oak-
       Roman Catholic Church of his day, his joy at finding               dale Church it is presented as an impregnable position.
       what his soul desired, his fight for the truth, his spiritual      Note, in proof of this, the foliowing paragraph:
       agony and struggles, his preaching and prayer. ,411 these              "Luther and Melanchton arguing with Zwingli and
       experiences were in reality the fruit of the operation of                   Oekolampadius at  Marburg,  October  3d,  1529."
       the grace of God upon the man Luther, the Most  High-                  "It is the third day of this  coloquium.  Luther has
       using him as an instrument for the deliverance of His              arisen from his chair; confident of the correctness of
       Church in the world. How abominable it must be in the              his position, he has removed the velvet cover of  the
       sight of God when men imitate and mimic such a deep                table and points out to his opponent the words of the
       spiritual struggle and glorious victory of the grace of            Master, which dare not be trifled with and which he had
       God, in order to entertain the public !                            written with chalk upon the table: `This is my body.'
              The men that were used tq,produce  the film  acted as       It  ir  a=  tinanswerable  argument."
       if their soul was overwhelmed with spiritual agony  be-                Here the Lutheran conception of the Lord,s Supper is
       cause of sin and it was not; acted as if they hungered and         certainly presented as the only view that can be defended
       thirsted after righteousness and  they did not; acted as  if       on the basis of the Word of God.
       they found peace and it was but an empty act; acted as if              And this Lutheran literature is distributed under the
       they raised their eyes in longing and earnest prayer to            auspices of the  Oakdale  Christian Reformed Young
       God Most High and they only  feigned; acted  as if they            Men's Society.
       were the very instruments of God filled .with an holy en-              And it is endorsed by a professor of the Seminary.
       thus&m  for the truth as it is in Jesus, and they only                 I know ir, that many will say, that such trifles are
       played!                                                            hardly worth mentioning. But this makes it all the&more
          And thus they throw the man Martin Luther on the                deplorable. It was for these things that the leaders of
       stage. Thus they force him on the stage. And he will the Reformation separated. And they are by no means
       play for you for money. Thirty-five cents you are asked            trifles.
       to pay, fifty cents if you want a reserved seat,, and you              Or, perhaps, others will argue that rhis is quite harm-
       may see Dr. Martin Luther reproducing for your  enter-             less, because the audience would not even notice it. But
       tainment the most serious incidents of his life and strug-         this would be only another sad evidence of ignorance
       gle!                                                               with regard to Reformed truth.
          And all this under the auspices of a Reformed Y. M.
       Society !                                                              I will not emphasize now, that these "good movies"
          Is it not unspeakably sad?                                      will create a taste for all movies, and that it is not at all
                                                                          impossible, that under the auspices of some Reformed( ?)
              I really do not care to enter into the details of the       body all shows and theatres will be open unto our young
       play that is offered by this' Reformed Society in the film         folks.
       of Dr. Martin Luther.                                                Why not? Concede the principle of the theatre and
          No doubt, there is room for plenty of criticism of the          what remains is only a relative matter.
       film from a historic point of view.                                    Presently you may see consistories investigating
I             %Ve will let this pass.                                     whether or no a play or movie is good or bad, in order to
              But one might at least have expected that the profes-       determine whether or not anyone becomes subject to the
       sor of the Theological Seminary of the Christian  Re-              discipline of the Church by attending it.
     formed Churches, would have  criticised  it from a  doc-                 And within a short time we will see the day, thar the
       trinal and. principal point of view before he endorsed it          whole matter of the theatre and vaudette is dropped, or
       and induced Reformed Young Men's Societies to give it              their frequenting is sanctioned by some Synod. Perhaps
       their sanction and to offer it under their auspices.               some future Synod will pass a resolution that the attend-


                                           T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                               199
                             -._1__.

  ante of theatre and vaudette is not at all a sin, providing of this brochure also would refuse ultimately, after protest-
  we, as Christian people strive to make them as good as           ing once and again, to be bound by any decision of Classis
 possible and that we protest whenever something ungodly or Synod which we considered fundamentally unscriptural
  is presented.                                                    . . . And let no one suppose that our view does violence to
     Such was the final outcome of the Union-question.             the freedom of conscience. We admit, yea, we glory in the
     I venture to prophesy that such will be the end of            right of protest. We admit that the Protestant idea of
  the amusement problem.                                           the pluriformity of the Church condemns excommunica-
     But in the meantime I *warn our own young folks not           tion with the *Form  of a member who desires to affiliate
  to go along with the present tendency.                           with some other orthodox Church. We admit the spirit-
     Rarher go in the radically opposite direction.                ual (not the legal) right of rebellion against a Church
                                                       H. H.       whose  docrrines  are fundamentally unscriptural. We re-
                                                                   joice in the religious liberty our fathers have gained for
                                                                   us through blood and tears and suffering unspeakable.
         CAN A  CLASSIS (SYNOD; DEPOSE A                           But let us not with all these liberties, with our ease and
                        CONSISTORY?                                safety and material comforts suppose that we must still
                                                                   gain rhese rights for ourselves. We are enjoying full
  The Plain Truth About the Institution of The Church              religious liberty. No Church seeks to bind our con-
                        of Jesus Christ                            science ; that is our secret thoughts. No Church seeks
                                                                   to use physical force to enforce its laws. And that is
     In our former article we quoted rather extensively            real religious liberty. Let us thank God for it." (Bro-
  from Hoeksema's (G.) brochure. The selection presented           chure pp. 77, 78.)
  is an attack upon the proposition to the effect' that               Hoeksema (G.) then admits the spiritual right of re-
  "Eccles3artical  ties rest on voluntary consent, and  ban, there- bellion against a church. It will be made very plain in
  fore, legitimately  be revered  when  so desired." The attack    the sequence that, on the basis of his views he cannot
  contains at least some of the tenets of the author's views       admit rhis right for the reason that, according to him,
  on Church Polity. These tenets, further, happen to be so         the Church may not grant unto its members the legal right
  inany conclusions drawn from certain antecedent proposi-         to sever the denominational tie, and must  penalize   the mem-
  tions, which the author failed for some reason or other          ber or  con&tory   v/w  does  so. In the above paragraph
  to disclose. These propositions we shall expose. The             Hoeksema poses as a champion of religious liberty. Fact
  reader taking one swift glance at them will at once sense        is, however, that liberty necessarily becomes a mockery
  that they are palpably fallacious. Such being the case           and a by-word in that denomination where his views gain
  it must follow that the conclusions which Hoeksema (G.)          the  ascendency.      According to these views the Church
  draws from rhem are likewise untrue. Having laid hold            must bind the conscience of its members and seek to
  on these propositions and having attended to the con-            enforce its laws by physical force. Classis  Grand Rapids
  clusions drawn from them, we shall place over against            West, under rhe instigation of Hoeksema (G.) did this
. the author's untruth the truth. This having been done            very thing. It revived in essence, the Inquisition of the
  it shall have become plain to all that Hoeksema (G.)             Koman Catholic Church.  It did so when, under the in-
  errs and that the tenet which he attacks is indeed sound.        stigation of G. Hoeksema, it  penalized  tw.o consistories
     (Proposition 1) The Church cannot grant unto its              for refusing to yield to the church-authorities, and sub-
         members the right to sever the denominational tie.        sequently called in rhe sheriff to relieve these consistories
     (Proposition  2) Any consistory severing this tie             of their properties. Who ever heard of a reformed theo-
         must be penalized by the Church. The penalty              log&n insisting that a delinquent member should be
         consists in deposition and deprivation of church          penalized? This is religious persecution of the purest
         properties.                                               wool. Yet he whose views we oppose maintains that a
     To the defence  of the ideas incorporated in these two        delinquent consistory must be  fined. -Upon ir must, be
  propositions, the entire first chapter and goodly portions       imposed a pecuniary penalty. Attend to the following
  of the chapters remaining are devoted (see the selection         selection: "One of two things must be true. Either the
  inserted in our former arricle).    It must not be supposed,     consistory may withdraw, with rhe retention of full con-
  however, that the author denies any member the right             sistory rights, or if you pena'.lize the consistory that separ-
  to withdraw from the church-organization. To the con-            ates by depriving it of its property, you by that very
  trary, he insists that such a member must refuse ulti-           penalty deny its right ro withdraw . . . . Come, let us be
  mately, after protesting once and again, to be bound by          consistent.    Let us either proclaim the right of the local
  any decision of  Classis  or Synod which he considered           consistory to separate, with  rerention  of full consistory
  fundamentally unscriptural. The author maintains that            rights (the theory of Rutgers) ; or if we are agreed with
  his view does no violence to the freedom of conscience:          the policy of penalizing a recalcitrant consistory by de-
  Says he: "Let us understand each other well, and not             priving it of its property rights, let us recognize the fact
  fight as beating in the air; As a good protestant the writer     rhat our Church is not a mere confederacy, but an indis-


200                                       T H E   ST:iNDARD   BEARER
- -..-..-.  -.- ..-.- I__
                 ..-...      -..l^_l_ll-"ll_ _-..." .__-                         ll__l_           _                   -       -
soluble union, from which no separation is permissible.        hold, as we shall explain more fully in the next- chapter,
And then you have real Presbyterian church government,         that our denomination is an indissoluble union of
as championed by Prof. Heyns." (Brochure  p. 30.) The churches" (Brochure; p. 34).
denomination setting in motion the machinery of church            `Further, this Christian Reformed Church, so  Hoek-
government advocated by G. Hoeksema crushes religious          sema  (G.) maintains, cannot grant unto a member or
liberty to earth. We guarantee to prove this at some group of members or consistory  the  +ight to sever the
other juncture in rhis or a following article.                 denominatioltal tie.  Says he: "The Church is a divine in-
       The point that we wish to make is that G. Hoeksema      stitution, from which God forbids men to withdraw,
although not denying a member the spiritual right to           then the Church must deny that right to its members"
withdraw, insists, nevertheless, that the Church cannot (Brochure, p. 21). And again : "One of two things, there-
grant this right but must  .impose a pecuniary fine upon       fore, must be true. Either the consistory may .withdraw;
that member or consistory doing so.                            with the retention of full consistory rights, or you pen-
       The question must be answered before we proceed; alize the consistory that separates by depriving it of its
what, in the. estimation of Hoeksema (G.) constitutes the property, and you by thar very penalty deny its right to
institution of the Church. Whereas the second of the           withdraw" (Brochure, p. 29). That the latter of the
three propositions which G. Hoeksema attacks reads:            two is G. Hoeksema's view is evident from the follow-
"The Institute of the Church is purely local,`*  it follows    ing paragraph : " . . . . if we are agreed that the policy of
that, according to G. Hoeksema, the Institute of the penalizing a recalcitrant consistory by depriving it of its
Church is not being exhibited by any one local congre-         property rights, let us recognize the fact that our Church
gation.     Is it his conviction, then, that this institution is not a mere confederacy, but an indissoluble union,
is constituted of the sum total of local churches recog- from which no separation is permissible. And then you
nized by us as constituting the body of Jesus Christ?          have real Presbyterian church government.. .  ." (Bro-
This is not his view as is evident from the following          chure, p. 30.)
quotation : "If a member desires to affiliate with a              Let us understand the author well. It is his convic-
Church  .whose doctrines and practices are rather far tion that the Christian Reformed denomination cannot
removed from our Reformed principles  ; ohr consistories grant unto a local church or consistory the right to with-
no doubt have a duty to perform ere the dismissal is draw; the right to sever the denominational tie. Attend
granted. If we believe with heart and soul in our own          to the following paragraph : "What action must be taken
Church and its doctrines and discipline, we will not, as       with respect to a consistory thar refuses to obey classical
ofiice-bearers,  cheerfully see any of our members depart and  synodical  decisions? Must it be deposed, as  Classis
to Churches of less pure formation. But as long as             Grand Rapids West I did, with the advice of the Theolog-
affiliations are sought with a Church that we can recog-       ical faculty, in the case of the consistories bf Kalamazoo
nize as a part of the great body of Christ, rhose who leave    I and Hope? Or does the recalcitrant consistory, by its
us are not withdrawing from the true Church" (Brochure, refusal to obey, itself sever the denominational tie? And
p. 24).                                                        must the  Classis then merely officially recognize this state
       The author, it will be noticed, distinguishes between of affairs and deprive the consistory of the rights and
a Church,  that is to say any  Church  whose doctrines and     privileges of denominational fellowship, as Classis Grand. _..-~
practices are rather far removed from our Reformed prin-       Rapids East did in the Hoeksema (H.) case" (Brochure,
ciples and ourvwn Church and its docrrines  and discipline. p. 16).
There are then more  .than one church institutions.               G. Hoeksema is of the conviction that Classis  may not
Whereas (according to the author, whose views we op- recognize this state of affairs ; that therefore the Classis,
pose) neither the local nor the entire body of Christ  IS      the Synod, the Christian Reformed Church cannot grant
the body instituted, ir follows that the total number of unto rhe consistory the right to withdraw. Does any one
churches comprising a denomination exhibits the institu- still doubt that this is G. Hoeksema's position? The
tion. This, let it be, said in passing, is either sheer  Col- deposition of two consistories by  Classis  Grand  Rapid-
legianism or Roman Catholicism. There are then, accord-        West is an event in history. G. Hoeksema's brochure
ing to G. Hoeksema, as many church institutions as rhere       represents a mighty attempt on the part to prove that
are church denominations, and the denomination is the          this  Classis  acted correctly  ; that  Classis  or Synod  must
institution.                                                   depose a unyielding consistory ; that therefore the Chris-
       The Christian Reformed denomination is such an          tian Reformed  denomination may not grant unto such a
institution constituted of the sum- total of churches com- consistory the right to sever the denominational tie. This
prising the denomination. Of this institution (the Chris-      is the view which G. Hoeksema would enthrone in men's
tian Reformed) the author avers that  it is an indissoluble    minds. He would have the approaching Synod of the
union  of  churches. Says the author : "The foregoing para-    Christian Reformed Church declare: "The Christian Re-
graph, we feel assured. fairly represents the more mod- formed Church met in Synod declares that it cannot grant
erate opinion of those whose  .views  we are here consid-      unto a local church the  righ-t'to  sever the denominational tie.
ering.     And  over? against this view we (G.  Hoeksema)*     The  con&tory  doing so it will henceforth penalize."


                                         T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                           201
                                 ---                                                         - -        -                 -._-

   Thus we have firmly established that the proposition Church cannot and may not grant unto a local consistory
which, G. Hoeksema attempted to prove is that the               the right to withdraw it follows that each local church
Christian Reformed Church  cannot grant unto a local  con-      declared, at the time the union was  ,made: "I, local
sistory the right to withdraw. To this proposition we are       church  ~9 or rather, we the consistory representing local
going to hold the author. With it we shall link up the          church  rl solemnly affirms that we, in conjunction with
contents of that section of the author's brochure in which      all the other consistories entering the cornpact, will never
he provides proof. Doing so it will appear that at least        grant unto one of the parties to the compact (the local
this section of the writer's booklet is packed full of pro-     church and its consistory) the right to withdraw from the
found nonsense.                                                 union." A group of churches must have' united on the
   We are now ready to make a statement. It is this:            basis of this agreement i.f, after rhe union has come into
The proposition to the  efect that the Christian Reformed       being, the group declares unto the consistory of any one
Church cannot grunt unto a local  cons&tory the right to        of the local churches: "You, from the point of view of
withdraw is  false, it is an untruth.  This becomes clear to    the denomination, have no right to withdraw," or "the
us as soon as we succeed in laying hold on its premises.        Christian Reformed denomination cannot grant unto you
What, then, are these premises? ThCse  : (a) An infallible      the right to withdraw."
Church denomination cannot grant unto a local consistory           What does it mean when a  gr&p of churches
the right to withdraw; (b) The Christian Reformed               unite on the basis of an agreement of this kind? The
Church is infallible.                                           answer is ready: Whereas each local church entering the
   Let us now present the syllogism:                            compact knows very well that the tie must again be
   Major premise : An infallible church denomination            severed when the group joined departs from the precepts
      cannot grant unto its members the right to with- of Christ, it follows that this local church regarded the
      draw ;                                                    group joined as incapable of ever departing from
   Minor premise : The Christian' Reformed Church is            the, truth. In other words the local church said: The
      infallible.                                               group which we now. join. constitutes or will con-
   Conclusion : The Christian Reformed Church cannot stitute a union of infallible churches from which for that
      grant unto a consistory the right to withdraw.            very reason we  ma? never withdraw. What is more,
   G. Hoeksema,  .I know, will maintain with much whereas' the local church itself agreed never to permit
staunchness that these are not at all the premises of the       one of the group ro withdraw it follows that this partic-
proposition for which he took up the cudgel. He will ular local church thought of itself as infallible. Such is
want to know if we failed to notice a certain paragraph the situation.
in his booklet which reads: "The Reformers claimed the             Such, then, is the situation: Each local church agrees
right  a&d  exercized  it, to reject any and all human laws never to withdraw from the coalition. Hoeksema (G.)
that conflicted with fundamental teachings of Scripture.        assures us, yea, he insists upon it, that on the basis of'
But they claimed this as a right of rebellion ; a funda-        rhis agreement  the churches united.         Says he:  "The
mental spiritual right, transcending and superior to every deeper question is, who must be obeyed? Let us use a
human law.                                                      striking almost bizarre illustration to drive home the
   ",411 protestants are agreed here. We recognize no point. Let us suppose the impossible (G. Hoeksema is
infallible church.       In the last analysis we will always doing so throughout his booklet, by the way. G. M. O.),
obey God rather than man" (Brochure, p. 76).                    namely, that in this age of religious freedom our For-
   True enough, G. Hoeksema does aver that he recog-            mula of Subscription reads as follows: `Being ready
nizes no infallible church. Whereas the minor premise           always cheerfully ro submit to the judgment of the state
of the conclusion which G. Hoeksema attempts to defend          under penalty, in case of refusal, to be by that very fact
reads : "The Christian Reformed Church is infallible,"          suspended from our office.' Surely all would agree that
his assertion to the effect  that.  recognizes no infallible such a Form would put the consistory in subjection to
church means precisely that Hoeksema (G.) turns                 the State. (It would if  ir were not for Art. 31 the last
against his own views. This the writer does many times. clause of which reads: "Unless it can be proved to be in
   Someone may now be asking whether it actually can            conflict with `the word of God."' G. M.  0.)    It would no
be maintained that the proposition to the effect that the       longer be free. Obedience to the state would be  ape of
Christian Reformed Church cannot grant unto a local the duties of office. And if someone would defend such
consistory the right to sever the denominational  tie is  a     a proposed Form by saying,  `bur it  is  not the state that
conclusion drawn from the premise that this Church is           actually deposes,  `some other body must do that,' we
infallible. May there not be another premise.to this con-       would immediately answer, that that wouldn't really
clusion  - a premise sound and true? Our answer  IS             change matters any. It we must obey the state at all
ready: No, indeed. The premise to the effect that the           times, if rhrough disobedience we become unworthy  aof
Christian Reformed Church  is infallible is the only one        office,  and if the state can even decide when we must be
that will yield G. Hoeksema's conclusion.                       deposed, and if than some other body must act accord-
   Let us make this plain. If the Christian Reformed            ingly and depose us, then it is really the state that is
      ,


202
.."--                                    THE;STAND&RD   B E A R E R
                                       .-" -....._                          -_                     -                          -

supreme, and not the consistory nor the body  `&at the local congregation such a consistory  .must   be given
actually deposes.      The big question is, who must be           the right to sever the denominational tie and  withdraw
obeyed, and whom do we promise to obey.                           in the capacity of a consistory. And this G. Hoeksema
   "Now to return to the world of actual facts, it is to          denies. He de&es  that the promise is conditional. He
Classis  and Synod that consistory members promise obe-           maintains, therefore, that under no condition can the
dience  (and always) under penalty, in case of refusal, to        Church grant unto a consistory, upheld by the local con-
be suspended. That decides the issue. That is the line            gregation; the  rig@ to leave. Anyone who will may see
of demarcation between Congregationalism and  Presby-             that the Church who refuses to grant this right and who
terianism"  [  (???) (Brochure, p. 58)  `J.                       insists rhat the promise is unconditional thinks of itself
       G. Hoeksema, then, appeals to the Formula of Sub-          as being infallible.
scription in support of the proposition that the consistory          On page 21 of his brochure, G. Hoeksema asserts that
of the local church agrees  uncon&iontrlly  always to sub-        the view he criticizes involves an unintentional but never-
mit to the judgment of  Classis  and Synod, to express it         theless terrible denial of the Kingship of Christ. Nothing
negatively, never to sever the denominational tie. It             is further from the truth. The Church who says to its
means that the various  consistories constituting the com-        office-bearers and members, "Depart if you think you
pact unconditionally agree never to grant unto any one            must," wants every believer to carry about with him the
consistory the right to withdraw. The one promise is              conviction that Christ  is on the throne in his life and in
included in the other.                                            his heart.      To deprive a consistory of its properties
       The Confession, too, teaches, so G. Hoeksema main- because. it is of the conviction that it must leave is noth-
tains (Art. 32) that when the body of the Church is               ing short of a sin. It is religious persecution of the
threatened by  schismatics,  discipline must be exercised.        purest wool, to use one of G. Hoeksema's own expres-
The "Church must then  not say, as some would have it             sions.    And what is gained by this method? Does G.
you have a right to separate, we stand helpless"  (Bra-           Hoeksema think he can keep the Church from disinte-
chure, p. 59).                                                    grating by his methods ? He seems to think so. On page
       If the Church must not say, "you have a right to sep-      99 of his brochure one happens upon the following para-
arate," it follows that the various churches  consti'tuting       graph: "The Reformed Churches in the Netherlands are
the denomination, must say the one to the othe?, at the           evidently in the  .throes of what may become a mighty
time the compact was made and ever after, "You have no            ecclesiastical civil war. The warning the Synod directed
right to withdraw."                                               to all the  classis to at once proceed to depose any  con-
       Let us get the situation clearly before our eye. G.        sistory that sided with Geelkerken has an ominous sound.
Hoeksema insists that every office-bearer in the Christian        It tells us all too plainly that the Synod somewhat feared
I&formed Church unconditionally promises, when he                 that the rebellion would spread, yea, that the whole
signs the Formula of Subscription that he will always be          denomination might be disrupted. And in such a crisis
cheerfully ready to submit to the judgment of  Classis            all the theories dating back to Doleantie times could not
and Synod. In harmony with his insistence on the mak-             save the Church. Indeed, they were dangerous. The
ing of this unconditional promise, Hoeksema maintains             situation was reversed now. There `was danger from
that the Church cannot grant unto a consistory sup-               below, not from above., The general Church and  ity
ported by the local congregation the right to withdraw.           authority must save the day" (Brochure, p. 99).
       But, someone may interpolate, is it not a fact that           If G. Hoeksema thinks that his methods will keep
the office-bearer signing the Formula of Subscription, is         the Chruch intact he is sadly mistaken. He must not
promising by that very act that if hereafter any difficul-        think he can keep the real conscientious objector in  his
ties or different sentiments respecting the aforesaid doc-        Church  by threatening to deprive him of a few bricks.
trines should arise in his mind, he will neither publicly or Not even if he should threaten to burn him at the stake.
privately propose, teach or defend the same, either by History should have taught him rhis much. On the o.ther
preaching or writing, until he has first revealed such sen-       hand, those members whom G. Hoeksema succeeds in
timents to the consistory, Classis or Synod, that the same        retaining by means of his threats, he is welcome to.
may be there examined, being ready always cheerfully                 Let us now show that not ours but G. Hoeksema's
to submit to the judgment of the consistory,  Classis and         views involve a terrible denial of the kingship of Christ.
Synod, under the penalty in case of refusal to be by that         Classis  and Synod, according to Hoeksema's (G.) own
very fact. suspended from his office?          This promise is    admission are fallible bo&es. Yet G. Hoeksema insists
made when the above mentioned document is signed but              that a consistory must unconditionally promise to always
not unconditionally. He reserves the right to refuse              be cheerfully ready to submit to the judgment of these
submission if he is of the conviction that  Classis  or           fallible bodies. The consistory or office-bearer doing  SO
Synod errs and that his God consequently forbids him to           virtually declares: "Even though you may err and depart
submit.      And in this case the Church must grant unto          from the truth,  Classis and Synod, I office-bearer (or
this office-bearer or group of office-bearers the right to        consistory) will always be ready to cheerfully submit
differ and to withdraw if he thinks he must. Upheld by            myself  ro your  .judgment.    This office-bearer is  express-


                                                                                                       /
                                            T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                                    203

     ing a willingness to embrace a lie. G. Hoeksema's views                &onal" (Brochure,  i p. 31). According to Hoeksema,
     indeed do imply a terrible denial. of the kingship of                  then, the office-bearer and every member of the Christian
     Christ.                                       .*                       Reformed Church  rnurt  always say: "I am wrong, Synod
        i,et us look at this matter from another angle. Hoek-               is right." It goes to show that our opponent regards
     sema insists that the Church may not grant unto                        Classis  and Synod as infallible authorities.
     an office-bearer or consistory the right to  withdraw.                    Hoeksema (G.) continues  As follows : "Not merely in
     The Christian Reformed Church knows it is fallible.                    the sense that it is subject to the will of Christ the King.
     Yet it says to its office-bearers: "Even though I may de-              On this point there is, of course, no disagreement. There
     part from the truth and degenerate  I shall never grant                is no absolute authority in the Church but that of Christ
     you the right to withdraw."                                            Himself.      All human authority is ministerial, that is,
,       It is plain that no group of churches may unite on the              subject to the will  01 the great King of the Church, and
     b&is of G. Hoeksema's platform. The propositions con-                  speaks to the Church in His name.
     stituting this platform are conclusions drawn from the                    "But it is precisely at this point that clear distinctions
     premise that the Christian Reformed Church is infallible are absolutely necessary, lest we become hopelessly con-
     or else a second god engaged in luring men away from                   fused.      The question must be answered, who legally
     the one true God and attaching them to itself.                         determines whether certain decisions are in agreement
        Is it actually true, someone may ask, that G.  Hoek-                with the will of Christ? Whose judgment on this ques-
     sema's basis of  chuich union is constituted of the two                tion shall be binding law in the Church? Rome answers
     propositions that the promise made must be unconditional the Pope, as the personal representative of Christ here
     and that the Church may not grant unto its office-bearers              upon earth, and as clothed with all His power.           All
     the right to depart? It is the truth. We direct the atten-             Protestants, of course, reject this hierarchical lordship of
     tion of the readers to the following paragraph: "Need'we man over the Church of our only Savior and King. We
     he surprised that H. Hoeksema and his followers hail                   recognize no human authority as absolute. We are prot-
     Dr. Van Lonkhuyzen as the only sound authority, and                    estants, that is, we believe in the right of protest. The
     that they rejoice over his nomination for Professor of humblest member must, if his conscience urges him,  be-
     Practical Theology? For, according to the doctor,  &e given an opportunity to protest against any decisions of
     had an agreement with these consistories beforehand, any person or body in authority in the Church. And he
     that if the, Synod of 1924 accepted the three points, which            must be heard and his protest given serious considera-
     they consider un-Scriptural, they would not have to                    tion. Allowing for this right of protest, so dear to every
     accept them, and such an attitude would not be rebellion protestant's heart, the question remains, however, whose
     either. It would be in perfect agreement with the con- judgment in the last analysis will be binding law in the
     tract. And why, then, accuse them of breaking the de- Church? And to this question there are but really three
     nominational tie? How could they be accused of this answers. First, the answer of the individualist who holds
     if they merely  exercised a right guaranteed them by the               that each member can legally judge for himself and act
     contract  ?" (Brochure, p. 32);                                        a&ordingly. On this basis all authority disappears and
         G. Hoeksema, then, will know  bf no contract, of no                each man is a law unto himself. Secondly, we have the
     right guaranteed them by rhe. contract  - the right, answer of the Presbyterian, who holds that in the last
     namely,  ro reject the three points which they, the H.                 analysis,. allowing for the %ght  of protest, the decisions
     Hoeksema followers, regarded un-Scriptural. What else of the Synod, rhe largest or broadest church body is Iaw
     can this  me& but that G. Hoeksema insists that the                    in the Church. And between these two you have the
     office-bearer unconditionally submits himself to  Classis              Congregationalists, who put the final decision into the
     and Synod? It  starids to reason that if the office-bearer,            hands of the local church or consistory. The latter  is
     when promising to submit to Classis  and Synod, reserves               plainly the view of those who teach the principles we are
     for himself the right to reject Synod's decisions when he              here criticizing" (Brochure, p. 31).
     is of the cbnviction that he must do so, Synod can neither                 Again in the above paragraph the view comes to the
     depose nor penalize him. As it is, however, in case of a surface that both from the point of view of the protest-
      clash of opinions, the office-bearer must always `say :  "Let ant and of Synod, the latter in the last analysis is always
     Classis and Synod be true and all men be liars."                       right, never errs., After Synod has spoken the protest-
         This is precisely G. Hoeksema's  view.          Says he : "B'ut    ant must keep silence.          He may never question the
     let us return to a further consideration of the conclusions            veracity of Synod's answer to his protest. In a word,
      and implications of this system that conceives of the                 Synod is infallible.
      denomination as a mere confederation of autonomous                        Hoeksema (G.) glories in the right of protest. It is
      churches.     The advocates of this yiew understand full              dear to his heart. An infallible Synod, however. reduces
      well, of course, that there can be no denominational fel-              rhe right of -protest to a mere farce, a ridiculous and
      lowship wirhout -some kind of agreement to abide by                   empty parade. We must even go further and say that he
      certain general rules, without some kind  of general                   who protests against a decision of a body regarded as
      authority.    But they insist that  this authority is  CO?L-           infallible, is committing a  grabe sin. Does he who  re-


 204                                   T H E   S T A N D A R D   B.EARER
 -.                                         -"_-._                   . -                            - . . . .        -      -
 gards, let us say, the Bible an infallible book protest        tion arises who is correct, the Church  or the schismatic?
 against its teachings ? Does the beiiever -protest against     If the Christian Reformed Church were infallible like
 the doings of the infallible God? If these views would         the prophets and the apostles of Christ, it might  <not
 have been Calvin's and Luther's, there would have never grant unto him who would withdraw the right to leave.
 been a Reformation.  For the Synod never says  ro the          Christ cannot give unto any man the right to resist Him.
 protestant, "You may withdraw," and the protestant,            For He is the very God and always right. He who resists
 after having protested, must, according to his promise,        Christ is always a liar. Neither could an infallible
 hush. If he continues to protest he is breaking rhe con-       Church  Gant unto its members the right to withdraw.
 tract. Irrespective of the fact that in the above paragraph    A member who departed would be a liar: Such a one
 we happen upon statements to the contrary, G.  Hoekse-         would be making himself guilty of rebellion without a
 ma is telling men rhat the Synod of the Christian Re-          question. The Christian Reformed Church, however, is
 formed Church is `the infallible authority on earth.           not infallible. It can err, degenerate into a false Church.
       The question arises whether a Synod convinced that       The concsientious schismatic is of the conviction thar such
 it is right may grant unto a protestant the right ro with-     is actually the case. The Church, on the  orher  hand, is
 draw. Will not the Synod in this case be acting contrary       of the opposite conviction.      It may be right and the.
 to its own convictions? When a Synod is of the convic-         schismatic may be wrong. The schismatic may be right
 tion rhat it is championing the truth it mu'3 likewise be      and the Church may be wrong. Who will say for sure
 of the conviction that a schismatic leaving the Church is      who is right? No one. It is a case for the judgment
 committing a big sin. If this Synod grants unto such a         day. Such being the situation, that is to say, in view of
 one the right to withdraw, it is not legalizing sin. So        the fallibility of both parties, the Church must grant unto
 G. Hoeksema reasons. Says he: "The view we are here            the schismatic the right  to withdraw on his own  rerpons-
 criticizing (rhe view, namely, that the Church must grant      ibility.    As often as ,&e Church refuses to grant unto the
 unto the conscientious the right to withdraw) involves         schismatic this right,  it proceeds from the `assumption
 an unintentional but nevertheless terrible denial of the       that it is the infallible Church on earth.
 kingship of Christ.     We are all agreed that the one             What, then, are the implications' of the act of seceding
 great dominating principle of Reformed Church Polity           on the part of the conscientious schismatic? Such a one
 is the kingship of Jesus Christ over His Church. But is of the conviction that the church of which he is a mem-
 here again  ye must not be satistied  with a phrase. We        ber has departed from the truth  ; that rhe breach be-
 must give it real content; we must make it mean some-          tween this church (denomination) and the truth is so
 thing, yea, everything in church government. In a word,        wide as to necessitate his withdrawal. The schismatic
 we must let the will of Christ speak through the rules of must, of course, before departing, attempt to convince the
 the Church.       We must condemn in ecclesiastical law        church of its error. But this church,  also firmly con-
 whatever we know Christ the King condemns. And then            vinced that it abides by the truth must refuse to yield to
 with all respect for the superior learning of the brethren     this protestant. The protestant or the protesting  con-
 from whom we differ, we will for the honor of Christ the       sistory must now sever the denominational tie. He or it
 Ring, reject the so-called Reformed principle rhat eccle-      must do so for two reasons: (a) He is convinced that the
 siastical law can ever legalize what Christ the King con-      denominatioti  with which he is affiliated is a false church ;
 demns . . . .    The question is simply this: Must the         (b) He knows that Christ does not allow him to permit
 Church of Jesus Christ recognize the right of withdrawal       the tie binding him to a false church to remaih  intact.
 for any reason whatsoever as a leg+ right guaranteed by            The question now arises whether such a church, from
 ecclesiastical law? If so the Church declares legitimate       its own point of  view  and from the point of view of the
 what it knows Christ the King condemns"  (Br,ochure,  p.       protestant, may denominate the act of seceding rebellion
 22). See further the quotation inserted in our former          and may penalize rhe seceding protestant be he an indi-
 article.                                                       vidual office-bearer or consistory. If the consistory of
        G. Hoeksema's reasoning is plain. We present the        the local church at the time when it joined the Christian
 following reply: Hoeksema (G.) is, of course of the con-       Refoi-med  denomination agreed and declared that the
 viction that the Christian Reformed denomination is con-       classis (or  synod) of this denomination is a governing
stituted of holy congregations. These churches, so he is        body which must always in the final analysis be obeyed ;
 convinced, are the assemblies of those who are saved.          and if the consistory of the local church promised uncon-
 He believes that Christ the King still rules these churches    ditionally to obey this body ever and never to withdraw
 through His Spirit and His Word.          Hoeksema (G.)        itself from under its jurisdiction - then in this case the
 seems to lose out of sight, however, that the schismatic       classis must, according to the agreement and the con-
 is one who is questioning the soundness of his (G. Hoek-       viction of both parties to the compact, refuse to grant
  sema's) church. He is of the conviction that the Christian    unto the seceder the right to withdraw. The classis must
 Reformed Church is unsound, yea, false. He deems it his        then declare the act of seceding rebellion.
  duty, therefore, to withdraw. Over against this schis-             However, we have before shown that when a local
  matic the Church maintains that it is sound. The  ques-       church, in the act of joining a group of churches,  uncon-


                                                                                               .I'     .     .

                                      T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                                    205

ditionally promises that group always to submit to its          to grant unto the conscientious schismatic, who is of the
decisions, agrees never to withdraw and concedes that           conviction that these congregations are no longer holy,
the group may never grant it (the local church) the right the right to withdraw and.whether  these churches should
to withdraw, it enters the-compact on the basis of the          penalize the schismatic for leaving. If G. Hoeksema
proposition that the group joined is infallible. Whereas would present the public with well thought: out answers
no group of churches is infallible it  follo&s that no local    to these question he would be doing something worth
church may unconditionally promise always to be ready while.
to submit to the decisions of the group met in classis and
synod ; that a group of churches may never* refuse to              G. Hoeksema maintains, as was already pointed out,
                                                                thatupon the seceder must be imposed a pecuniary pen-
grant unto the local church the right to withdraw  .in
case the local church is of the conviction that the denom-      alty.  Classis  Grand Rapids West actually did so. And
                                                                in effect also the  Classis  of Grand Rapids  Ea.sr.  This
inational tie must be broken for Christ's sake. Hence,
the act of seceding may not, in this case, be pronounced        as was said before, is religious aersecution  of the purest
rebellion ; the seceder may not be penalized for with-          wool, The Roman Catholic Church did this very thing
drawing.                                                        in days of yore. To begin with, the Pope of Rome also
                                                                regards his church as infallible. He also refuses to grant
   It is plain what the propositions are which must con-        unto the members the right to withdraw. In the days of
stitute the basis of unity for church union: (a) The local the inquisition rhe Roman Catholic church, too, imposed
church (or individual office-bearer) withdraws when it is       upon those who severed the tie a pecuniary penalty. The
of the conviction that Christ so wills; (b) The group,          property of the seceder was confiscated. The seceders
then, grants unto the local church the right to sever the       were cast into prison, burned at the stake and tortured
denominational tie. To unite on any other basis is a            in, divers ways. Will G. Hoeksema point out to us the
great sin. Finally, when the group grants unto the local        essential difference between the imposition of a pecu-
church the right to withdraw, it, the  bgoup,  grants that      niary penalty and the methods of the inquisition of the
church' the right to live its conviction and to appear with Roman Catholic church? If G. Hoeksema's views should
its case before the highest tribunal  - the tribunal' of        gain the  ascendency  liberty would indeed become a by-
God  - that its case may be tried by Him in the day of          word in the Christian Reformed church.
Jesus Christ.                                                      What is religious liberty? The privilege to serve
   G. Hoeksema's basis of unity must, so ,it appears, be        God as the conscience enlightened by the Word of God,
pronounced thoroughly ungodly. It gnaws at the very bid one he shall, without being made to suffer physical
vitals of religious liberty.                                    violence. Whar is the opposite of religious liberty? G.
                                                                Hoeksema has the answer (Brochure,  *p. 22) :  "No one
   It appears then that the proposition to the effect that      would contend that the church authorities could use
ecclesiastical ties can legitimately be severed when so physical force or coercion to enforce  ,its claims."
desired asserts a great truth. It constitutes the only per-
missible basis for church union.  G. Hoeksema, however,            The Church, according to Hoeksema, and we quite
would not have it so. He attempts to disprove the prop- agree, is making itself guilty of religious persecution
osition.    In doing so he directs the attention of his when it uses physical force or coercion to enforce its
readers to Article  25 of our Confession.       The article     claims.    Hoeksema would see this very thing happen.
reads : WJe believe, since this holy congregation is an         Upon the consistories who secede he would impose a
assembly of those who are saved and that out of it there        pecuniary penalty. Such a consistory must be.relieved  of
is no salvation, that no person of whatever state or con-       its' properties.    It must be deposed. Church discipline
dition he may be, ought to withdraw himself, to live in         degenerates into religious persecution.
separate state from it.. . . . " The author calls attention        Hoeksema (G.) claims that his  principIes  of church
to Art. 32 which asserts that "discipline is necessary to government are at least implied' in the Church Order of
preserve. the unity of the body of the Church." As often Dordt, and in such a document as the Formula of Sub-
as Hoeksema (G.) appeals to these articles, and he does         scription. What a preposterous untruth. But this is a
so many times, he is arguing beside the point. The ques- matter to which we shall attend in a following article.
tion is not whether a person or group of persons may            G. Hoeksema's principles of church government are also
withdraw himself from this holy congregation or whether those of Prof. Heyns. He asserts in the preface that he
this congregation should preserve the unity of the body is at one with the entire contents of the brochure. Fin-
of the church by means of discipline. We are all agreed         ally, Hoeksema's principles of church government are
that no person may leave this holy congregation and that        those of the theological faculty of the seminary of the
the unity of the body of the church must be preserved           Christian Reformed Church. Hoeksema asserts that the
by discipline. The question is whether the churches con- action taken against the consistories of Hope and Kala-
stituting the Christian Reformed denomination are holy          mazoo was approved of by rhis faculty.
congregations, and whether these churches must refuse                                                             G. M.  0.


                   A REFORMED SEMI-MONTHLY MAGAZINE  published by
                   THE REFORMED FREE PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION, GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN



~1                                         .H.     HTgr;k;.                            OPHOFF"            ~1
                                                                                                          tents should be addressed to Rev


                                          Entered api second &us mail matter rt Grand Rapids, Michigan
                                                                                                                   *
Vol. IV, No. 10                                            FEBRUARY 15, 1928                                     Subscription Price, $2.50

                                                                         avenger, do not tremble and be not amazed ! Neither
          M E D I T A T I O N                                            Iet your heart be filled with doubts and misgivings and
                                                                         evil  thoughrs  of the Lord  .your God. For the Lord is
                                                                         good. And because He is good He must be the furious
       A SHELTER IN THE TIME OF STORM                                    avenger of evil and He cannot acquit the doer of iniquity !
                                                                              Oh, Jehovah is good !
                          The Lord is good, a stronghold in the day           He is-good, not in the weak and miserable and sinfu1
                     of trouble; and He knoweth them that trust
                   " in Him.                         --Nahum  1:7        sense wicked and corrupted minds frequently imagine
                                                                          Him to be; not so that He winks at sin and loves the
    Go&i is the Lord ! .                                                 wicked and the righteous aiike, causing all to be full of
    Of a sudden these words  appe.ar  in the midst of                    bliss and joy. For His goodness is righteousness and
 awfullest threatenings of wrath and vengeance.                          holiness and truth. His Iove is purer than the snow
  They come upon us unexpected, like the single shaft                    before it is soiled through contact with the earth. He is
 of sunlight piercing for a moment the dark and threaten-                in Himself goodness and there is no evil in Him. S u c h
 ing clouds and cheering with a message in gold the earth                is His very Being; such is His nature ; such is all  Iiis
 with the promise that presently the darkness shall roll                 mind and will. Such is all His life and activity. And  "as
 away and the light shall shine again  ; like a sudden lull              He is good in Himself, so He is good to all HB creatures,
 in the storm . . .  _                                                   the Supreme Goodness, the implication- of all goodness,
    Jehovah had been depicted by the prophet in all the                  the Sole, Fount of whatever good there may anywhere
 fierceness of His anger against the wicked. He is jealous               exist. -4nother  source of goodness there is none. Beside
 and burning  wirh  zeal for the maintenance of His holi-                Him there is no God and no good. To live apart from
 ness. He is a God that revengeth and is furious in His                  Him is death. It is  ,good  His face to see. Whoever  in.
 anger. Wrath is heaped up.for His enemies, the vials of                 any sense separates himself from Him, must needs espe-
 Wis anger are filled and He will pour them out. He will                 rience that he is isolated, severed from the sole source of
 not all acquit the wicked. He comes in the whirlwind.                   all goodness . . . .
 In the storm He descends. The clouds are like dust                          He is good  unchangeably.  For His name is Jehovah,
 which He raises by His furious coming. By His rebuke                    I *Am ! He is, therefore, goodness absolute, rhe uncaused
 and through the fire of His hot anger the sea is dried up               Cause of ail goodness. There is no source other than
 together wirh the rivers.  Bashan and  Carmel  languish.                Himself, deeper than His own infinite Being whence He
 The mountains quake for fear. The hills melt. The earth                 derives His goodness. Neither is there in Him variable-
 is burned at His presence. The world and ail its inhab-                 ness or shadow of turning. He is the ever active power
 itants are consumed. Like fire, molten fire, His fury is                of goodness, yet His power never diminishes. He is the
 poured out. In His anger the mighty rocks are thrown                    continuously overflowing Fount of goodness, yet there is
 down . . . . .                                                          in Him no decrease . .  ~ . . .
    Terrible in His wrath is Jehovah!                                        And because He is good, unchangeably good, there-
    Who can stand before His indignation?                                fore He is furious in His anger and therefore He cannot
    Who can abide in the fierceness of  His anger?                       acquit the wicked. Because He is good He always doeth
    Then, suddenly: Good is Jehovah, a stronghold in the                 good; because He is righteous He ever executeth right-
 day of rrouble; and He knoweth them that trust in Him!                  eousness; because His very love is pure and righteous,
    Fear not, ye children of the Lord, ye that trust in                  holy and just, therefore He cannot tolerate the wicked
 Him, for the anger of  His countenance does not burn                    in His presence and receive the doer of iniquity  -in His
 against you. When ye behold the Lord descend as furious                 communion.. . .


  - His anger burns against the wicked because He  is lvorld of darkness as, children of light to the glory of His
1101~  in His love.                                            wondrous grace. And because of it they must  ofttimes
   Good is the Lord !                                          suffer. For as the darkness is judged by the light and
                                                               condemned the former hates the latter and always eserts
   Jehovah is good!                                            itself to extinguish it.      Besides, the good Lord sends
   And in His goodness He loves the righteous.                 judgments of destruction and desolation upon a,world of
   For the righteous are they whom He knew in love             darkness that rises against Him and against His people.
from before the foundations of the world and He chose          And in that world are also His people.          They, too,
them in Christ in order that He might lead them to glory.      partake of the suffering of this present time to which the
   The righteous are they, over whom He manifested His world is subject because of sin. With the whole creation
love, when He sent His Beloved into the world, in" the         they groan. Of the world's sorrow and grief, sickness
form of a servant, though He was Lord of all. Me               and pain, war and famine, desolation and death they
revealed His unchangeable and unfathomable love, when          partake . . . . .
in that form of a servant His Son humbled Himself into            But the good Lord is to them a stronghold in the day
                                                                                        .
the deepest reproach and pains of hell, having taken upon of trouble !
Himself the sins of  those.whom  the Father had given             He is a fortress, where one finds safety in the hour of
Him and by His suffering and humiliation making recon- danger.
ciliation for them.                                               A shelter in-the time of storm.
   They are those, whom by wondrous power of grace                Not so, indeed, that, protected by His mighty  care
the Father draws into living fellowship with His Son,          they need not suffer according to the flesh. They must.
our Lord Jesus Christ, by the power of His resurrec-           But, protected by their mighty Lord all things must
tion regenerating them unto a living hope, pouring forth       work together for their salvation and their very enemies
into their hearts a new life and a new hope, calling them      must b/e instrumental unto their salvation.
by the almighty voice of His Word and translating them            How safe they are in that impregnable stronghold!
from darkness into light. Thus He makes them right-               :\ shelter of almighty love!
eous: He delivers them from all the power of the devil.           Good is Jehovah! Loving the  Righteous.
He iiberates them from the Iaw of sin and death. And              -k stronghold in the day of troubte.
He creates with them a new heart with a new desire to             A shelter in the time of storm.
walk not only according to some but according to all              The Lord is good !
His commandments. They are those that love His  pre-
cepts and keep them. Oh, they often blunder and stumble           How worthy of the most perfect trust is the  good
in the way !. For the power of sin is still within them        Lord !
and often seduces them from the path of the Lord's com-           For those, that put their confidence in Him, shall
mandments.      Perfection they have not reached. But never be %shamed. He knows them. . . .
they hate and eschew evil and detest the ways of the              In deepest root confidence is an act of love,  bf that
evil-doer.    -4nd while often they must humble them-          very love the good Lord spreads abroad in the hearts of
selves in sorrow and penitence before their Lord in Christ, whom He loves.
`vet thev struggle and  cari-y  on the battle, the light of       Hatred does not trust, cannot but be filled with dis-
hope in* their eyes that once they shall walk in perfectly     trust and dark apprehension with respect to its object.
white garments of purest holiness !                            But love is trusting. It is like the little child clinging
   To them Jehovah is good!                                    to father and feeling safe in the hour of danger.
   Good as the unchangeable I Am!                                 Confidence is first of all the assurance that the one
   His relation toward them is that His everlasting cove-      in whom we trust loves us. So is trust in Jehovah. The
nant.                              5..                         love `He spreads abroad in our heqrts  does nor first of all
   And even as His perfect goodness becomes manifest           witness within us that we love Him, but, as it truly is,
in His wrath and  sengeance  over the wicked, so He            that He loved us, loved us first, loved us from before
reveals that He is good by loving the righteous and filling    time began, loved us with a great love. The love where-
them with everlasting bliss and joy.                           with we love God never will be more than a response to
   They need not fear in the day of His wrath, for when        the love wherewith He loved us, a response `He drew
destruction shall be upon the earth, the Lord is a strong-     forth by His almighty grace. Hence, confidence must
hold to His people.                                            needs center in the cross. There it finds the strongest
   When storms of trouble rage the good Lord is to             testimony that the good Lord loved us. There is its
them that love Him a Shelter . . . . .                         greatest, its most wondrous manifestation. Looking at
   Oft through the storm they must go.                         the accursed tree the believer is assured that Jehovah
   For the way to glory is a way of suffering and trouble. -loved and loves him and that he may surely surrender
There  is  no other way. He that would be victor must          himself to the good Lord as a stronghold in the day of
needs fight. It was the good Lord's good pleasure that         trouble. There is no fear in love . . . .
the children of His love should appear for a while in the         Ti-ust  is the firm assurance that the good Lord is


                                             T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                                           ,319
  ___II__.- __..__...... _- ___    -..._-----_                              l_lll-^.-..^l--.~---                .--  ..-  111111
  Jehovah, faithful and true, Who never changes, with              their strong and faithful Lord even in the midst of
  Whom there is no shadow of turning.  As long as there            t r o u b l e .
 `.1s fear in our hearts that she Lord may at any time change          For a shelter in the time of storm is Jehovah.
  and alter His attitude towards us, there can be no per-              Good is the Lord !
  fect confidence. But our God is Jehovah. More change-                                                                          H.  I-I.
  less than the Rock. Though we change frequently, though
  we often sin against Him,. always may we turn to that
  immutable love that manifested itself in the blood of
  the cross. And looking at Calvary,.and  remembering that
  He loved us and surrendered His only begotten Son for                               Des Doods  Macht  en Omnacht
  us while we were yet sinners, we will approach Him with
  quiet confidence and seek shelter with Him in the time                        Bekrans'met  loof u vrij den  schedel,
  of storm. . . .                                                                     Met eerlaurieren, versch geplukt !
       To confide is to be assured that He in Whom we put                       Waar is de lauwerkrtins, zoo edel,
  our trust is strong and mighty to help in the day of                                Die niet de dood heeft afgeplukt?
  trouble. Love may be ever so fervent and faithful, but if                     Waar is de staf der heerschappije,
  it is lacking in power to help we cannot find a safe shelter                        Die voor de doodsknods niet bezweck?
  in it. `.But the love of God is as infinite in power as it is                 Waar is de feest- en prachtkleedije,
  unfathomable in its depth. He is as strong to help as He                            Die voor bet grafgewaad niet week?
  is full of mercy. Surely no trouble can overwhem us, no
  enemy can destroy us, no danger can come near  us!                            Tast  op uw ruime korenschuren,
  when we seek our refuge in Him Who revealed His                                     Met d' eelste  vrucht van veld en tuin !          *
  power over sin and death and hell in the sacrifice of His                     Versier met zijde en goud uw muren
Beloved. The cross and the resurrection of our Lord                                   Van marmersteen en rotsarduin !
  Jesus Christ are the signs of His almighty power to save                      Wie heeft door keur van veld  en tuinen
  and to deliver in the day of trouble . . . . .                                      Den dood door zilver omgekocht?
       Hence, that trust of love, whereby we know that He                       Wat sterkte stoof niet heen in puinen,
  loves us;that His love is faithful and true, strong to save                         Schoon  ook door reuzekracht gewrocht ?
  and to protect and to deliver, seeks refuge in Him and
  feels assured that the devil and all our enemies are                          Laat..schuimen  uwe feestbokalen
  powerless to hurt us!                                                               Van  `r eelste, dat de wingerd biedt:
       Neither is there any danger, that the Lord will cast                     Laat dreunen uwe feestdanszalen,
  us out.                                                                             Bij snarenspel en jubellied!
       For He knows them, that put their trust in Him . . . .                   Wie heeft den dood een kelk geschonken,
       He knows them with a knowledge of love.                                        Waarmee hij lachend henenvlood?                        ,
       He knows them in distinction from the ungodly upon                       Waar heeft zoo  schoon  een lied geklonken,
  whom He pours forth the molten fire of His wrath and                                Waarvoor het graf zijn kaken sloot i
  furious anger. And though He may come in fury upon
  His enemies, so that the mountains languish and the hills                     `t Is alles  schoon, `t is  alleg  heerlijk;
  melt, and all the earth quakes and trembles because of the                          `t Is alles gave van omhoog!
  fury of His wrath; and though they that trust in Him are                      3Iaar   licht voor `t hart te zeer begeerlijk,
  right in the midst of the raging storm of His judgment                              Te zeer begeerlijk voor het oog.
 over the ungodly, yet will He be a stronghold in the day of                    `t Is waard om Hem een krans te vlechten,
  trouble to them that seek refuge with Him. In the gen-                              Die `t alles schiep, die `t alles gaf ;
  eral upheaval caused by His fierce wrath no harm will                         &Iaar ach, niet om de ziel te hechten
  come nigh them.                                                                     Aan `t geen haar loslaat bij het graf!
       He knows them in their needs and troubles. He knows
  the way'in which they must be led to inherit the city                         Maar Hem een lied en Hem de krone,
  that hath foundations, the incorruptible treasure that is                           Die sterker is dan graf en dood!
  kept in heaven for them. He  knows.their  weaknesses and                      Die heerlijk praalt op `s hemels trone,
  their fears. all their wants and how to  supply  them.                              Sinds `t graf zich voor zijn schreen ontsloot  ;
       He knows them, because He chose them. His knowl-                         Maar Hem een tempel in de harten,
  edge is before they were.            They are His handiwork.                        En van gebeen een bloemfestoen,
  .4nd He remembers that they are dust.. . .                                    Die perk stelde aan der helle tarten,
       Thus they walk their way and fight their battles,                              En zelfs den dood zal sterven doen.  '
  assured that all is well.
       Leaning on the Lord, they have peace and joy in                                                             J. `De Liefde


             om Jeruzalem, dat gecstelijk Sodom en  Gomorra  gewor-                    CAN A  CLASSIS  (SYNOD) DEPOSE A
             den was, te bezoeken in Zijn toorn.  ZOO  stellen we ons                                 CONSISTORY?
             oclk bet cinde  voor in verband  met het losgelaten worden
             van Satan en het einde van Gog en Magog. Het  Chrjs-                  Or, The Plain Truth. About the Institution of ,the
             tendom zal bij dien tijd, op een kern van getrouwen na,                                  Church of Christ
             die hunne knie niet gebogcn zullen hebbcn  roor het beest
             cn deszelfs beeld, verbasterd zijn en antichristelijk gewor-          The foregoing article was,  i&the main, a refutation
             den zijn.  Doch dit antichristelijk rijk en zijn  ma&t zal         of the proposition that "  -a church (denomination) must
             door het heidendom b&chouwd  worden  als het Christen-             persistently refuse to grant unto the office-bearer or con-
             dom, als het  volk van Christus, den Gezalfden  Roning.            sistory,  cbnvinced  rhat the doctrines of the church mili-
             En met het booze doe1 om `de "geliefde &ad" te ontheili-           tate against the teachings of Scripture, the right to reject
             gen zullen ze optrekken en  zich stellen tegen de  leger-          these doctrines and to severe the denomination&  ;ie.  `4.
             plaats der  -heiligen.  In den meest  letterlijken   zi& des       church, so we are convinced,  may not refuse to grant
             woords zullen. dan de volkeren der wereld vergaderd zijn           this right. Doing so,' it (the church) is prohibiting its
             in de twee legermachten van het heidendom en het anti-             members from living their religious and moral convic-
             christelijk Christendom. Een wereldoorlog, zooals  nim-            tions and attempting to bind, their conscience.
             mer in de geschiedenis der wereld gestreden werd, zal dan             However, in adducing our reasons for the stand we
             plaats hebben. En de Heere zelf zal ten oordeel komen,             take, we were looking at rhe matter of secession chiefly
             om de booze machten  `ce overwinnen, de. volkeren  te oor-         from the point of view of the  prote'stant.  Would you
             deelen  en  Zijn  volk te verlossen voor eeuwig.                   not, someone may ask, speak a different language, if you
.l.     "       Zoo krijgen  oak ongetwijfeld de dagen, waarin wij              should approach the above proposition from a different
`.
             Ieven  beteekenis voor ons bewustzijn.  lmmers  schijnen           angle, viz.. from the angle of the church? Is it not a
             de volkeren, die  aan de  \yier   hoeken  der aarde  wonen,        fact,  so the questioner continues, that the church which
             alreede uit hun slaap te ontwaken.  Gekerstend  zijn die           grants unto the protestant the right to reject its decisions
             valkeren zeker niet, schoan ze de  vormen  van  Wester-            and deliverances the veracity of which it is deeply con-
             sche beschaving tot op zekere hoogte hebben  aangeno-              vinced - is it not  a. fact rhat such a church is crushing
             men.  1Vel beginnen zc het vreemde juk der  overheer-              to earth its own convictions and  a&urn&g   the respons-
             sching  van de schouderen te werpen en te strijden voor            ibility  of a deed which it (the church) regards deeply
             eigen nationaal en onafhankelijk bestaan. Japan is een             sinful? Hence, whereas this church is convinced of the
             wereldmacht  geworden.       China strijdt en worstelt met         soundness of its doctrines, must it not, for conscience's
             hare millioenen bij millioenen, om haar plaats en macht            sake, refuse to grant unto the conscientious protestant
             in de geschiedenis te  doen  gelden.  En  IndiLis  onrustig        these rights?
             geworden onder het juk van het trotsche ,Ubion. Ook in                Our answer to each of the above questions is  a;
             dit opzicht leTen we in beteekenisvolle tijden met het oog         emphatic No. Though  w'e should look at the matter of
             op de komst van het einde. Vele  dingen  wijzen er ons             secession from the point of view of the church yet will
             op, dat dit einde niet ver kan zijn.  `Worden  we dan              we continue to denounce the attitude which the church,
             wakende en biddende bevonden.           Dan zullen we niet         according- to G. Hoeksema,  must assume toward the
             Treezen.   I7reeselijke   dingen  zullen nog  moeren   geschie-    office-bearer and consistory that rejects its (the church's)
             den, naar elke teekening der  Schrift. eer  bet einde daar         delivkrances.    A church (denomination) is not crushing
             zal zijn. Onverwacht mogen ook die  dingen  ons niet to earth its own convictions and assuming responsibility
             c,;-ervallen.  opdat we niet verbaasd worden. Met het oog for the protestant's deed when it (the church) grants
             op  onzen  machtigen  Koning, die ons van  Israels  God            him `the right  ro secede. However, the church permits
             gegeven  is. hebben we niets te vreezen. -4.1~ Hij aan onze        him (the protestant) to secede  nn his  (`the  protertant's)
             zijde  strijdt, dan zijn we veilig en is  $e overwinning           own responsibility.. ;2nd just this is the crux of the mat-
             gewis.    En  straks zullen we met Hem eeuwiglijk  regee-          ter. The protestant must secede on his own responsibil-
             reu over  alle  dingen   naar Zijne belofte.                       ity. That is to say, he must hold himself and not the
                                                        Ik heb gezegd.          church accountable for his act. He shall not ask the
                                                                                church to meet the obligations of his deed.         For the
                                                                                church, convinced of the correctness of its deliverances
                                                                                and doctrines, is of  th'e conviction that the protestant  is
                             Would a man escape the rod,                        breaking away from the true church, yea, from the truth
                             See that he turn to God                            itself, and that, therefore, he is committing great sin.
                             The day before his death.                          How, then, can rhe church grant unto the seceder the
                                                                                right to leave and at the same time keep its hands per-
                             Or. could a man "inquire                           fectly clean? The answer is ready: "By protesting
                              CVhen it shall come, I say,                       against the act of secession, and by granting unto the
                             Then let him turn t&day.                           seceder the right to withdraw on his own responsibility.
                                            Robert Browning                     That is to say, the church must say to this one:  -"YOU.


I                                                                                 .
     226                                     T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R

     according to the conviction of  ihe church,  do err.     The     member can legally judge for himself and act accord-
     church is of the conviction that you are rejecting sound         ingly . . . . Secondly, we have the answer of the Pres-
     doctrine, that you, therefore, commit a grievous sin by          byterian, who holds that in the last analysis, always
     leaving. Think before you act. Reconsider what you               allowing for the right of protest, the decision of the
     are contemplating doing. However, whereas it is your             Synod, the largest or broadest church body, is law in
     firm conviction that the  chur.ch and not you err, and           rhe Church. And between these two you have the  Con-
     where as the (Christian Reformed) church, being fallible, gregationalist, who puts the final decision into the hands
     may err in its judgment, it (this church] grants unto            of the local church or consistory. The latter is the view
     you the right to withdraw, yea, insist that you withdraw         plainly expressed by those who teach the principles we
     for conscience' sake. But know well, protestant, that            are here criticizing" (Brochure,  p. 32).
     your blood is upon your head."                                      According to G. Hoeksema, then, the only perceptible
            Such is the speech of a church unto a protestant whom     difference between the  Congregationalist  and the indi-
     it (a church) grants the right to leave on his (the  prot'       vidualist is that the individualist maintains that each
     e&ant's)  own responsibility. Doing so, this church, need        member can legally judge for himself whether certain
     have no fear that it is crushing to the ground its convic-       decisions are in agreement with the will of Christ and
     tions disallowing its doctrines and  `I shouldering the          act accordingly that is withdraw, severe the denomina-,
     responsibility of the protestant's deed. This church is,         tional tie if he thinks he must, while the congregationalist
     however, admitting its fallibility. An admission of this         avers that not each member but the consist&y only has
     kind becomes the (Christian Reformed) Church.                    this right. G. Hoeksema has it then that  Classis and
            The question, then, whether  Classis  (or Synod) shall    Synod must forbid both the individual and the local con-
     grant unto the protesting member the right to break with         sistory to judge for themselves and to withdraw if they
     the church is incomplete. It cannot be answered with             think they must. What else does  this mean but that
     either a No or YLV but with an It all depends. Add to the        Classis  and Synod forbid the individual member and the
     question, "On the responsibility of the church" and the          local consistory to severe the denominational tie on, their
     answer must be an unequivocable No: Classis  (or Synod)          own (the individual's and the consistory's) respons-
     convinced that it abides by the truth, may not grant unto        ibility?
     the protestant the right to reject its decision and to              Thus, those following these articles should ever keep
     break with the. church on its  .(Classis' or Synod's) re-        in their eye that the proposition which G. Hoeksema is
     sponsibility. If, on the other hand, we add to the ques-         attempting to disprove (not prove). is that the church
     tion,  "On the responsibility of the protestant" our an-         (denomination) cannot grant unto the protestant (neither
     swer must be an unmistakable YES. Unto the protestant,           the individual member nor the consistory) the right to
     willing  *to assume full responsibility for his deed, the        use his  `own judgment and  ro  withdraw for conscience's
     church must grant this right. It must be a right guar-           sake. G. Hoeksema literally says this. Attend to the
     anteed by the contract. A group of churches uniting on           following selection : "In other words,  there,  is here upon
     the basis of any other agreement commit a great sin, as          earth a Church clothed with Christ's authority that has
     we have before shown.                                            the right and the duty in the name of Christ to, among
            There is than a wide difference as to meaning between     other things, interpret His Word, and to exercise dis-
     the proposition : "Classis (or Synod) grants unto the            cipline upon those who err in doctrine  -  even   though
     `protestant the right to break with the church on its            their  conscimce  does not agree with such action  (Italics
     (Classis' or Synod's) responsibility," and the proposi-          mine, G. M. 0.). The (Christian Reformed) Church,
     tion : `Unto the protestant- willing to assume full re-          then, must forbid its members to use their own judgment
     sponsibility for his deed,  Classis or Synod must grant and to withdraw for conscience' sake. The Church, in
     the right to break with the church." The former of the           other words, must bind the conscience of its members.
     two propositions is false ; the latter true.                     So G. Hoeksema avers. I repeat the only premise that
            G. Hoeksema's brochure represents a mighty attempt        will yield G. Hoeksema's doctrine is the premise that the
     on his part to convince his readers that though the prot-        Christian Reformed Church is the infallible Church on
     testant  (not the church) assumes full responsibility for earth.
     his act,  Classis or Synod may not even then grant him               Neither, of course, is it the contention of Hoeksema
     the right to break with the church. This is evident from         (G.) that the Christian Reformed Church must grant unto
     the following selections : "The question must be an-             the protestant the right to withdraw on the responsibility
     swered, who legally determines whether certain decisions         of the church. Hoeksema is of the conviction that
     `are.in  agreement with the will of Christ? Whose judg- under no  cond%on  may the church ever grant unto the
     ment on this question shall  be. binding law in the              protestant this right.
     Church?                                                              In our previous article we directed the attention of
            "Rome answers, the Pope as the personal representa-       our readers to at least two of the antecedent propositions
     tive of Christ here upon earth and as clothed t&h  all His       yielding the various tenets constituting the system of
     power (Italics, G. H.) . . . . first (should be second, G. M.    church government  ;idvocated  by G. Hoeksema. They
     O.) the answer of the individualist who holds-that each          are: (a) The Christian Reformed Church is  .infallible   ;


.T..      .        I.           .'                                                                 t



                                                       T H E   S T A N D A R D  BEARER                                                     227
                                 -I_                                               --__II..
                (b) The Christian Reformed Church must persecute a               Classis  and Synod ; that it will never withdraw. Such a
                recalcitrant consistory. We do not maintain that G.              consistory must concede that the church may never grant
                Hoeksema is aware of it thar the practices which he              unto it the right to withdraw. Whereas any group of
                recommends are in part the out budding of the proposi-           churches, no matter how sound doctrinally at the time of
                tions presented above. Though he realizes  it not, fact joining, may deteriorate and depart from the truth; and
                is that the only premises sanctioning the stand which he         whereas it is Christ's will that men should withdraw
                takes over against a consistory refusing to submit to the        themselves from a false church, it follows with inexorable
                decisions of  classis (or synod), are those which proclaim       logic that a consistory regards a group of churches as.
                the infallibility of his church, and'assert  that an unyield-    incapable of ever departing from the truth of it (the con-
                ing consistory must be persecuted. We showed  that               sistory) at the time of joining, promises this group never
                G.  ,Hoeksema  virtually literally asserts that his church       ro withdraw; if it concedes that this group can never
                cannot err. He  does  literally aver that his church  mu&        grant unto it the right to severe the denaminational tie.
                harrass those who insist on  differing  from it. He main-        G. Hoeksema is of the conviction that a consistory must
                tains, does he not,  that' upon a recalcitrant consistory promise the Classis (or Synod) of the Christian Reformed
                must. be imposed a pecuniary penalty. Such a consistory          Church never to withdraw itself from  under  its jurisdic-
                must be relieved of its properties. This is sheer religious tion. Hoeksema has it, then, that this  Classis  and this
                persecution.                                                     Synod, in a. word, this church (the Christian Reformed)
                   PLs to the premise that the Christian Reformed                cannot err. That is to say, it is an infallible church. We
                Church is infallible we showed from paragraphs taken             invite G. Hoeksema or anybody under the  stin to  shoti
                from his brochure that G. Hoeksema did indeed adopt              that  such a promise is not equal to the assertion that
          it either wittingly or unwittingly as his point of proce-              the Christian Reforrhed  Church is infallible.
                dure. Let us pay close attention to the following  para-            To this  batter we attended in our previous article.
         c graph wherein he attacks the  v*lews  of his opponents. It            In this essay it is our purpose to show that in his defense
                reads this: " `Ret bestuur blijft bij den kerkeraad,'  " we      of the stand which  tile church  is.supposed to take over
                are told. (Dat het bestuur bij den kerkeraad blijft is the       against a recalcitrant consistory, Hoeksema time and
                contention not of G. Hoeksema but of Van Lonkhuyzen              again turns against his own views.
                and others, G. M. 0.). And to return to the point which             Let us set out by attending once more to that para-
                we began to elucidate - just for that reason it must be          graph in which G: Hoeksema asserts that as a good prot-
                well understood that the authority of Classis  and Synod         estant he. would refuse ultimately, after protesting once
                is  conditional  (so Van Lonkhuyzen maintains, G.  M. 0.).       and again, to be bound by any decision of  Classis-  or
                That is if Syno& or  Classis decide anything which a c'tr-       Synod which we considered funhamentally  un-Scriptural.,
                tain consistory considers un-Scriptural, that it is not duty     It reads thus: "As a good protestant the writer of this
                bound to accept such a decision. And the refusal to be brochure  also would refuse ultimately, after protesting
                bound by such a decision is not rebellion or revolution          once and again, to be bound by any decision of Classis or
                (so says Van Lonkhuyzen not G. Hoeksema, G. M. 0.).              Synod which we considered fundamental un-Scriptural.
           That is a right gnaranteed by the contract.  -The  consis-            But - and this is the point - we would also understand
                tory can reject such decisions in accordance with the            very well that we would then be rebelling against church
                contract, and therefore such action is not a severance of        authority, just as Luther and Cal&n  did; And though
                the denominational tie. Van Lonkhuyzen says: `Tevens no protestant church claims to be infallible, yet in any
                blijkt hieruit dat we van te voren een accoord maken  dat given case, after prayerful Consideration and reconsidera-
           als het voor ons duidelijk is dat het niet is Gode gehoor-            tion, it must claim that.its `doctrines.are  c&form  to God's
           zaam, dat het tegen Gods. Woord ingaat (natuurlijk ern-               Word and, therefore, it must ask acceptance and submis-
           stig en meenens en oprecht opgevat, tegen een uitgedrukt sion of all its members. `. And refusal to sub&it would be,
                wooid  Gods) dat we het dan niet .zullen behoeven aan te         from the viewpoint of the Church,  rebellion"  (Brochure,
           nemen. Daar is dus geen  rebel& of  revolt&e.  Dat is                 p. 77).
           een accoord van kerkelijke  gemeenschap.?"                               Before laying hold on the views coming to the sur-
                   G. Hoeksema, mark you, is opposed to the view that            face in the above paragraph we ask our readers to bear
                the authority of  Classis  and Synod is conditional  ; that in mind that G. Hoeksema is being assailed by us in his
           "het bestuur bij den kerkeraad blijft"; that a consistory             own territory. Let us make our meaning clear. G.  Hoek-
                need not accept Classis' or Synod's decisions. if it regards     sema maintains that a consistory, should it refuse to sub-
                them un-Scriptural; that the refusal ro be bound by such         mit to decisions of  Classis  (or Synod), is making irself
           a decision is not rebellion or revolution; that it is a right         guilty of rebellion. A contention of this kid implies
           guaranteed by the contract ; that the consistory can reject           that Classis  is a "hoogere bestuursmacht"  elevated by the
           such decisions in accordance with the contract. Accord-               Lord Christ to the position of king of the churches. Says
                ing to G. Hoeksema. then, a consistory must attach itself        G. Hoeksema: "Now in the light of all this, the conten-
                to that group of churches known as the Christian Re-             tion of Dr. A. Kuyper that ecclesiastical power in the
                formed denomination by' means of the unconditional               first instance resides with the brotherhood, and not with
           promise that it will  always  submit  to the decisions of             the office-bearers,  ,is seen to be erroneous.  Ecclesimtical
&


                                       T%IE  S T A N D A R D  BEARE.R                                                       229

.other  words, he refuses to be bound by the un-Scriptural        ethical or ecclesiastical right did  Classis East have (ac-
decisions of an infallible Church. The thought that he            cording to this view) to refuse its fellowship to a  con-
has the spiritual right to rebel against this Church com-         sistory that kept the contract? And let no one suppose
forts him. In this right he glories. But why should he?           (so G. Hoeksema continues) that this is  `consequensen-
Can an infallible Synod err? In case of a clash he must           macherei.'    This significance we here attach to these
pronounce himself a liar. For he is at odds with an in-           words of Dr. Van Lonkhuyzen is in perfect agreement
fallible Church.                                                  with the teachings of the old master, Dr. Rutgers. He
   But the matter to which we desire to call G.  Hoek-            savs
                                                                    .  : `En wat was nu het gevolg van de toepassing van
sema's attention is that he refuses to he bound by the            dit beginsel? Natuurlijk dat men weerloos stond  tegen-
decision of an infallible Church. Can such  a Church over den kerkeraad die  op voor hem afdoende gronden
make  unScriptura1 decisions? Whereas G. Hoeksemn                 de beslissing der meerdere vergadering in strijd achtte
thinks of the Church as infallible the thought that he            met Gods Woord. Dat ook de rechter  op dit punt de be-
will reject its un-Scriptural decisions should never enter slissing van den kerkeraad niet kon vernietigen is duide-
his mind. An infallible  classis or synod never errs, it          lijk, want dan zoude hij de belijdenis der kerk  (Artt.  7:
cannot.     Its decisions are always conform with Scrip- 32) zelve terzijde hebben gesteld.  Alzoo  kon in het  ge-
ture. G. Hoeksema must ever be willing to cheerfully              steld geval,  zelfs  zonder  formeele  lormaking van den  ge-
submit.  Classis is infallible. Besides, he promised to           meenscha$$elijken  band, de kerkeraad  -vriyeiijk   rijm gang
do so, ever.                                                      gaan'   (Italics of Rutgers, G. H.)" (Brochure, p. 32). So
   The point is that when G. Hoeksema proclaimed he               far G. Hoeksema.                                          -.
would refuse to be bound by Synod's un-Scriptural deci-              Well, then, what right did G. Hoeksema have to pen-
sions he again turned against his own views.                      alize the recalcitrant consistaries if it appears that the
   Once more, G. Hoeksema glories in his spiritual right          right of spiritual rebellion was indeed a right *guaranteed
of rebellion against a Church whose doctrines are fun-            them by the contract.
damentally un-Scriptural. Well may he rejoice. We                    G. Hoeksema will attempt to open rhe clamps of the
would ask: Was this right guaranteed by the contract?             trap holding him  ,by means of an argument the nucleus
That is to say, did  G. Hoeksema, at the time of joining,         of which lies imbedded in the following statements and
make known unto the Classis that he reserved for himself paragraphs. "We admit the spiritual, not legal right of
this right? And did  Classis concede that he had this             rebellion against a church whose doctrines are funda-
right? In other words, did the Classis  declare at the time. mentally- .un-Scriptural" (Brochure, page 77). "The
when  G. Hoeksema signed the Formula of Subscription: manner (so Hoeksema continues) in which this explana-
"Brother, if in the future you should be of the conviction        tion of Article 31 is defended, is itself the result of
that a certain Classical decision is fundamentally  un-           a serious confusion of ideas.      Appeal is made to the
Scriptural and that God for this reason demands of you            example of the Reformers.        They resisted Rome on
that you withdraw and severe the denominational tie, Scriptural grounds. And  ir  is said that attitude of the
you by all means must do so." Was rhis declaration Reformers can be justified only on the ground that
made? Was it a silent agreement between Hoeksema                  the decisions of higher church bodies are not binding
and the  Classis?   lf so. the  Classis  legalized. rebellion.    on those whose conscience forbids.  -4nd, therefore, that
It gave unto G. Hoeksema the right to live his convic- must be the meaning of Article 31. We would answer
tions.     Hence, the right of rebellion was a right guar-        (so G. Hoeksema continues) that the Reformers  as
anteed by the contract. Such being the case,-Classis had          Luther and Calvin surely never claimed that rhey had
no right to penalize the recalcitrant consistories for rebel- the right, according to existing ecclesiastical law, to re-
ling against its clecisions or those of Synod. For, accord- ject the decisions  ,of Rome's councils. And that is the
ing to G. Hoeksema's own statements they were keeping             point to be proved. Art. 31 has nothing to do  wirh the
the contract and it is altogether amiss to penalize a con-        stand of the Reformers. And this will be plainly seen
sistory for keeping the contract.- So G. Hoeksema rea-            if we properly distinguish between the ultimate right of
sons. Says he; "Need we be surprised that H.  Hoek- rebellion and the legal right to reject authority. The
sema and his followers hail Dr. Van Lonkhuyzen as the             Reformers claimed the right and exercised it, to reject
only sound authority, and that they rejoice over his              any and all human laws that conflicted with fundamental
nomination for Professor of Practical Theology? For.              teachings of Scripture. But they claimed this right as
according to the doc$or, we had an agreement with these a right of rebellion: a fundamental  spiritwu'  right,  trans-
consistories beforehand, that if the  .Synod  of  1924 ac-        cending and superior to every human law.
cepted the Three Points, which they consider un-Scrip-               All protestants are agreed (says G. Hoeksema) there.
tural, they would not have to accept them, and such an            We recognize no infallible Church. In rhe last analysis
attitude would not be rebellion either.       It would be in      we will always obey God rather than man. But all this
perfect agreement with the contract. And why then has absolutely nothing to do with Article 31, nor does it
accuse them of breaking the denominational tie? How justify the explanation we are considering. That would
could they be accused of this, if they merely exercised           make it a legal right to reject decisions with which men
a right guaranteed  ,them  by the contract? ,4nd what don't agree. They could do this according to church


                                              T H E   S T A N D A R D          B E A R E R

      pouvr means authority to  govern  the  Church  in the name  of    reject classical  tlecisions  and to withdraw himself from
      Christ. The people never have that power in our system. under the jurisdiction of this body. Hoeksema (G.) then,
      They may never govern  tl>emselves.  Before there is a unconditionally and in unmistakable terms promised the
      consistory, they have the right and the duty to choose Classis  (the Church) never to rise up in rebellion against
      officers  to rule them. After the election they must sub- it. Yet, lo and behold, on page 77 of his brochure he in-
      mit to them" (Brochure, p.  53). That, according to forms his readers that he would  ,refuse'  ultimately to
      (.;. Hoeksema,  Classis  and Synod have this power to.- be bound by any decision of  Classis  or Synod which he
      govern the Church is evident from the following considered fundamentally  un-Scrip'tural  ; that he would
      paragraph : "Then it is no longer true, as Van  Dcl-              then rebel against the authority of the Church, just as
      len and  Keegstra  preach, that `het bestuur  altijd bij          Luther and Calvin did.       After having unconditionally
      den kerkeraad blijft.'       Nor is authority ultimately in       promised the Church never, never to reject its authority
      the hands of the people, as the Independents `hold.  It is        hk this day is glorying in the right of rebellion so dear
      ,urtder   Christ  the King, in the  hands  of  Classis  afzd  Synod to his heart. Says he: "We admit, we glory in the right
      (in general matters only, of course). And this is not of protest.               We admit that,  the. protestant idea of the
      our `theory, or anybody's private view. This is the plain pluriformity of the Church condemns excommunication
     teaching of the Formula of  Subscription(  ?), which  all          with the Form of a member who desires to affiliate with
      our ministers and elders and deacons have signed, and in some other orthodox Church. We admit the spiritual
      conformity with which they must act. and write and                (not legal) right of rebellion against a Church whose
      teach"  (Brochure, p.  53). It  .is, then, the conviction of doctrines are fundamentally un-Scriptural.            We rejoice
      G. Hoeksema that Classis  and Synod rule the churches in          in the religious liberty our fathers have gained for us
      the name of Christ. Our contention is, on the other through blood and tears and suffering unspeakable"
      hand, that under Christ the only ruling body in the               (Brochure, p.  77).
      Church is the consistory. Hoeksema's view is a human                 Thus we have pointed out one of the  num&ous  irre-
      invention.  Classis  is no "hooger bestuur" to which  t-he        concilable  cot;ltradictions  in G. Hoeksema's views on
      local churches are subject. Hence, rebellion on the part          Church government, Conflicts such as these indicate
      of a consistory against  CIassis  is out of the question. two  things: They indicate, that G. Hoeksema is lacking
      Hdwever,  it is our desire to show that Hoeksema's sys- the ability to think his system of Church government
      tem of Church government is like unto a house divided through and to realize its implications and that he  wil-
      against itself; that there  is  violent conflict between the fully attempted to close &en's eyes to the viciousness of
      elements entering into the construction of this system. his views. Fact is that he feared that his readers would
      To show this we must `meet our opponent. in his own               object that his views militated against rhe idea of reli-
t e r r i t o r y .    That is to say, we shall have to concede gious liberty and would, if practiced, bind the conscience
      momentarily, for the sake of argument, that Christ has of the members of the Church. To  allay  men's  fears this
      crowned the Classis  (and Synod) kings in the Church on man, who by his words and deeds shows that he would
      earth. In the sequence it shall be made plain that this favor the restoration of the Roman inquisition, poses as
      view is a human invention.                                        a champion of religious liberty.
          G. Hoeksema, then, though, according to his own                  Let us go on. G. Hoeksema maintains that the indi-
      statement, having promised  Classis never to withdraw. vidual office-bearer and `the consistory unconditionally
      himself from  u'nder   its  jurisdiction and always to be promise ever to submit to Classis  and Synod, and to re-
L willing to submit to  Classis' decisions' nevertheless frain from ever rebelling against the authority of these
;     reserves for himself and the consistories the right to rebel bodies. We have before shown that rhe premise yield-
!     against this body and to reject its decisions. This, as ing the view incorporated in a promise of this kind asserts
I     was, jointed out in a former article, is one of G.  Hoek- that Clasis and Synod are infallible bodies incapable of
/ sema's inconsistencies. Here he turns against his own erring. Hoeksema (G.) literally says this : ". . . Yet in any
1     views. The insistence on the right of rebellion on the given case. after prayerful consideration and reconsidera-
:     part of G. Hoeksema, is an attack upon the entire  sys-           tion, it (Classis) .must  claim that its doctrines are conform
:     tern of Church government sponsored by him. Let us to God's Word and, therefore, it must ask acceptance and
,     enter this matter a little more thoroughly than was done          submission of all its members" (Brochure, p. 77). Synod
Iheretofore.                                                            oL  Classis,  then, may never declare their decisions and
I         CT. Hoeksema, once more, unconditionally promised' doctrinal deliverances erroneous. In any given case the
:     never to quit the  Classis.  He did so when' according to         Church met in  Classis  and Synod must declare.: "I am
/     his own admission' he signed the Formula of Subscrip- right." It may-never say: "I err." What else does this
      tion. He, then; also at once conceded that the  Classis           mean but that Classis. and Synod must tie thought of as
1     ior Synod) may and never can @rant unto him or a local            infallible bodies? It is always the protesting member
'     consistory the right to withdraw. Hoeksema shall have who errs. The Church never. Such is G, Hoeksema's
,     to admit that he maki`ng  these promises is expressing a view. Yet he will rebel against the authority of this
(     willingness always to refrain from rebelling  against  the infallible Church whenever he is of the conviction that
      authority of  Classis.  Such a one is waiving his right to any of its decisions are fundamentally un-Scriptural. Tn


230      _                              T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R
                            ----.I

law. In other words this view seeks to legalize rebellion.          rather than men" (brochure p. 76).
ilnd just as soon as you do that it is no longer rebellion.            The question arises whether the so-called spiritual
Then there would be no such thing as insubordination.               right of rebellion is merely the right to reject rules and      I
Then  Classis  and Synod could never have taken any                doctrines of the Church which conflict with the funda-
action against Hoeksema and Danhof" (brochure p.  ?6).' mental doctrines of Scripture. Our answer is an em-
   Hoeksema; then, distinguishes between two kinds of              phatic no. Fact is that when G. Hoeksema gave unto the
rights: (a) The legal right to reject the authority of the         so-called spiritual right of rebellion a content he omitted
Church (which right Hoeksema calls unlawful) ; (b) the             a most important element. That his explanation of this
ultimate or spiritual right of rebellion. The legal right          right is faulty is evident from his answer to the question
of rebellion is a right which the Church, according to the- tihether  the Church may forbid its protesting members
views  which Hoeksema  opposes, must grant unto the                to reject its rules and doctrines in the event they conflict
protestant convinced that the denominational tie should            with the teachings of Scripture.       Hoeksema's answer
be broken. We may also call it church or ecclesiastical            may-be found on page 77 of his brochure. It  reads:  "yet
right. That there may be no misunderstanding, we                   in any given case, after prayerful consideration and recon-
repeat that G. Hoeksema insists that neither the church            sideration, it (the Church) must claim that its doctrines
may grant this right nor the protestant ask for it. The ,are `conforming to God's word and, therefore, it must ask
Church may not legalize rebellion.                               * acceptance and submission of all its members." The point
   To the charge, then, that also according to G.  Hoek-           is  that, according to (G.) Hoeksema the Church in any
sema's views rebellion is a right guaranteed by the con-           given case is of rhe conviction that it ab.ides  by the truth
tract the above quotation presents the following reply:            and that the protestant is in error; that its doctrines,
"The protestant (G. Hoeksema would say) has the spir- therefore, do not conflict  withthe teachings of Scriptureas
itual, not the legal, right of rebellion. For conscience'          the protestant avers. This being its conviction, the
sake he shall exercise this right if of the conviction that        Church may not grant unto the protestant the right to
the fundamental doctrines of the Church are un-Scriptural.         reject its doctrines. Doing so it would  be militating
The Church, on the other hand,' shall persistantly  declare        against its own convictions. This the Church may not do.
unto the rebellious office-bearer or consistory: "Thou                The above reasoning, though apparently flawless, is
shalt not rebel but submit thyself to the decisions of nevertheless thoroughly fallacious. To begin with, G.
Classis and Synod." The protestant, then, is of the con-           Hoeksema's explanation of what he calls the spiritual
viction !hat the denominational tie must be severed. The right of rebellion is faulty. This right, as was said, implies
Church, on the other hand, persists in refusing to sanction more than the mere permission to reject un-Scrip-
his departure. Whereas the Church to the very end for- tural doctrines. Ir is the right of the protestant to reject
bade the protestant to withdraw and whereas the prot- for conscience' sake and without the interference of either
estant on his part refused to demand of the Church this            the Church or the State, doctrines which he (the protes-
right, it follows  fhat the right of rebellion is not a right      tant) deems false but which the  Church deems sound.
guaranteed by the contract. kence,  the Church may and The right pre-supposes ethical-spiritual conflict between
must penalize the protestant for exercising, for con-              the  p?otesfant  and the Church (or state). The Church
science' sake, his spiritual right of rebellion. In fine, the      says yea and the protestant  nay relative the same matter.
charge to the effect that also according to our views the          In a word, the right of spiritual rebellion is a matter of
right to withdraw is a right guaranteed by the contract,           religiouS  liberty. It is the right to live religious and
turns out to be thoroughly false." Such would be G. m&al convictions without outside interference. Why did
Hoeksema's reply.      It is the only possible reply he            G. Hoeksema hide these things from his readers? He did
could make, and in making it, we now purpose to show,              so in order to give unto his truly vicious views a sem-
Hoeksema is jumping from the frying pan into the-fire  as          blance of  tiurh.
they are wont to say.                                                 The question  ii now in order who it is that grants
   Let us set out by directing our attention to the dis-           unto the  protes,tant  this right. Our  answer  is ready:
tinction : (a) legal or church right; and (b) spiritual            "The Lord God, to be sure." Who else? This can be
right. What, according to G. Hoeksema, is a church                 proven from Scripture. Attend to the following : "Happy
right. A church right, of course, is a right granted by            is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he
the Church. It can't very well be anything else. What,             alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat,
according to Hoeksema, is the so-called spiritual right of         because he eateth not of faith; for whatsoever is not of
rebellion? In the following statements may be found the            faith is sin" (Rom.  14:22, 23).
reply : "The Reformers claimed the right and exercised                There is a principle-imbedded in this scripture. It is
it, to reject `any and all human laws that conflicted with         this: If I cannot believe  thar my views and deeds meet
fundamental teachings of Scripture. But they claimed with the approval of God I am damned if to these views
this as the right of rebellion; a fundamental spiritual right,     I cleave, and if these deeds I continue to practice. To
transcending and superior to every human law. Ml prot- enthrone in our minds views and doctrines concerning
estants are agreed there.      We recognize no infallible which we are convinced that they are not of God, is a
Church. In  the last, analysis we will always obey God heinous sin. God -says that one doing so is damned. It


                                        T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                              231

  is His will then, that we expel such views and doctrines         Church and withdraw. Hence, we bid you do your duty,
  from our minds and heart.                                        exercise your God-given right and leave."
     The protestant, whom G. Hoeksema would penalize,                 We sense at once that the church speaking this
  is of the conviction that the doctrines of the Church            language, is granting the protestant the right to leave and
  clash with Scripture. According  ro the scripture quoted         to sever the tie for conscience' sake. The Church is then,
  above, it is the will of God that this objector renounce         in the words of G. Hoeksema, legalizing rebellion.
  these doctrines and leave the Church. To do so is not               Let us now consider the implication of the refusal of
  only his right, it is also his duty. Failing to do so, he is     a church (denomination) to recognize the protestant's
  damned. The so-called right of spiritual rebellion, so `it       right and duty. (a) Such a church is assailing God by
  appears, is the God-given right and the God-imposed refusing to heed His mandates. God says unto the prot-
  duty to sever the tie with that church or denomination           estant - the conscientious objector : "Thou shalt leave
  whose doctrines, according to our firm conviction are            the church for thy conscience' sake." The church (de-
  false.                                                           nomination)  -  classis or Synod declares unto him:
     We do not mean to say, however, that the Lord God is          "Thou shalt not leave." (b) The church that forbids  and
  necessarily sanctioning my deed done for conscience'             prohibits a protestant to withdraw for conscience' sake
  sake ; that God is assuming the responsibility for such a exhibits a willingness to work his eternal ruin.
  deed; and that I go free in the event my conscience err          God says to this one: "Leave for  conscience',,sake  or be
  and the deed, consequently is sinful. My conscience is           damned."    The church says to him: Remain and be
  fallible for the reason that I am fallible  hand I and my        damned.     (c) This church, further, is forbidding the
  conscience are one. God commands me to follow the                protestant to esercise his God-given right; to perform his
  dictates of my conscience. However, if these dictates are        God-imposed duty ; to live his moral and religious con-
  not! in agreement with truth, I sin and shall be held            victions ; to- serve God according to the dictates of his
  responsible for my sin.                                          conscience  ; to obey God more than man. This Church,
      Again, my conscience is neither fallible nor the ulti-       finally, is attempting to bind men's conscience.
  mate source of truth, but God only. He who regards his              What then must our answer be to the question
  heart as the source of truth is a rationalist, a subjectivist    whether the  Classis shall grant unto the protestant the
  in his thinking. To subject  Classis decisions to my judg-       right to sever the denominational tie? Our answer must
  ment and to act accordingly is, so G. Hoeksema avers,            be an emphatic yes. Ctid demands of the Classis that it
* subjectivism. -4 contention of this kind goes to show            grant unto the protestant this right.
  that the brother has not the slightest idea what subject-           What is G. Hoeksema's answer to the above question?
   ivism really is. If he does know, it must be that his           An emphatic no. He insists that the Classis must forbid
  church is to him the infallible church on earth.                 this conscientious objector to sever the tie with the de-
      Further, whereas not I, but God is the source of truth,      nomination. It means that G. Hoeksema is urging the
  I must receive into my soul God's truth and strive to            church to forbid the protestant to exercise his God-given
   understand it. To that degree that I succeed, to that right ; to perform his God-imposed duty ; to live his moral
  degree will my conscience utter correct speech.                  and religious convictions ; to serve God according to the
      The fact that a deed is done for conscience' sake does       dictates of his conscience; to obey God more than man.
  not necessarily mean, I said,, that the deed as  such  is in     It means that G. Hoeksema would have the church say
  agreement with the will of God. Nevertheless, God for-           to the protestant: Silence your conscience, smother your
  bids me to militate against my conscience. Doing so, I           convictions, remain in the church, submit to the decisions
   am damned. The apostle Paul tells me so. That is                of  Classis  and be damned. `It means, finally, that G.
   to say if I. persist is my sin.                                 Hoeksema would see a church work the spiritual and
      This needs some explanation. Conscience presup-              moral ruination of its protesting members rather than
   poses that I am in the possession of what, according to         have it grant unto these protestants the right to with-
   my firm conviction, are the mandates of God.            The     draw. Hoeksema (G.) would not only have the church
   conscience at work means that I am contemplating set-           forbid the protestant to live his convictions ; to serve God
   ting these mandates aside. Then God compels me to' according to the injunctions of his conscience and to
   denounce what I am contemplating doing. This is con-            obey God more than man, but he would even have the
   science. If I perform the contemplated deed I do the            church declare unto its protesting members: If you sever
  thing which, according to my firm conviction, God forbids.       the tie, if you live your convictions, if you dare to obey
   Then I commit a great sin.                                      God more than man, know well, protestant, that the
      We are now ready to face the question whether or no          church shall penalize you by depriving you' of your
   the Church may refuse to admit that God granted unto            property. In this way G. Hoeksema would frighten the
   the protestant the above mentioned right and duty.              protestant into silencing his conscience. By means of a
   Should or should not the Church say to this con-                pecuniary penalty he would discourage him living his
   scientious objector : "Whereas, according to your firm          convictions, from obeying God more than man. If this
   conviction, the doctrines of the church are false, it is        is not religious persecution, what is?
   your right and solemn duty to sever the tie with the                Who among us would dare to maintain that  Classis


      233                                         T H E   S T A N D A R D   ` B E A R E R
      -           __l__l".. ---.-.                      "- ._....._  l____-  .._..- -L  ..-......--.... ".          - _....      ---_-
      (or Synodj must forbid the protestant, according to                        scientious protestant, for conscience' sake, leave a church
      whose conviction the doctrines of the church of which he                    whose doctrines according to his firm conviction con-
      is a member are false,  to  withdraw; must penalize the                    flict with the teachings of Scripture. The Church lets
      protestant who severs the tie? Who would dare to main-                      this mandate of Christ speak through its rules. The
      tain this ?    W h o ?   G .   .Hoeksema,   P r o f .   Heyns   w h o      church, then, says to the conscientious protestant: "Thou,
      asserted that he is at one with the entire contents of                     for conscience' sake, shalt sever the tie with the Christian
._    G. Hoeksema's brochure, the faculty of the Seminary of                     Reformed Church." Saying this, G. Hoeksema's Church
      the Christian Reformed Church from whom G.  Hoek-                          is legalizing rebellion.           Thus, whereas G. Hoeksema
      sema,  according to a statement found in his brochure de- insisrs that the protestant has the Christ-given right and
      rived his principles of Church Government, Classis  Grand                  the Christ-imposed duty to rebel; and whereas he insists
      Rapids West and East of a few years ago, the Synod of                      that his church shall let the will of Christ speak through
      1926.                                                                      its rules, it follows that G.  :Hoeksema,  in his booklet
           Let us now look at this matter more from the point                    declares unto his readers: "The Christian Reformed
      of view of the protestant. May an office-bearer, when                      Church must legalize rebellion. Yer that very booklet
      signing the Formula of Subscription concede that the                       represents a mighty attempt on his part to prove that
      church can never grant him the so-called right of spirit-                  the Christian Reformed Church cannot legalize rebellion
      ual rebellion, that is the right to sever'the denominational but must forbid the protestant to rebel and penalize him
      tie for conscience' sake_ -Again  our answer is an emphatic for rebelling.  iAmazing!
      No. The office-bearer would then be giving away his                             i gain.
                                                                                      -1         in the above quotation Hoeksema (G.) most
      God-given right to withdraw from a `false church. Fur-                     emphatically asserts that the Church must let the will of
      ther, it was proxren  from scripture that it is the God-im-                Christ speak through its rules. just so. It means thar,
      posed task of the believer to withdraw from a deteriorated                 according to Hoeksema's own admission the mandates
      church. No one would dare to maintain that the of`fice-                    of the Church may not conflict with the mandates of
      bearer:  at the time of joining, must concede that the                     Christ. lf Christ says Yea, the Church must. If, on the
      church, in the event of a clash, must and may prohibit                     other hand, the church says Yea, it means that  Yfa is
      him from performing the God-imposed duty of breaking                       likewise the word of Christ. Yet G. Hoeksema main-
      with a church for conscience' sake. May we give unto                       tains that even though the protestant has the God-given
      others  rhe right to prohibit us from performing duties                    right and the God-imposed duty of rebellion? the Church.
      imposed upon  us  by the Lord God? Indeed not. To the                      nevertheless must forbid the protestant to rebel1  for con-
      contrary, it is the duty of the office-bearer to inform the                science' sake. In other words, though God says Yea, the
      church that he is signing the Formula of Subscription                      Church must say Nay. Here again G. Hoeksema is in
      with the understanding that the church ever permit him conflict with himself.
      to obey God more than men. It follows then that also                                                                              G.  M.  0.
      from -the point of view of the office-bearer who turns                                                  (To be Continued)
      protestant the right of spirirual  rebellion is a right guar-
      anteed by the contract. It cannot be otherwise.
           In tine, if the protestant insisrs.  as G. Hoeksema does,
      that he-has rhe spiritual right of rebellion, he (G. Hock-'                              ZIJN BESTAAN VERBEUZELEN
      sema) must grant that it is the duty of the church to
      legalize rebellion.  \Vhy must he grant this? For two                           God heeft de wereld  niet gemaakt en houdt haar niet
      reasons: (a) The spiritual right of rebellion is a  God-                   in stand, met het menschelijk geslacht, opdat er nu eens
      given right and a God-imposed duty; (b) The Church                         overal menschen zouden zijn, die wat eten en drinken en
      musr express in its laws the will of God.                                  spelen  en praten en lachen  zouden.
           G. Hoeksema; marvelous to say, himself admits this                        Maar Hij heeft haar gemaakt en houdt haar in stand,
      very thing. Says he: "The view we are criticizing in-                      om Zijn Raad uit te voeren en Zijn wclbehagen te doen.
      volves an unintentional but nevertheless terrible denial                       Het is vreeselijk als een mensch daarvan niet diep is
      of the Kingship of  Ch>ist.                                                doordrongen.
                                        ?Ve are all agreed that the
      one great dominating principle of Reformed Church                               Zoolang als ecn mensch daar niet mee  werkzaam
      polity is the Kingship of Jesus Christ over His Church.                    wordt, verbeuzelt hij zijn bestaan.
      (Indeed me are agreed to this. G. M. 0.). But here again                                                    -Ds.  J. C.  Sikkel  in  "Preeken"`.
      we must not be satisfied with a phrase. (Indeed not. G.
      11. 0.) We must give it real content, we must make it
      mean something, yea, everything in practical church gov-
      ernmenr. In  a  ~orcl,  we must let the  will of  Christ speak                                           LEZING
      through   the  ruks  of  the Church"  (Italics of G. Hoeksema).            te Hudsonville,  Mich., Prot. Geref.  Kerk.
      This quotation may be found on page 23 of the brochure,                        Door Ds. H. Hoeksema.
           Let us now apply the principle incorporated in the                        Onderwerp   : "DE ANTICHRIST."
      above quotation.      It is the will of Christ that the  con-                  Donderdag,  16  Februari.


