      VOLUME   xxx                            APRIL 15, 1954 --GRAND  R.&y, &~ICHIGAN                                   NUMBER  14


                                                                      is the  same, but He is not. the same. His identity has not
                                                                      changed: it is our Lord Jesus Christ Who has risen. Nizver-
                                                                      theless  He is different: His form, His mode of life, indeed,
                                                                      has undergone a glorious change. He is risen, but  He has
                       M& . . . .   R p b b o n i                    not returned. He has  gone through death and the grave.
               "Jesus saith  unto her, Mary.' She turned herself,    He  is. beyond. And so it is  `lvritten,  The first man Adam
             and saith unto him, Rabboni." John 20:16                was~made  a living soul-; the last ,Adam was qade a quicken-
     Easter's metamorphosis !                                        ing spirit.  Not  here is He, for He is risen !
     Not here, but  risen!                                               And how  marirelous  is the beautiful and intricately woven
     The gloom and darkness and despair- of Good Friday -pattern of the resurrection testimony. No eye-witness of the
 changed irito the brightness and light and joyful  Lopes of         resurrection as- such was there. It belonged to the things
 Easter !                                                            which eye cannot see. But the. silent testimony of the place
     Out of  the womb of death breaks forth into the glory. where the Lord lay in the empty tomb, together with the
 of everlasting life the Firstborn, God's Firstborn, the First-      vision of angels with their resurrection sermon, and finally,
 born according to the election of grace, as the First Begotten      the appearances of the risen.Lord, ten of which are rkcorded
 from the dead! And-He  prepares the way for the elect mul-          in the Scriptures, -these all  iorm one strong testimony of
 titude to follow ! And thus the hope of the: resuri-ection  from    the resurrection, incontrovertible and indubitable.. `Never-.
 the dead is ours !                                                  theless,   even as the  resurrectio&+tself  is an unfathomable
     The Lord is risen indeed!  -He is not here, for He  is          mystery, so, while the  .basic note of the resurrection-testi-
 risen !                                                             mony is ever the same, it is like a prism, many-sided in its
     Such is the single note bf triumph sounded on that glori-       glorious light. Especially is this clear in the various  ap-
 ous first clay of the week by,atigels,  by the mutely speaking      `pearances of the risen Lord. Essentially they were all the
 evidence.,of  the "place where the Lord lay, and, in -turn, by      same. But  they- differed as to form  a&d detail, and also as
 the witnessing disciples.  And what was the fundamental             to their specific nieaning, so that each different appearance
 note of all that took place on that resurrection-morn remains       reveals a certain aspect of our Lord's resurrection and car-
 to this day the central theme of the gospel of Jesus Christ.        ries in it a specific revelation of the gospel. To Thomas, on
Or what is it, pray,  .that renders that gospel good tidings         the eighth day, it was : Reach hither thy' hand, and thrust it
 indeed ?                                                            into my side ! But to Mary of Magdala it was : Touch me
     And always in that singular Word of the resurrection            not !
 there is a twofold testimony. ,On the one hand, there is the            And while one hesitates to choose from all the appear-
 indubitable fact of the reality of the resurrection of Jesus        ances, one might venture to say that of them all, the most
 Christ. He is not  here,  for He is risen ! That it is the very     charming and simple, and yet one of the deepest and un-
 same Jesus Who was crucified and Whose mortal body was              fathomably richest app'earances  was that first manifestation
 laid away in Joseph's tomb, and that now that same Jesus            to the loyal and grieving Mary Magdalene, whom the Lord
is no longer in the .grave,  bLLt is alive, - that, all the lying    had during His earthly sojburn liberated from -a seven-fold
and ingeniously fotilish attempts of the enemy to contradict         bond of the Evil One. First was this appearance in order of
`it, and all the persecuting efforts to silence the  testil!lony     t&e,  becauSe  it had  to  be thus. But first it was, we may
thereof, then and now, to the contrary notwithstanding, is           s&fely say, also from the point of view of its meaning. And
an unquestionable fact ! The'Lord. is risen indeed !. And on         striking. it is  that the deep and thoughtful apostle John looks
the other hand, there is the mysteriously charming  t&tilnon$        at all that took place `from the .Giewpoint  of Mary's actions.
of the' "otherness"  of the  resuiyection  of Jesus Christ.' He          How marvelous. is: the :$mpse. of the resurrected .Lord

                                                                                                         .
                                                     `,                                      \


                                                                             ~.  -.
      314                                                  THE  S T A N D A R D   BEARE.R

      we obtain in that appearance and the brief conversation that        is seine  clue. Perhaps someone, unbeknown& to the grave-
      took place !                                                        robbers, witnessed their foul deed.  At'any rate, that tomb
             Mary . . . . Rabboni!          ~~                            is all that she has left now. At least the .body of her Master
             Touch me not . . . . for I have not yet ascended.            haa  been there. And so she arrives in the garden  sh_ortly
             But I do ascend . . . . to my Father, and your Father.       after Peter and John had inspected the grave and departed:
             Go, tell my brethren.                                        The women had, of course, long since left the g&den, and
                                                      I
                                      Q  *  :::  $                        were on their way to the city with their unbelievable tidings.
             Grief-stricken Mary . . . .                                  They are destined to see the riskn cord next.
             Little  do the Scriptures tell us of her, except that she        Thus Mary is alonk at the sepulchre, her soul filled with
      was from the village of Magdala, that out of her the Lord           sorrow and inconsolable grief, her troubles increased by
      had cast seven devils, and that ever after she had followed         the anxious question concerning the body of her Master:
      H&n with the company of faithful women, who ministered                   Grief-stricken Mary !
      to His earthly, physical needs during His ministry.                     If it was true of the other women that they had all been
         The evangelist John, whose personal contact with the             attached to the Lord in His earthly appearance, and that
     risen, Lord had been- closely connected with Mary's activities       they had come to the grave with every intention of perform-
      on that eai-ly Sunday morning, relates. the whole narrative         ing a last service of l&e upon the dead body of their Master,
      solely from the viewpoint of the Magdalene; But when we             and thus were .totally  unprepared for the resurrection,. so
      take his  i-ecord  in connection with that of the other  evan-      that in their  overwhehning  grief and earthly attachment to
      gelists, we get the following picture of just how things took       the Lord  Jesus  they certainly  entertained~  no thought of a
      place on that blessed morning. Early,' while it was yet dark,       resurrection,  - and thus are witnesses of unimpeachable
     `the women, Mary among them,  had together started for               reliability,  - then this  was especially true of the Magdalene.
      Joseph's garden. They all had witnessed the crucifixion.. In a condition .of extreme misery the Lords had found her,
      Toget@r they had observed the burial prbcess. And of the and had powerfully delivered her  -fl'om the dominion of
      opinion that their beloved Master could not possibly  have- seven demons. And ever since she had been a living witness
      been properly buried in so short a time, they were  deter-          of the power of His calling, had loved him with all the power
     mined to finish the work of Joseph and Nicodemus, as is              of her soul, following Him faithfully to the very last.
      evident from the parcels of spices which they now carry, but            -But do not divorce  Ma+ from her times. The Holy
      which soon will be made to appear so utterly foolish and            Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified. And
      useless.' And so we find them on the way, anxiously wonder-         so while Jesus was, the light of her life indeed,  and  while-
      ing who would n,love.the large stone away from the sepulch-         at bottom she was vitally interested in the coming of the
     re's mouth for them to enter and bestow their loving care            kingdo&  of heaven, and no doubt drank' in every word
      upon the dead body of  .their Master.  .Cotiin& in sight of         uttered by Him, yet her knowledge and understanding were
      the tomb, however, they find their anxi.ety.  was vain : for the    simple, and certainly inco%plete.  To be sure, liberated from
      stone was already rolled aside, by heavenly harids.  The com-       the power of the devil in the most literal sense of' the word,
      pany of women continue toward the grave.                            her soul had been filled -with the power of the love of
         All, except Mary ! Impulsive, in her grief ready to              Jesus. His love had  .kindled  in her heart a warm  .love in
      imagine the worst, she had concluded that the grave was             response. But it was a love that'  ran- at that time only in
      empty, that somehow the body of the Lord hid been taken             the channels of ministering devotion. She clung to the
      away (perhaps by  .those who crucified  Hiin  ?) . And not          earthly appearance of Jesus. If only she might be with Him,
      proceeding any further, Norm for a moment doubting that her         then  nothing  else mattered. It was a love, therefore, which
      suspicions are correct, - and for that- reason not seeing the       was in sore need of the object of Jesus' earthly form.
      angels -no< hearing their wonderful message concerning the              And now that object of her love wasgone. Bad  enougil
      risen Lord, - she hastens back to the city and conveys her          it was that her Beloved was dead. But now, when His body
      erroneous report to Peter and John.  This,  is something for was all she had left, - and. certainly, she could have that
      the disciples to investigate. If the body is stolen,. then it       body to bestow her loving care upon its bnly for a little while
     twill require more than the strength of women to trace the           at best, -they had deprived her even of that. Filled with
      robbers of the grave and  get back all that is left of the          grief, well-nigh frantic in her anxiety, she is. In her speech
      Master.                                                             is the tacit assumption that it is the Lord Himself,  ndt
         Then the events follow as John records them. He  and             merely His body, that they have taken away. For she says,
      Peter run to investigate. The false report of Mary  rn$..$ I "They have taken away my Lord . .  ." The appearance of
     `the means to bring them to the sepulchre, in order thit they        the angels draws her .atten&n so little that she readily turns
      may realize that the report is indeed not correct, and b&old        about to speak with the "gardener." The wonder of -the
      the wonder oflthe  linen clothes, and see, and believe. More        linen clothes  never  attracted her wondering notice. Even
      slowly Mary Magdalene follows.  -G;ief-stricken,  she is  irr       the gardener  she, assumes to be well-acquainted with her
      resistibly drawn  to the  ton& of her Master. Perhaps there         troubles. And she never- stops to think how foolish and



L


                                                   T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                                                                     315

      improper it sounded that she would take that body back to
      the tomb.               -                                                               TH.E  S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R
          Grief-stricken Mary . . . .                                            Semi-vnovathly, except  vvumthly   during   Jz~ly  a&  August
                                                                                Published by  tie  REXJRMED   FREE   PUBLISHING   ASSOCZATION
                                    *  *  *  8                             P. 0. Box  881,. Madison Square Station, Grand Rapids 7,  Mich.
                                                                                                 Editor  -  REV.  HERM.AN   H~FXSEMA
          Mary  . . . . Rabboni!                                           Communications relative to contents showld  be addressed to Rev.
          How real is the risen Lord, when  you  listen to that            H. Hoeksema, 1139 Franklin St., S. E., Grand Rapids 7,  Mich.
      conversation against the background of Mary's grief and the          All-matters relative to subscriptions should be addressed to Mr.
                                                                           G. Pipe, 1463 Ardmore St., S. E.,  .Grand  Rapids 7, Michigan.
      fiction of a stolen body!                                            Amlouncemetis and Obituaries must be mailed to the above
          0, she did not know Him. She could not know Him.                 addiess and will be published at a fee of $1.00 f.or each notice.
      She did not recognize her living Lord when she met Him               RENEWALS:   Unless a definite request for discontinuance is re-
                                                                           ceived, it is assumed &at the su~b~scritber  wishes the subscription
      face to face. No, it was not her sorrow'which caused this            to continue without the fornzdity of a renewal ordee.
      failure: she would have surely recognized  Him at  o&e if                                    Subscription price: $4.00 per year
      He had appeared as He always had before His death. But                    Entered  as  SecomI   Clam  nzatter  at Graved   Rajids,  Michigan
      the Lord was risen: He was "other." In' the likeness of
      sinful flesh she had known Him, and now He was changed
      into His resurrection glory. But even this does not explain
      all. Evidently the Lord did not even appear in His resurrec-                                          C O N T E N T S
      tion glory, for no  Keyes  did Mary have for that glory. She     I&DITATI~~  -
      could not have seen Him. But purposely He appeared as                      Mary . : . I&bboni.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .313
                                                                                       Rev. H. C. Hoeksema
      the gardener, that she might not recognize Him at once.
      She must know Him, but must learn from the outset that           EDITORIALS -                                  -
                                                                                 Heresy and Heretics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,16
      He has changed.                                                                  Rev. H. Hoeksema
          And then : Mary !                                                     Another Assault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318
                                                                                       Rev. G. M. Ophoff
       .  -4lready  she had `turned away  from Him to give her         As To  BOOKS-
      attention to the tomb. Her recognition must not be by sight,               Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .320
      but by hear&g. Formerly indeed her fellowship with `Him                          Rev. H. Hoeksema
      was by sight. But henceforth it  will-  be the higher, more      OUR          DOCTRINE-
     glorious fellowship of the Spirit, through the Word!                        The Triple Knowledge (Part III  - Of  Tihankf;llness.)  . . . .  .321
                                                                                       Rev. H. Hoeksema
          Mary!                                                        THE  DAY  OF  SHADCGVS-
          0, you can attempt to explain if He knew her name.                     The Prophecy of &a&h.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .323
      Besides, the thrill of His voice; her Master's voice, went;                      Rev.  G. M. Ophoff
      through her. But Mary-needed no explanation.                     FROM  HOLY  WRIT-
                                                                                 Exposition of John 10:27, 28.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .324
          Mary ! Words of gentle `rebuke because she had sought                       Rev. G. Lubbers
     Him Who had power over the devil's power in a tbmb.               IN  HIS  FEAIX-
      But words, nay, one word, that conveyed instantaneously to                Walk2 F ~0&4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .326
      her heart the glad gospel of the resurrection!                                       v. . .
          Rabboni . . . . My Master! 0, there- is no question of       CONTENDING  FOR `SHE FAITH  -
                                                                                The Church  and the- Sacraments.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .328
      it. There  .is the  unmistakeable  ring of truth in the whole                    Rev. H.  Veldman
      heart-warming meeting. She knows Him at once. In a               THE  VOICE   OF  OUR   FATHERS-
      flash she turns about, ready to  embiace  `Him. Her dead                  The Canons of Dordrecht (Art. 7 cont.)  . . . . . . ._. . . . . . . . . .330
      Master has spoken her name. And she would-never mistake                          Rev. H. C. Hoeksema
      that unique "Mary !" He is indeed the Lord. But He is            CONTRIBUTION  by Rev. G. Lubbers.. . . . . . . .I.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .331
      risen !                                                          DECENCY   AND  ORDER-
          She found Him, not  becatise   .she expected and looked               Dism&sal  of Mipisters..  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .332
                                                                                      Rev.  G.-  Vanden  Berg
      for Him, but because He, the l$isen  Lord, had reached out       ALL   AROUND   Us  -
      for her and made Himself known.                                           Reply to Rev. Hofman  and Mrs. Byker.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .333
:                                        .2,,le
          Mary . . . . l$bboni !             .                                        Rev. M.  S&igper
                                                                       CONTRIBUTIO~NS  -
      .: The Lord is risen indeed !                                             Atlswer  to Rev. De Boer.. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .335
      Hallelujah !                                                                    S.D.V.
                         I                                  H.C.H.


                                                                                       ,

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

  II                                                                           It is true, of course, that in his commentary on the
                E D I T O R I A L S                                  I Heidelberg Catechism, Ursinus speaks rather freely of con-
                                                                        ditions.  ,He speaks of a conditional covenant, of a conditional
                                                                        pr&ise, of faith as a condition. Today, we regard- this as
                      Heresy and Heretics                               erroneous in the Protestant Reformed Churches and rightly
         In a very ably written article, Mr. Willis Kooienga writes     so.
  an article in  Concor&n in which he attempts to prove:                  However, although this is true of his  c&mentary,  there
 - 1. That those who condemn conditional theology, and who is not one trace of that conditional theology in the Heidelberg
  condemn the term "condition" as, recently,, the attempt was           Catechism of which he is one of the authors. There he does
  made to introduce it in our Protestant Reformed Churches,             not speak  of' a conditional covenant. The Catechism does
  must regard Ursinus, one of the "Reformed fathers" and                not speak of faith as a condition, but on the contrary, always
  co-author with Olevianus of the Heidelberg Catechism, as              refers to it as a means whereby we are ingrafted into Christ
  a heretic. 2. That the condemnation of the Rev. De Wolf               which the Holy Spirit works in our hearts. In the Catechism
  and his suspension from the ministry of the Word in the               Ursinus knows very well that the promise is unconditional,
  Protestant Refoqned  Churches was unjust and even an un-              f-or otherwise he could not have taught that redemption from
  godly act.                                                            sin by the blood of Christ and the Holy Ghost, the author
        We congratulate Mr. Kooienga for his able attempt.              of faith, is promised to little infants, who certainly cannot
  Both his style and argumentation reveals that he is an able           accept any conditions, as well as to the adults. Qu. 74. And -
  writer. Moreover, he reveals that he is a man of study: At            in his  con&entary on this question and answer, Ursinus
  least, from a certain viewpoint and with a certain purpose            shows that he knows very well that faith is not a condition
  in  mind,  he studied -rather thoroughly th_e commentary on           but- a  mea&  whereby they are ingrafted into Christ for,
  the Heidelberg Catechism written by Ursinus. These things             accoiding  to him, even little infants actually possess all the
  are commendable. I could wish that Mr. Kooienga had                   benefits of Christ by a living faith which, in them, certainly
  used his God-given talents for a better p'urpose  than to com-        cannot be a condition. And this Reformed line, and not his
  bat the Protestant Reformed truth.                                    conditional theology, runs through the whole of his work.
         But because Mr. Kooienga is, evidently.  such an able          And this certainly is true of the Heidelbei-g  Catechism.
  writer, and because his argumentation may probably deceive                   Now, would we call Ursinus, who lived in the  niiddle
  many readers ,therefore, I will try to expdse the fundalllental       of the sixteenth century, who was a Reformed ,man that er-
  fallacy of his enfire  article.                                       roneously spbke of conditions, a heretic ?
                                                                               We would not !
        I can put'the reasoning of Mr. Kooienga in the form of                 Why not ? And why do we call those- that -created schism
  syllogism as follows:                                                 in our churches with their conditional  theblogy  heretics
         1. Ursinus speaks ratlier freely of conditions.                nevertheless  ?
        2 The. Protestant Reformed Churches condemn  `condi-                   The reason is  plaih. A heretic is always one who op-
tional  theology.                                                       poses one of the fundamental tenets authorized by the church
         3. The Protestant Reformed Churches regard Ursinus             of which he  is a member. In  .other  words, he is one that
  as a heretic.                                                         opposes the official confessions of his church.
         This appears, on the face of it, very logical . Yet, it is            That could never be said of Ursinus in the sixteenth
  not at all. Though the  major  And minor premise of this              century. In fact, in those days, -although there certainly was
  syllogism are both true, the .conclusion does not follow at           Reformed faith -and doctrine, this had never been officially
  all. It reminds me of another syllogisin  of the sophists which       expressed and adopted in a ?onfes&on  of the Church. It is
  ran as followS :                                                      true that certain articles like the Sixty Seven Articles of
         1. This is your dog.                               \           Zwingli, the Ten Conclusions of Be&e, and the First  Hel-
        2. This ddg is a mother.                                        vatic Confession had been composed, but they had, at best,
         3. This dog is your mother.                                    a mere local authority. Ursinus was not bound by it. Hence,
         Instead I propose another syllogism as follows :               the worst that can be said of Ursinus commentary  is that
         1. A heretic is one who opposes one or more fundamental        it erred in the matter of conditions. But he was not a heretic.
  tenets authorized by a particular- church of which he is a                   Different this is for a person that subscribes to the Three
  member or minister.                                                   Forms of Unity, and is bound by it. Different this becomes
         2. Ursinus was never a member of the, Protestant Re-           more specifically for a person that is  mtimber of the Prot-
  formed Church' which officially declared that the promise' estant `Reformed Church that, in 1924 rejected the errors
  of God is unconditional and that faith is not a -condition.           of the "Three Points" and in 1950 and 1951 adopted the
         3. Hence, although Ursinus was in error when he spoke          Declaration of Principles.
 . so freely of conditions, he was not a heretic.                              One that teathes conditional theology opposes the Con-
         Let me explain.                                                fessions authorized by the Protestant Reformed Churches
                                     :


                                                -THE  S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                                317

 and, if he is a member or minister of those churches, is a             is exactly because they love to preach this that they are
 heretic.                                                               so fond of conditions. Only then they can maintain the
     This is the case with the Rev. De Wolf. Deliberately               responsibility of man !
 he opposed from the pulpit the Three Forms of Unity and                    Again in. I B 5 the Remonstrants teach "faith, the obe-
 the Declaration of Principles, and supported the Three                 dience of faith, holiness, godliness and perseverance are not
 Points of 1924.                                                        fruits of the unchangeable election unto glory, but are con-
     This I will make plain.                                            ditions, which, being required beforehand (prerequisites !
     As to the Three Forms of Unity did it never strike you             H.H.) were foreseen as being met by those who will be
 that, although even at that time many of the Reformed                  fully elected." As De Wolf had it, and all that support him
 fathers spoke of conditions, the term never occurs in the              teach: "Our act of conversion is a condition or prerequisite
 Confessions and, when they came face to face with the                  to enter into the, kingdom of heaven."
 Arminians they strongly condemned it ?                                     Hence, as far as assurance of election is concerned, the
     That is simply `a fact.                                            Arminians teach "that there is in this life no fruit and con-
     The positive part of the Canons of Dordrecht never speak           sciousness of the unchangeable election unto glory, nor any
 of conditions, not even in II,5 as those that want to maintain         certainty, except that which depends on a changeable and
 their conditional theology  .allege.  On the  `contrary,  they         uncertain condition." And the lovers of conditions believe
 emphasize that the application of our salvation in'time flows          and teach the same thing. All comfort for the people of God
 from and is &ought in .harmony with the election of God,               is gone. I B, 7.
 which leaves no room for conditions.                                       According- to the Arminians, perseverance is not a fruit
     But the negative part of the same Canons very definitely           of election or a gift of ,God, but a condition which man must
 condemn conditions and prerequisites unto salvation. Of this           fulfill to attain to' decisive election. V, B, 1. And in this
 I can furnish many prpofs by direct quotations.                        connection it is noteworthy that the Arminians voice the
     Thus in Canons I B2 we read of the subterfuge of the               same objections against perseverance as a fruit of God's
 Arminians according to which they like to distinguish elec-            election as the conditional theologians that attempted to lead
 tion into  "incolliplete,  revocable, non-decisive and  conditional    the Protestant Reformed Churches astray always bring
 or' complete, irrevocable, decisive and absolute." By this             against us. For in V, B, 6 they claim "that the doctrine of
 distinction they mean, of course, that God's election becomes          the certainty of perseverance and of salvazion from its own
 complete as soon as the condition  :. faith, obedience, and            character is a  cau& of indolence and is injurious' to god-
 perseverance is fulfilled. 0, the lovers of conditions say, we         liness, good morals, prayers and other holy exercises." .This
 believe in unconditional election, we only believe in con-             note is forevermore heard in the camp of our opponents. Ex
 ditions as far as the application of salvation in time is con-         ungue leonem,  from the claw you recognize the lion.
 cerned!  But this is also a mere subterfuge for the simple                Hence, I maintain that De Wolf C.S. and all that wilfully
 reason that the latter is exactly  a&&ding to' the former:             follow Him, also Mr. Willis Kooienga, are heretics because
 God has chosen us in Christ, and according to that election            they oppose the truth that was officially adopted by our
 He blesses us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly plees.          churches.
 If faith and obedience and perseverance are conditions in time            But there is more.
 they do appear as such in God's election. But all this is                 You may probably remark that other churches tliat
 literally condemned in-the Canons. Election is unconditional           call themselves Reformed subscribe to the same Three Forms.
 and therefore the application of election is unconditional.            of Unity and yet they believe in conditions.
    Again in I B 3 we read of the error df the Remonstrants                But do not forget that the Lord God Himself, in the
that God did not choose certain persons but  yather  "out of            past, so directed our way that we arc Protestant Reformed.
 all possible conditions . . . the act of faith . . . as a condition    We are pot Christian Reformed, still less are we Liberated.
 unto salvation." If faith is not a mere means but a condition          We cannot be. We do not want to be. Before God, we may
 unto salvation in time it also occurs as such in the eternal           not be.
 election of God. This our fathers condemned.                              The reason is our history. Many, perhaps also Willis
    In I B 4 the Arminians teach that "in the election unto             Kooienga, do not know that history anymore and do not
 faith'this  condition is beforehand demanded that man should           care about it. .But it is very important, nevertheless, to be
 use the light of nattire aright." Of course, one error leads to        thoroughly acquainted -with it. Why are we Protestant Re-
 another. If in the election of God man occurs as one that              formed ? Because the Christian Reformed Church in 1924
 must fulfill the condition of faith, he cannot, in the same            cast us out because we refused to subscribe to the "Three
 order of election, occur as totally depraved. It is  -for that         Points." This is not the place to discuss these Three Points
 reason that the lovers of conditions have invented the subter-         in detail. I advise Willis Kooienga to make a thorough
fuge that God alone fulfills all the conditions. They'not only          study of  them. Then he will discover that the Rev. De
 know'that thig is nonseiise  but in their actual  preaching they       Wolf in the first of his heretical sermons which he preached
 present conditions as prerequisites which man m&t fulfill. It          from the pulpit of First Church supported the First `Point


 318                                             T H E   S T A N D A R D   BEARE&

 of 1924 in its worst form. That First Point, taken in con-               lie is slander and more slander, misrepresentation and always
 nection with its proof, teaches that the- preaching of the               more misrepresentation. Just a few examples.
gospel is grace for all that hear because  it. is a wellmeant                On page 7 of the "Guardian" one may read and I quote:
 offer  df salvation, `on the part of  God,- to all the hearers.          "That'  bhgs  `me to the letter  the late Prof. Holwerda
        The Rev. De Wolf made it worse. He did not speak of               wrote to an immigrant in Canada. It is in connection .with
 a well-meant offer, nor of the preaching, of the .g&pel,  but            what the Rev.- Hoeksema chose to do with that letter, then
 he preached  "God promises every one of  you salvation, if               and  ever since, that I speak and write. The letter was private,
 you believe." In 1924 we repeatedly published the question               nevelp  i&ended fog p,ubl,iication." (Italics supplied j .
 to all the Reformed world: "What grace does the reprobate                   The statements in Italics are sheer lies. For although
 receive in the preaching of the gospel ?" Now we must ask.               the letter was naturally enough addressed to one individual
 the very pointed question:- "Does God seriously promise                  - "an immigrant" -it was intended for  the. entire group
 salvation to the reprobate  ?"                                           of Liberated that this individual represented and in behalf
        Our churches condemned this doctrine in 1924. Now De              of which he had sought the advice comlgunicated  to him in
 Wolf  C.S. proclaim it again. Therefore, they are heretics.              that letter. Allow me to prove this by quoting from  Hol-
        Finally, our churches officially adopted the Declaration          werda's letter. He writes,: "En laat men dan  als  vvijge-
 of Principles. In that Declaration they emphatically declare             maakten   vboral `t contact met onze  kerken in Holland  be-
 that the Reformed Confessions maintain that the promise of               waren  . .  ." And further :- `rOnxe  vrijgemaakten  zouden zeer
 God is unconditional and for the elect alone ; and that faith            vruchtbaar werk  doen, als ze in de Prot. Ref. Church werkten _
 is not a condition but a means of God unto salvation.                    aan wegneming van misverstand en aan verdieping van in-
        Very deliberately, I am convinced, the Rev.  ?e Wolf              zicht." In translation this reads: "And let -them then as
 contradicted this Declaration when he preached in two dif-               Liberated  by all means preserve their contact with our
 ferent sermons which were bad throughout:                                churches in Holland," and: "0~ Liberated could do fruit-
        "God promises to every one of you that, if you, believe,. ful work, if they worked for the removal of misunderstanding
 you shall be saved."                                                     and deepening of insight."
  And "Our act of conversion is a prerequisite to enter into                 This proves, certainly, that the letter was written with
 the kingdom of heaven."                                                  t&e intention that its content be published to all the Liberated
        The conclusion, therefore, is :                                   in the vicinity of  Chatham.  It is "our Libearted" that H~&,x;~
        1. That Ursinus is not regarded by us as a heretic for            werda was advising and not simply a lone immigrant. That            '
 the simple reason that he did not oppose any particular                  this. is so, follows also frbm the very nature of the advice.
 doctrine authorized by the church of which he was a memb&.               Certainly the letter of Holwerda was public and not private,
 If Ursinus lived in our day and was a member of the                      personal as to its character. Now this must have been just
 Protestant Reformed Church, he would be taken to task                    as discernable to DeBoer.
 for his `erroneous expressions and if  he refused to retract                 Besides, the letter contains also these lines, and I quote,
 them, would be considered a heretic.                                     ,,Als er binding aan Hoeksema's opvatting bestond, zou ik
        2. That De Wolf  C.S. are heretics  be&&e:                        zeggen  : nooit aansluiten. Nu geloof ik echter  dat aansluiting
        a. They oppose the doctrine of the Pr.otestant  Reformed          roeping  is." Let me translate this : "If Hoeksema's con-
 Churches as contained in the Three Forms of Unity.                       ception is binding, I would say  ; never join. But now I
        b. They support the Three Points of 1924 condemned                believe, however, that- joining is calling." And also this
 by our churches.                                                         statemeni , ,,En  o6k  onze  lectuur daar doorgeven," that is,
        c. They contradict  the. Declaration of Principles, officially    "distribute our literature there." In other words, if  Hoek-
 adopted by the Protestant Reformed Churches.                             sema's conception is not binding, j&n them, doing so with
        And if Willis Kooienga still calls  fhe suspension of De          the aim to propagate our literature there. But that must
 Wolf an ungodly act, this can only be because he himself                 be done under-cover. Don't tell them'by  all means what you're
 does not understand and love the Protestant Reformed                     up to. Tell them that you're Protestant Reformed, but in the
 truth.                                                      H . H .      quiet make converts for our views. And when you present
                                                                          your children for baptism, you will be asked if you acknow-
                          Another assault                                 ledge the doctrine which  ;s contained in the Old and  N$w
        The above caption has refei-ence  to the writing of P. De         Testament, and in the Articles of our Christian faith, and
 Boer that he had printed in "The Reformed Guardian" for                  which is taught here in this Christian church, to be the true
 March 10, 1954. The purpose also of this writing is to                   and perfect doctrine of salvation." Answer yes, though your
 destroy Rev. H. Hoeksema. This is proved by the thesis                   heart says no. (The expression, "this Christian church" has
 of  the author, which is that Hoeksema is broken in body                 reference to the local congregation).
 and mind and must therefore be repudiated  (p.  6 of "Thi                    This is what Holwerda's advice amounted to, seeing that
 Guardian"). It is proved by the fact that all that the                   it was  also'  hi: stand that his letter was private, personal,
 author produces  .tq substantiate this atrocious and ridiculous          which can only mean, judging from the content of the letter.


                                                                                   ,


                                                   T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                              319

       that he did not mean it for the Protestant Reformed, but            the Standard Bearer: How then could he write as he did?
       only for the Liberated, yes, and from the nature of matters.        What did he hope to achieve ?
       for all the Liberated in Canada and the, United States. (The             Though -Rev. Hoeksema did not accuse Kok and De Jong,
       letter was certainly public).                                       he did ask them to say whether they had made the statements
           What then must we think of Holwerda's advice in the             ascribed to them by Holwerda in his letter ,or whether he
       point of view of Christian  ethics~?  It is not good. It is         had put these statements in their mouth. Both Kok and
      terrible: For supposing that  it. had been true that our             DeJong refused to make reply, giving as their reason that
       distinctively Protestant Reformed truth (Hoeksema's  doc-           a man is' innocent until proved- guilty, as if anyone was
       trine) was not binding, this would not have meant that it           accusing them and exhonorating Holwerda. Such, of course,
       might not be preached certainly. It might still be preached         was not the case.
       and was actually being preached in every congregation whose              But though they refused to say whether they had made
       minister was truly Protestant Reformed.                             the statements attributed to them by Holwerda in his letter,
          Yet DeBoer silently passed by Holwerda's corruption              DeJong nevertheless went trotting to the consistory  of Fuller
       to assail, Hoeksema by a language that reads, and I quote,          Ave. (it had extended to him a call to become our missionary
       "What right please does anyone have on the basis of a               minister) with a mass of telegrams and letters from the
       privately written letter to rush into print with implied            Liberated in the Netherlands testifying how well Kok and
       charges against men in regular and good standing, without           DeJong-had  performed in their midst as  Protestant  Reformed
       even seeing the men themselves first, without any attempt           ministers. -In their sermonizing they had hewn to the line of
       to hear the men involved ? By publishing that letter the Rev. Protestant Reformed doctrine. Statements to that effect, I
       Hoeksema as  editor-inchief made himself  -guilty  of a serious     was told. But it stands to reason that as far as the matter
                                                                           _
       breach of Christian ethics;"                                        of Holwerda's letter was concerned, the worth of this mass
          But let us consider the facts.                                   of testimony was precisely zero. For it was not of a kind that
          Fivrst.   Holwerda's letter was not private but public. We       was needed to clear up the matter of-Holwerda's  letter. That
       need say no more about tbz?:s.                                      required an answer to Hoeksema's question, and then an
          Second. It was not Hoeksema but it was I  (Ophoff) answer, of course,. from the only three persons - Kok, De-
       who rushed into print  with.Holwerda's  letter (see Standard  Jsng,   Holwerda-   qualified   from   the  nature  of  math-s   to
      `Bearer Vol. 25, p, 469). With this Hoeksema had absolutely          give answer.  Butt that answer was not given. It was not
       nothing to do. Not only that, but-he had previously advised         given by DeJong on that consistory meeting.
       against it, telling me to wait with publishing the letter until.         Consequently, the matter of Holwerda's letter was not
       the Revs. De Jong and Kok had returned and had been                 cleared up on that meeting.' It was still a question (and is
       asked to accompany the publication .of it by a statement of         still a question today) whether Kok and DeJong made the
      .their own. But I went ahead and published the letter  any-          statements attributed to them by Holwerda  - sold our
       way, solely on my own hook without telling Hoeksema. The            churches down the river-or whether  *Holwerda  had put
       first he knew about it as when he saw the letter as published       those statements in their mouth, and was thus the guilty
       by me in the Standard Bearer.                                       party in this case.  -:
          DeB.oer  knew this. He read it in the Standard Bearer,                Kok and De Jong deny that they sold our churches down
       where all is recorded. Why then did- he not rail at me ? the river, but they refuse to say that they did not make the
       Why blame Hoeksema ?                                                statements attributed to them by Holwerda. It means that
          -Uzit-d.  Rev. Hoeksema did hear  Kok on the matter of           they put themselves ,in the clear but without incriminating
       Holwerda's letter, -if I am not mistaken the day after he had Holwerda,-  that thus they cover up either his guilt or by a
       returned home from the Netherlands.  And it was not until lie of their own.
      four weeks thereafter, and to prevent all further casting. of             Now these are the `facts-known to DeBoer as well as to
      suspicion, upon the accuracy of the letter, that Rev. Hoekse--       anyone. How can anyone knowing the facts -knowing how
      ma placed a photostatic copy of, it in the Standard, Bearer.         the matter of Holwerda's letter was handled by Kok and
       (Vol. 25, p.  51~5).  But this did not make him guilty of           DeJong, by the Liberated in the Netherlands, by Holwerda,
      publishing the letter. That had been done by me four weeks           by the consistory of Fuller Ave., and knowing the worthless-
      previous.                                                            ness of that mass of testimony, and knowing, too, the content
          Fozwtlz.   Hoeksema's comment in the Standard Bearer             of Holwerda's letter-help but have the .strongest suspicion
      contained no charges either direct or implied. But we do             that Kok and DeJong are indeed guilty of `having sold our
      find in it this statement, "I can. hardly believe that they          churches down the river there in the Netherlands ? Of course
      actually, said these things." This from Hoeksema. See                not. If DeBoer would engage in some earnest self-examina-
       Standard Bearer,. vol. 25, p. 518. Nor did I charge or              tion, he would discover that there is as much suspicion pre-
      accuse them. See Staridayd   Bearer-  Vol.  25, p. 469-473, and      sent in his own heart, as there is in the heart of any of us.
      .especially  p. 522.                                                      Yet to De Boer it is "amazing," to use his own language,
        Now these. are the facts, well known to DeBoer from                "that any one can believe that the Revs. DeJong and Kok

I.                            --


  320 .                                       T H E   STA.NDARD   B E A R E R   - -

  `sold our churches down the  river' on their trip. to the           this. I have need of dealing with it in the next issue of
  Netherlands, when the brethren deny the charges."' "Were            our Paper                                                   G.M.O.
  there not," he asks, "a host of letters and telegrams from                                     -m
  competent witnesses in the Netherlands refuting the- accusa-
  tion ?" "Does Rev. Hoeksema,`.' .he goes~ on to say, "believe
  that I will take his  .word  for it over against all that over-                    'AS TO  BOOKii  '.  -.
                                                                               .'
 .whehning testimony ?" (Hoeksema is not asking him. to take
  his. word for anything)    .~                                           Covtzmentary  ok  the  Prophecies  of  Isaiah   by Joseph Ad-
     Overwhelming-' testimony indeed ! i.e., testimony over-          dison Alexander; published by the Zondervan Publishing .
  whelmingly  worthless.. Yet, however worthless, DeBoer be- House, Grand Rapids,  M&h.  Price $8.95.
  lieves  Kok and DeJong.  to be innocent in the face of it. (A          This -is a commentary after -my  own heart. Zondervan is
  miraculous faith, I would  say).. In DeBoer's eyes not Kok to be congratulated for reprinting and offering to the public
  and De Jong are the culprits but Hoeksema is  .the culprit.         books of this nature dating from the preceding century. They
  And he hurls many tiharges.  against Hoeksema, also in con;         certainly are to be preferred to much that is published today.
  nection with the case of Holwerda's letter (Guardian p. 6-S))          As to this commentary on `Isaiah I just want to .make a
  none of which he can- support-with as much as an atom of            few remarks to recommend it  to- our readers. In the first
 proof. (Let him try it  j  . For example the charge that place, it is thoroughly scholarly and throughout based on
 Hoeksema at the time was accusing  Kok and  .DeJong, slan- the Hebrew text, which nevertheless does not mean that
  dering them, employing the methods of Hitler and Stalin             I cannot recommend it to the general public, for the language
 against them etc. Let him try to prove these  ,charges.  He          is very clear. ,. In the second place, it is, on the whole, both
- cannot. For all that Hoeksema did was to ask Kdk and De-            doctrinally and  exetically  sound. Exetically it is characterized
 Jong to  walklwith  the-matter of the letter in the light. But       by honest dealing with the text. In the third place, the
 they chose to-walk with it in darkness. For they had a sinful        authors consistently maintains the unity of the whole of the _
 end in `view, which was to conceal somebody's  guilt:-               book of Isaiah as well as the unity of the second part, I&.
 somebody's, either theirs' or  Holwerda!s. And though  De-           40-66.  This over against much of modern criticism. And
, Boer knows all this, he passes it silently by to rail at Hoek- 1 finally, the author finds much less reference .to the return
 sema, whose only fault ( 7) was that he wanted the matter. from Babylon in the second part of these prophecies. than is
 cleared up,in the only way in which it could possibly be clear-      commonly alleged. In this I am inclined to agree with him.
 ed up, the only way that was honest and right, the way of               A very beautiful and thorough commentary. Heartily
 answering  Hoeksema's question, -a question that was in              recommended:                                                      H.H.
 everybody's heart, but that many did not want answered, in                                      -=-k-
 that they wanted Kok and DeJong innocent however guilty
 they might be.                                                              W H E N   I N   T H E   N I G H T   I   M E D I T A T E
     DeBoer remarks in passing (Guardian p.' 7) that, to use                         When in the night I meditate
 his own words, "the accusers `never made a-legal  case of it                          On mercies multiplied,
 against either of the men  Kok and  -DeJong."  I remark, of                         My grateful heart inspires my tongue
 course not. But' what this proves and proves conclusively                             To bless the. Lord, my Guide.
 is that nobody was accusing them. How could anybody                                 Forever in my thought the Lord
 accuse them; if neither Kok nor DeJong nor Hqlwerda con-                              Before my face shall stand ;
 sented to shed the needed light -on  Holwerda's letter, say                         Sedure, unmoved, I shall remain,
 who was the guilty party in` this case, they or  Holwerda?                            With Him at my right hand.
 All that anybody could do is to give expression to his `strong  '                   My inmost being thrills with joy
 suspicions.                                                                           And -gladness fills  my- breast  ;
     I would like to expose all of  DeBoer's  lies. But this.                        Because on Him my trust is stayed,
 would take up all the room in the Standard Bearer;                                    My flesh in hope shall rest.
     I shall deal with just one more of DeBoers'  atrocious lies
 to. show how he operates in his attempt to assassinate Hoek-                        `I know'that I shall not be left
 sema's character -(for what reason he knows best). He writes                          Forgotten in the grave,
 and  `I quote, "Did he (Hoeksema) not talk and write and                            And from corruption, Thou, 0 Lord,
preach  split,. when he ought to have called for unity, under:                         Thy Holy One wilt save;
 standing, and calm discussion ?" (Guardian p. 4). In a                              The path of life Thou showest me ;
 word, according to De Boer, Hoeksema  wanted.a split and so                           Of joy ~a boundless store
 he talked, wrote and preached split until he finally got his                        Is ever `found at Thy right hand,
 way.                                                                                  And pleasures evermore.
     It is hard- to `conceive of a slander that is. worse than                                                                    Psalm  16.

                       :


                                                       T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                                 321

II                                                                               his own nature, because "for Adam there was not found an.
                   O U R   D O C T R I N E                                    I help meet for him." The animals the Lord God had created
                                                                                 male and female, individually. But in distinction from the
                                                                                 animal, God created the man alone. And it is evident that
                     `THE TRIPLE KNOWLEDGE                                       from the contemplation of the animals which he named, Adam
             AN  EXPOSITION  OF  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM                      became conscious of a longing for a help that would be meet
                       P                                                         for him. Thereupon we read: f'And the Lord God caused a
                            ART  III  -  OF  THANKFULNESS                        deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one
                                  LORD'S  DAY 41                                 of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the
                                     Chapter 1  -                                rib,% which the Lord- God had taken from man, made he a
                      The Covenant of Marriage (cont.)                           woman, and brought her unto the man." The woman, there-
            This is evidently the meaning in I Corinthians 7 : 2 : "To           fore, was created out of the very substance of Adam's nature.
        avoid fornication let every man have his own wife, and let               And this fact is immediately interpreted by Adam in the
        every woman have her own husband." The Hebrew word                       state of righteousness, still standing in the light of the true
        that is translated by "fornication" or "to fornicate" seems to           knowledge of God, and therefore being able to understand
        denote chiefly "to play the whore or the harlot," and it refers          the works of God, in the words: "This is now bone of my
        therefore usually to a female, whether married (in which                 bones, and flesh of my flesh  ; she shall be called Woman,
        case it is the same as adultery) or unmarried. In the New               because she was taken out of Man." The name "woman," in
        Testament, however, the word  fosnication  is also used for the         the Hebrew  `isshajz,  means fe-male, she-man ,the female
        sin of adultery committed by one or both of the persons that            complement of the man. And Moses Ihimself interprets this
        are united in wedlock. Thus it is in Matt. 5  :32:  "Whoso              creation of ,the woman as meaning : "Therefore shall a man
        ever putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornica-            leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his
        tion, causeth her to commit adultery." It is even used in               wife: and they shall be one flesh." Because man and woman
      Scripture for the sin of incest, I Cor. 5  :l : "It is reported           are not two, but one in their origin, therefore the marriage
        commonly that there is fornication among  you,  and such for-           relationship supercedes every other relationship among men.
        nication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that            The fact that the woman was taken out of man indicates that
        one should have his father's wife." That both terms,  adultery          there is. a union and communion of being between the one
        and for&cation, are employed figuratively for the sin of idol-          man and the one woman that is entirely unique, and that is far
        atry is well-known.                                                     more intimate even than the relation of parents and children
           The Catechism, therefore, is quite correct when in treat-            or the relation of brothers and sisters. Thus, the marriage
        ing the seventh commandment it does not take its standpoint             relation was instituted by God in the state of righteousness
        on the basis of the marriage relation, but immediately broad-           in the first paradise. And therefore ,it is certainly not Scrip-
        ens out and emphasizes that this commandment forbids all                tural to maintain that the state of celibacy must be preferred
        uncleanness as accursed of God and that it demands that we              to that of matrimony. This too is plainly indicated, in the
        must detest this uncleanness and live chastely and temperate-           close of the passage which we quoted: "And they were both
        ly, whether in holy wedlock or in single life. Nevertheless,            naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." No
        as the term adztltel-y  refers to the sin of sexual intercourse by      evil lusts of the flesh corrupted the original relation between
        one or both parties that live in holy wedlock with a third              Adam and Eve.
        party or parties, it literally refers to the marriage bond. And             Secondly, to understand the Scriptural significance of the
        of that marriage bond we must speak first of all, when treat-           marriage relation, we must also note that according to the
        ing the seventh commandment.                                            Bible marriage is a reflection, and earthly picture, of the
           When we consult Scripture concerning the significance                covenant of God with His people. That this is true is evident
       and the character of the marriage relation, we naturally first           from many passages of Holy Writ. The Old Testament
        of all turn to the institution of marriage as related in Gen.           speaks everywhere of the relation between Jehovah and Is-
       2 :18-25.  This, passage is introduced by the statement of the           rael as being a marriage relation. And the violation of the
        Lord God Himself: "It is not good that the man should be                covenant on the part of Israel is characterized as adultery.
       alone; I will make him an help meet for him." This is fol-               When Israel departs from Jehovah, and turns to serve other
       `lowed by an account of Adam's naming the animals, which                 gods, her sin is characterized as a whoring after a third
       the, Lord Himself brought to him, "to see what he would                  party, where there is no third party possible. Thus we read
       call them : and whatsoever Adam called every living creature,            in Jeremiah 3 :l : "They say, If a man put away his wife, and
       that was the name. thereof." And Adam gave names to all. she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return
       the cattle, the fowl, and the beasts on the field. This, of              unto her again ? shall not that land be greatly polluted? But
       course, presupposes that he had immediate and intuitive                  thou hast played the harlot with many lovers  ; yet return
       knowledge of their nature. And while Adam thus contem-                   again to me, saith the Lord." Of the same violation of the
       plated the livin,m creature, he became conscious of a lack in            covenant relation between Jehovah and Israel and of the


322                                        T - H E   S T A N D A R D .   B E A R E R

spiritual adultery on the part of the latter we read in Ezek.      it to himself a glorious church,,not-  having spot, or wrinkle,
16 :15 : "But thou-didst trust in thine own beauty, and play-      or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without
edst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy        blemish." Hence, men ought -to lqve their own wives even
fornications on every .one that passed by ; his it was." The       as they love their own bodies, and. even as the Lord loved
whole chapter is based upon the idea ,that the relation be-        the church: "For we are members of his body, of his flesh,
tween Jehovah and Israel is the relation of a covenant of          and of his bones." And it is in connection with this admoni-
marriage, and that `therefore the departure from Jehovah's         tion to husbands to love their own wives as Christ loved His
ways is fornication and adultery. To quote just one more           church that the apostle quotes from Gen. 2  :24:  "For this
passage from this same chapter: "Wherefore, 0 harlot, hear         ,cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall
the word of the Lord : Thus saith the Lord God : Because thy       be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh."
filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered            Nevertheless, all this instruction .of the apostle concerning
through thy  whoredoms  with thy lovers, and with all the          the relation of marriage between man and wife, and the
idols of thy abominations, and by the blood of. thy children,      admonition, that men should love their own wives even as
which thou didst give unto them ; Behold, therefore I will         they love their own bodies, and even as Christ loved the
gather all thy lovers, with whom thou hast taken pleasure,         church, is essentially applicable only to the relation of
and all them that thou hast loved, with all them that thou         Christ and His church. For the apostle concludes in verse
hast hated; I will even gather them round about against thee,      32 : "This is a great mystery : but I speak concerning Christ
and will discover thy nakedness unto them, that they may           and the church." In other words, the original creation of
see all thy nakedness." Consider also the allegory of Aholah       the woman from the man and the subsequent marriage re-
and Aholibah in chapter 23 of this same prophecy, based            lation between man and his wife is essentially realized in the
upon the same fundamental conception that the relation be-         relation of Christ to His bride. In the church, therefore, the
tween Jehovah and Israel is the relation of a covenant of          marriage relation is and ought to be a reflection of the
marriage. Or consider the first two chapters of the prophecy       relation between the true bridegroom and' His bride, Christ
of  Hosea, based upon the same fundamental conception,             and the church.
which are concluded. by the beautiful promise : "And I will           We may, therefore,, define the earthly marriage- relation
betroth thee unto me forever; yea, I will betroth thee unto        as the union between one man and one woman for life, a
me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness,       union' that is based on a communion of nature, on a com-
and in mercies. I will betroth thee unto me in faithfulness:       munion of life, and a communion of love, which is a. reflec-
and thou shalt know the Lord." These passages could be             tion of the covenant relation between God and His people
multiplied, but they are sufficient to prove that the marriage     and of the relation between Christ and His church ; a union
relation between man and wife was instituted `by God to be         moreover, that has its chief purpose in bringing forth the
a reflection of the covenant relation between God and His          seed of the covenant. .
people. It is not so that the real marriage is between man            Marriage is an indissoluble bond, we say, between two
and wife here on earth, and that Scripture speaks figuratively     individuals, a man and: a woman, that is based upon a com-
of the relation between `God and His people as a marriage          munion of nature, of life, and of love. This may be deduced
relation, but just the other way. The real marriage is be-         from the first institution of marriage, and from the creation
tween God and His people, and of that the marriage between         of the woman  .out of the man.  LMan and wife are not two
man and wife upon earth is simply a. creative picture, an          equal parties, but `they constitute one whole. The woman
earthly image, of a heavenly reality.                              complements the man: without the woman the man is not
       Thirdly, and in close connection with the immediately       complete. Nor is the woman  witho.& the man complete.
preceding, we must call attention to. the truth that also the      It is a mistake to maintam  that the man and the woman are
relation between Christ and His church is pictured in the          equal.  bn the Contrary, they are entirely unequal physically,
Scripures  as a marriage relation. We must remember that           psychologically, and spiritually. Yet, on the other hand, they
the covenant relation between God and His people is realized       are not so unequal that they can never be brought together.
in and through Jesus Christ, the incarnated Word; Imman-           But on the contrary, their inequality is such. that the one
uel. In Christ the covenant is established forever. And for        demands the other, so that when they are joined together in
that reason, the relation between Christ and the church is         the marriage bond, they completely fill and complement each
that of the bridegroom and the bride.- The apostle Paul calls      other. The marriage bond is a union that' is based upon a
               .
special attention to that fact in Eph. 5  :28-32.  In this pas-    communion of nature. Hence, it is also a communion- of
sage he speaks, as it were, in one breath of the marriage          life. In the marriage bond husband and wife live together
relation between man and wife and of the relation between          in the closest  imaginabre  comumnion, not only physically
Christ and  the_ church. He enjoins husbands to love their         and sexually, but - also mentally and spiritually. They live
own wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave           one life together, and on the basis of that communion of
Himself for it, "that he might sanctify and cleanse it with        life the marriage bond functions in the communion of love.
the washing- of water by the world, That he might present,                                                                  H.H.


                                                                                ~.
                        :
                                                THE.ST.ANDARD-,BEARER                                                                     323

                                                                             Zion, and utter His voice from Jerusalem." His face (name)
  11  THE DAY OF  SHADOlXk   11 burns with indignation, and its burden is heavy, laden, as
  &---                                                                 11    it is, with calamity. His lips are full of anger, -replete with
                                                                             words of wrath, that. as uttered, devour His enemies. For
                  The Pr&hecy o'f' Isaiah                                    He is the living God ; to the power. of His word there is no
  God's  people  sanctified and  saved. Chapter  XXX.%%%                     limit. `And so His tongue consumes like a fire, and His
                                                                             breath, like an overflowing brook,' divides the man-the
     .And though the Lord will give the bread of adversity and,              total of nations engulfed.- into two unequal halves, only the
  water of oppression, yet their teachers shall not be removed.              smaller portion- the neck and the head - appearing above
  and set in a corner, be repudiated and set aside as in the                 the stream (vss.  2.7,  28). This revelation of wrath through
 past. -But they'shall be before their very eyes (vs. 20). And               calamity sifts the nations like a seive, called "seive of empti-
  when they  t&n to the rjght  or to the left, deliberate as to              ness" in the text, because all fall through it. But the nations
  the direction in which the path of rectitude leads in life's               do not repent. But this is of the. Lord. For a bridle is put
  trans&tions,  there shall be a: voice behind them saying, This             in the jaw of the people, i.e., what is known of God through
  is the way, walk therein. And they shall hear with their                   His visitations  - His power and divinity- is manifest in
  ears, take to heart  the iristruction of the voice (vs.  _ 21).            them  ; the plagdes  are laid  upon~  their heart, and His com-
  They shall defile the draperies of the images of- their silver,            mand that they turn from their abominations and desist from
  hit&-to  held sacred;and all the vestments of their images of              assailing His people is in them. But sin, on this account, is
 , gold: They shall cast them away as  men&ruous  cloth-  in                 not restrained in them. On the contrary, the bridle causes
  their loathing of them. Away with you, they shall say (vs.                 them to err. They rebel more and more as Pharaoh of
  22).                                                         .-            old. For the Lord hardens their heart. For it is His pur-
     In token of His delight in-them, the Lord will give rain                pose to destroy them. (vs. 28b).
  in the season of sowing  and an abundance of bread of the                     Seeing the salvation of the Lord, His redeemed people
  finest quality, and their cattle shall feed in spacious pastiu-es,         shall have a song in the- night  and a holy assembly as in the
 `and their  osen and young asses that till the ground shall                 night of Israel's departure from the land of. Egypt when
  cat fodder salted and winnowed and therefore .clean (vss.                  the pascallamb was eaten amid sacred soligs as the destroy-
  23, 24 j . Springs of water shall gush forth in the mountains              ing angel  smott: Israel's firstborn. With gladness of heart they
  in that  `day of the  .g;eat  slaughter and the falling of the             shall come to the mountain of the Lord - Zion - come they
  towers (vs. 25).                                                           shall to the rock of Israel (vs. 29).
     This is a description of  the ideal state that  will prevail               And the  Lol;d shall cause the glory of His voice to be
  in the heavenly kingdo&  of the glorified -Christ, reigning in             heard and reveal the letting down of His arm-the stretch-
  the Jerusalem that is above, when every violence  that:                    ing forth of it, i.e., manifest the indignation of His anger -
  exalts itself against God and  ,His people -shall have been                His arm - through flame of devouring fire, sczittering,.  storm
  destroyed. The description is under earthly images supplied                and hailstones (vs. 30).
- by  `the circumstances of this present time. As the sequel                    The source of these means of judgment-of the hail,
  reveals, the prophecy of the  falling of the towers (vs. 25)               storm, fire,  pestil6nce'  etc. -is the Lord, His creative will,
looks to the overthrow of Assyria as  the posse&or of the                    and accordingly His tongue, lips, breath, arm, anger, wrath
  worldpower at that time and to the passing away of the                     etc. so that the text can speak of the fire of His tongue and
  w6rld  at the appearing of Christ at'the end of time. In that              of His breath as an overflowing brook of calamity.
  day, when the Lord will  mend the breach of His people-                       Through the Lord's voice the Assyrian-the type of the
 reconcile them to Himself throu&  Christ's cross - the-moon                 world-power of all the ages that were still to come - shall
will shine with the brilliancy of the sun-  and the light of the             be confounded. He shall be smitten with the rod of the
  sun shall be sevenfold (vs. 26).                                           Lord (vs. 31). And in every place where this rod of doom
    It  `is plain again  frtiln this -verse that also -the reach of          shall pass as made to rest -upon the Assyrian it will be with
  this prophecy extends to the eid of time, and that its final               tabrets and harps, i.e., amidst  the song and music of in-
  fulfilment  is the appearance of Christ at the end of time.                struments of music on the part of the Lo&l's people. And in
     The fzdgments  of God over the nations and over Assyria                 battles of shaking (of the Lord's outstretched arm) will He
  as the type and representative of the whole. Chapter XXX:                  fight against the enemies of His church until they be de-
  27-33.                                                                     stroyed (vs. 32).
     In his vision the prophet beholds the name of the Lord                     For Hell-  Tropket   in the text-has been ordained  of_
  -  na&e,  i.e., the manifestation of His attributes here in judg-          old and prepared for the king (-of Assyria) ; it is deep and
  ment over the nations-coming from afar off, i.e., from                     large.  A great pile of  wobd is  afire there. And the breath
  Jerusalem, Heaven, The  .same idea -receives  ex@-ession  in               of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, kindled it (vs. 33).
  Amos 2 :l, where  it is stated that `i,The Lord will roar-from                                                                     G.M.O.

                                                       _                              /


                                                                                 _.





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

                                                                                             boldly in every church-paper, and resound from every pulpit
                            F R O M   HOLY~WRIT                                              in every land. Let- it `be proclaimed with great boldness, and
                                                                                       11    may all the saints implore the Lord that the true preachers
                                                                                             of the Word speak this truth boldly as they ought to speak.
                             E&position of John 10:27,  28                                   Let it be the seasoning salt that gives grace to the hearers,
                        In our former essay  eon John 10 we have noticed  thati              and the word that tells the unbelievers that the Mysteries
                 Jesus is indeed the good Shepherd, Who lays down His                        of the ICingdom.are  not understood by them..
           life for the sheep. He is  .not an hireling, whose own the                            But let yevery  one also understand that when he has said,
                 sheep are not and who careth not for the sheep, but He is                   that the "J-ews"  feel that their soul is kept in suspense, that         _
                 the Shepherd who has received these sheep from the hand                     this is due, to their unbelief that he has not yet spoken the
            `of His Father in electing love and tender mercy ; God gave                      whole truth. If the preacher says nothing more than that
                 Him these Sheep, in order that He might save them to the                    it is due to unbelief, he has said nothing more than, and
                 uttermost, and raise them up in the last day !                              has tacitly agreed with the Remonstrant, who alleges ."that
                    We also noticed that Jesus. receives the "sanction" of the               the will of God to save those who would believe and would
          Father, His approval upon the Shepherds `labors. Says                              persevere in faith and in the obedience of faith, is the whole
                 Jesus : "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay                    and entire decree of election unto salvation, and that nothing
                 down my life that I might take it again." God loves the Son                 else concerning this decree has been revealed in God's word.,'
                 because this Son will .die on the Cross, and-.powerfully  reveal            And such -a preacher is guilty of "deceiving the `simple and
                 Himself to be the Son of God in His resurrection through                    plainly contradicting the Scriptures,. which declare that. God \
                 the Spirit of Sanctification. Christ must merit the Father's will not only save those who will. believe, but that He has
                 love as the Mediator both for Himself and for all His own.                  also. from eternity chosen certain particular persons to whom
                 He is under the law of works, that' rule which says : the                   above others he in time will grant both faith in Christ and
                 man that doeth the same shall live thereby !~ Therefore He                  perseverance, as it is written : `I manif,ested  Thy Name unto
                 is so certain that the Father  h<areth Him always, because                  the men whom Thou gavest Me out of the world . . . .  ."            '
                 always He is so perfectly fulfilling the will of God in saving              Rejection of Errors, Canons I, B. 1.
                 His sheep by fulfilling the just demands of the law. He be-                    The deeper and more determining questions is : z&ty did
                 came a curse, a malediction, in order that we might be bles:                not these "Jews" believe ? Jesus gives the answer here in
          sed forever.                                                                       our text : But ye believe not because ye are not of My sheep !
                    `That is the glad-tidings of the Gospel.                                 Verse 26. We must never say that these men were not
                    Thus we saw in our essay on this tenth Chapter of the                    God's sheep because they believed not. That is a plain con-
                 Gospel of John.                                                             tradicting of the Scriptures, it is a refusing to bow before
                    In this article we  would call  yours  attention to this  same. the Word of Jesus. It is hostile rebellion. This is the
           work of Christ on the Cross and in the resurrection and as-                       imagination of man that must be cast down, it is a stronghold
                 tension,  `as Christ perfects that Work in us, so that we will              of Satan that must be overthrown in the Name and might
          ~ not perish  unto, eternity. No one can pluck  us: out of the                     of God, and thus all thoughts must be subjected to this
                 hand and power of the Shepherd, Christ, in Whom we are                      word of Christ.
                 in the hand of the Mighty God,, the Everlasting Father, the                    In the childlike obedience to Christ, and the hearing of
                 Prince of peace ! For Christ says :.I and the Father are one.               faith  we' say : 1. One who does not "hear the voice of the
            "       These verses 27 and 2s of John i0 read as follows: "My                   Shepherd" does not hear this because he is deaf. 2. And
                 sheep hear wzy voice,  I know thent  .and they follow  ?Ne: and             everyone that is deaf to the Shepherd's voice is such because
                 I give unto them eternal I+; and  they shall never peri.&,                  he is not one of His sheep, given to Him by the Father
                 and no ooze. shall match them out of 9my hand."                             in electing love.
     *              To -understand these words of Jesus we must keep in                         This truth gives us  as. believers additional matter for
                 mind that fact, that Jesus is here addressing the unbelieving               daily humiliation, for adoring the depths of His mercies, for
                 "Jews," who opposed Him, contradicted Him always, legis-                    cleansing ourselves, and. rendering grateful returns of ardent
                 lating policies against Him, and casting His sheep out of                   love to him, who first mannested  so great love towards us.
                 their Synagogues. And even though He told them ever so                      This. teaching does not make men remiss in observing the
                 clearly that He was the Christ, the Son of God, and even                    divine commands, or from sinking them into carnal security.
                 though all His mighty works attested that he was approved                   Such remissness is the part of evil men, who do not hear
                 of God,' having a Divine commission to fulfill, they still                  nor heed the voice of the Shepherd, but walk in rash pre-
            -accuse Jesus of holding their soul in suspense and of not                       sumption  or  .in wanton and idle trifling with the grace of
            `telling them clearly who He-is.                                                 election, and refuse to walk in the ways of the elect., Com-
                  Why don't these "Jews," Scribes and  Sadducees  -know pare: Canons I, A, 13.
                 who Jesus is ?                                                                 Let these "Canons" be guide-posts to our thinking, also
                  The answer:  tkey  belz'eve not!  Let this truth be written                in interpreting the Scriptures !

                                                   <'                   .   .
                                                           '
I                                                                                                                                                                          I


     -                                                                                '


                                             T H E   S T - A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                             .325

   `Christ's sheep hear  His voice! Says Jesus,: "My sheep           His paths are past tracing out !. We here too touch but the
hear my voice, and I know them and they follow Me."                  hem of His garment.
  What is this "voice" of Jesus ?                                     .Yet, we must maintain that the  %oice" of the Shepherd
    I wish to underscore the truth that, both according-to the       is "heard" by the sheep. And that the sheep hear some-
`Scriptures' and the confessions, this "voice" is not a "voice"      thing "objective," they hear the voice of Jesus in the Scrip-
that can be "heard,`apart from the preaching of the Gospel.          tures. These are the means of grace, as they are proclaimed
This prenclzivtg  of the Gospel is the `%oice"  of the-Shepherd ;    and preached ! It is the gospel proclaimed in Mystery ; Mys-
the-Word of God as this is proclaimed clearly and purely to          stery it is, which must not be confused with contradiction,
the church.' Oh, it is true, this voice is not only in the ex-       but which is grasped by those who. have the mind of Christ.
ternal preaching of the Word, but it is never such that it is        It is the Mystery, that we call faith, which lays hold on all
hea.TFd  apart from the preaching of the Word. Such is the           that is promised in the Gospel to the Sect-believers.
contention  -of the Anabaptists of the days of the Reformation          The sheep hear in faith; they recognize that it is Christ
fathers, as this led to  Quake&n  and all forms of false             Himself speaking to them in this Gospel preaching. Them-
mysticism and rationalism. For when one has separated the            selves then they do not know fully how it is that this mes-
content of' the Word of the Gospel from the. Holy Spirit             sage is so sweet. It is past finding out. But we believe with
 (that is in vain imagination) then one puts his own content         our hearts that God gave us to Christ in electing love, sent
back in it, and one has rationalism !                                His Son to save us, powerfully called us by the Holy Spirit
    No, this "voice," of Jesus is the same as the. voice of all      of sanctification in regeneration, calling, faith, justification
the prophets who rose up early and late. This is the "Voice"         and sanctification, and the hope of final glory ! And we love
that, although it is not heard by unbelievers, nevertheless          our Savior. So much has been forgiven us, and so sure is
went out to them; their sound went out into all the earth            His salvation. And all this-certainty we .have and this power
and their words to the ends of the world. Psalm 19  :4  ;            of God we experience in faith.
Remans  10 :lS. In the sense that all-"heard"  the. preaching           In no little part does God give new strength and power in
with their natural hearing and their psychological response,         our life by telling us through the "voice," of all the Scrip-
which was ethically qualified as either believing or unbeliev-       tures, as these are preached to us and applied to our hearts
ing, Isaiah writes "all day long did I stretch forth my hands        through His Holy Spirit, that as the coming ones and as the
unto a disobedient and gainsaying people." Under the                 believing ones (venientibus et credentibus) we have and shall
imagery of "outstretched hands" we have -the same truth as           forever have life and peace. Such is the concrete Gospel
when the "voice" of Christ in the prophets is. sounded, calling      message which works as a power of God in the hearts of the
promiscuously to faith and repentance.                               sheep. Thus we,know  that no one shall ever take our crown.
   The objective "voice" is there.'                                     The Pharisees, the Sadducees  and the Scribes never had
   As many as are "called" by the "voice" of the' Shepherd           this faith, this hearing ear for the "voice" of the shepherd.
are unfeigned called ;. all are called unto faith's repentance,      They were none of Christ's sheep given to Him by the
with the "external calling." None will ever -be able to say          Father. They are-not glad, but are still in the "suspense of
that the Gospel, as it was externally preached, was, feigned.        unbelief and complain that they cannot understand His
   But only the "sheep" heard his voice with spiritual hear-         preaching, even when it is ever so clear `and lucid. But this
ing. They respond to this "voice" of the Shepherd as He              clear gospel, spoken in Mystery, is only hid to those who,
proclaims Himself as their peace, as he promises life and            by unbelief, the god of this age hath blinded. To these
peace to all who come and believe. And why ? Because- it             Christ never says in the preaching, not even in its concrete
is given them to know the mysteries of the King'dom, and,            addressableness, you are my beloved sheep. Be assured of
therefore, "beware how they hear  !" God gives the sheep             life and peace. In their hearts He never speaks of peace
regeneration, working  .powerfully  in their hearts, effecting       through the preaching as applied by the Holy Spirit. On the
this in no wise merely by the external preaching of the              contrary, they are convicted of sin, judgment and the right-
gospel, moral suasion, or such a mode of operation, that             eousness of Jesus' cause, without following Him!
after God has performed  His. part, it still remains in `the            But the sheep hear His voice. And "blindly" they follow,
power of man to be converted or to continue unconverted,             for they know that where He leadeth all is well.
but it is, evidently, a supernatural work, most powerful,               No one can tempt them to depart from the Gospel truth,
and at the same time most delightful, astonishing, mysterious,          They  know- not the "voice" of strangers. The truth in
and ineffable ; not inferior in efficacy to creation or the re-      Jesus is exceedingly precious to the sheep. They love  the
surrection from the dead!                                            "Everyone that believe&,' Gospel, for it bespeaks the Gospel
  By virtue of this power the sheep "hear  my;voice   !"             as a power of God unto salvation !
    It is true: the manner of this operation we shall never             And : it gives all the glory ~to the Shepherd, Who saith :
fully comprehend. It is the Mystery of faith. It is the              I and the Father are one. And, no one can pluck the sheep
work of God that is deeper than hell and -higher than heaven.        out of -Our hand!
God is great and we do not comprehend Him: Also here                                                                       G . L .
                                                                                                              4


                                          -.

,326                                            T H E   STATNDAR;   B E A R E R

 I .,                                                              fused to do so. Do they now under oath before God and
                 I N   Hf$  F E A R '                         I man on the witness stand, dare to deny that by majority
                                                                   vote they were placed under this demand and that they
                                                                   refused to do so? Undersigned sincerely pities Rev. De
                       Walking in Error             .'             Wolf .and these eleven elders when they will have to submit
                                (4)                                to cross examination under oath on the witness stand for
         The Rev. H. Hoeksema and the Rev. G. M. Ophoff            facts that are so evident. Philosophy and hiding of facts will
 protested to  Classis  East of the Protestant Reformed            not do when there is documentary evidence to sustain and
 Churches against an action of their consistory.                   reveal the real facts.
   Classis  East sustained them in their protest and advised          Whether the Rev. Hoeksema is a domineering character
 that Consistory to demand apologies from Rev. De Wolf             or not will not to any degree change the facts in the case
 and from that element in the consistory that had defended         and the documentary evidence. What the undersigned or
 him in his heretical statements.                                  Rev. De Wolf or Rev. Hoeksema or Rev. Ophoff wrote
    By', majority vote of eleven to nothing the consistory         here or there or anywhere in the recent past or decades ago
adopted this advice.of Classis  East on June 1, 1953 and gave      likewise will not change these facts or cause the ink of the
 those involved a period of time to decide whether they would      documentary evidence to fade away; The question is, what
 apologize or not;                                                 did the consistory decide ? What did Classis  decide ? What
         On the evening of June 22 these consistory members to-    did the consistory do with the advice of Classis?  WJhat was
 gether with Rev. .De Wolf presented a statement, which -          the reaction of Rev, De Wolf and his `elders to that decision
 even by the judgment of the neighbouring` consistory of the       of the consistory concerning the-advice of the Classis  ? Even
 Fourth Protestant Reformed. Church - was not what .Clas-          if `it could be shown from the writings of the Rev. Hoeksema
sis. had advised the consistory of First Church to demand.         or of the Rev. Ophoff that they somewhere in the past wrote
By majority vote  .of eleven to nothing at that meeting it -statements that were literally identical to those two state-
 was then decided that Rev. De Wolf must apologize accord-         ments  ~of Rev. De Wolf, that would not change the docu-
 ing to Classical decision. Being under discipline and being       mentary evidence. It would not change the decision of the
 personally involved the eleven elders that supported Rev.         Classis  one whit. These men also would then have to be
 De Wolf had no `right, according to art. 33 of the Church         placed by the consistory before the question as to whether
 Order, to vote. The vote therefore was eleven to nothing          they also -would apologize for such statements, but it would
 and not eleven to eleven.                                         not to any degree change the decision of the  Classis  or of
    Rev.  .De Wolf refused.                                        the consistory. The records are there, for all to see.
    Then by the majority vote of twelve to nothing-for the            But the big question is, what did Rev. De Wolf and
 eleven votes of the elders supporting Rev. De Wolf did not        his elders do with that decision which passed by majority
 count here either - it was decided that these elders inust        vote ? Did they walk the church political way of our Church
 apologize according to Classical decision.                        Order? Did they use legal means to seek'justice and rectifi-
   The elders refused to do so.                                    cation of injustice ?- Or did they break all order and decency
                           `*  *  *  *                             and walk in the error of schism ?
                                                                      Such is the sad case.
    It may not, therefore, be either overlooked or be denied          They cast the Church Order aside,  noteably  article 31,
 that these eleven elders were legally deposed when on the         and said that regardless of what order the Church Order
 evening of June 23 such a decision was taken by that ele-         prescribed for them, they would go in a different direction.
 ment of the consistory that still had the right to vote in        Let us make that very plain.         .
 the matter.                                                          The article reads thus, "If any one complain that he
    Let us for argument's sake assume - which actually is          has been wronged by the decision of a minor assembly, he
 not at all. true -that these eleven elders did have a-right to    shall have the right to appeal to a major ecclesiastical as-
                                                                                        /.
 vote on June 22 even though they were personally involved.        sembly, and whatever may be agreed upon by a majority
 Then, even then, the motion that they apologize according. vote shall be considered settled  .and: binding, unless it be
 to  Clasical  decision still carried by the majority of twelve    proved to conflict with the Word of God or with the Articles
 to eleven. You might, on that same assumption, say that           of the Church Order, as long as they are not changed by a
 since the other motion, counting the .eleven  votes of those      General Synod."
 that, might not vote, was a tie vote of eleven to eleven, the        Now, who is it that complains long and loud in speech
 motion failed that Rev. De Wolf must apologize according          and  writing.,that  they were "wronged by the decision of- a
 to Classical decision. But you cannot get. away with that         minor assembly  ?" Surely not the Rev. Hoeksema, the Rev.
 kind of reasoning in regard to the eleven elders. By major-       Hanko and their faithful elders. They were never put under
 ity vote, which ever way  -you look at it, they were demanded     discipline or even protested against by anyone. It is Rev.
 to apologize accordin,e to Classical decision. And they  re-      De Wolf and his elders who complain that they were  wrong-


                                                  T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                               327

      ed by the decision of Classis,  by the, decisions of the June 22     settled and binding, and they need no appeal to Classis  or
      and of the June 23 consistory meetings. There is document-           Synod for a decisions  which really is not a decision sinceait '
     ary evidence, black-on-white records against which they               did not pass by majority vote. But is it not equally true,
     complain.                                                             then, that they are no majority over against those whom they
          Their complaints are loud and many. They say that it            have declared-to be schismatic? Did they not have no more
     was a minority that tried to depose the majority. They               than. twelve votes -if you also count the vote of Rev. De
     complain that when they did present an apology `that it was          Wolf-to decide that the other  -twelve members of the  con-
     not accepted. They complain that they were not notified of           sistory were no longer the legal consistory? Consistency,
     the meeting to be held June 23. They even. complain that             thou art a jewel!
     the Rev. Hoeksema walked out of the meeting while it was                 Is it not plain that since they themselves have no clear
     still deliberating on the case;                                      majority and at best again have only a tie vote - twelve'con-
         What does the Church Order say to them ?- It says, Rev.          sistory members against twelve consistory members - that
     De Wolf and your supporting elders, you should take your             article 31 surely says that these, complaining that their vote
  ' grievances to  Classis  and Synod. It tells them that the             was illegally taken away, should appeal to Synod and try
     Classis  and the Synod are there exactly to decide whether           to show to Synod that oflice bearers .who are demanded by
     the things of which they complain were done decently and             majority vote of ,11 to 0 on June 1 to apologize according
     in order or not. Especially since the committee sent by              to Classical decision have a right to vote and decide whether
     Classis  was there and was obliged to report the doings of           their apology is acceptable or not? Does article 31 or any
     that meeting to Classis, they should at least have waited for        other article in the Church Order give them the right, as
     Classis'  reaction to this report and should not have taken          only half of the consistory to decide that it need not go to
     things in their own hands.                                           Synod  ? Should they not also appeal to Synod about what
         That is what they did!                                           they call  .an illegal consistory meeting because they were
         Rev. De Wolf and his elders said, we are going to                not -notified about it? Of course Article 31 is plain to any-
     decide these things for ourselves. ,We are not going to take         one who wants to walk in the Church political way of the b
     it to  Classis  and to Synod. We are going to express right          Protestant Reformed Churches.
     here that we are the legal consistory. We are going to say               Then, too, much is said about that "unless." We agree
     that the Rev. Hoeksema and his elders are not the  Con-              with the Rev. Ophoff that no decision of either and minor
     sistory. We will not appeal to a major ecclesiastical body.          or major assembly may bind the conscience of any man.
     We are going to decide right now, tonight! And  we-                  Nor do we ever want to insist that Rev. De Wolf and his
     twelve men- are going to- decide this for all of  Classis            followers sin against their own conscience. If,. then, they
     East !                                                               refuse for conscience sake to make use of the "right" of
         And so they separated themselves from the apparatus              which the article speaks, then let them leave our denomina-
     that the Protestant Reformed Churches have for the solution          tion and form their own, where they can teach and preach as
     of the difficulties of which its members complain. Thus,             their conscience dictates.
     they separated themselves  from. the Protestant Reformed
C h u r c h e s .                                                            But do you not see what they did ? Do you not see
                                                                          what they still do ? Classis  East of the Protestant. Reformed
         Had they said,  `we will not recognize the suspension and        Churches said that such Liberated statements as those of
     deposition and will still consider ourselves members of the          Rev. De Wolf may not be preached on a Protestant Reformed
     consistory  together with  you, who want, to' suspend and            pulpit. Hence it demanded their condemnation. Rev. De
     despose us, you would have had a different situation. They           Wolf and his followers not only refused to condemn these
     would have been doing wrong. But they would not have                 statements but by their illegal setting of themselves up as a
     committed the schism, the separation they now made.                  Protestant Reformed consistory, even though the eleven el-
         The Church Order gives them no, right to decide any              ders were legally by majority vote deposed, they- twelve
     of these things of which they complained. They say that the          men, mind `you who talk about a minority deciding things
     eleven elders were not personally involved and might vote  ?         for the majority-they decided for the whole  Classis  that
    Yes, but then they are complaining, are they, not? that `this         such statements may stand in their literal form and claimed
     right was taken from them illegally. And article 31 does not         their right to be a consistory in the  Classis  East of the
     say that,  -in such cases, they may decide that matter for           Protestant Reformed Churches  with those statements.  Un-
    themselves. Do you-not see how their argument even returns            der the name Protestant Reformed they- though a Prot-
    to their own heads ? A minority, they say suspended and               estant Reformed Classis  condemned the statements - will
    deposed them and therefore it is not legal, and they need             yet preach such Liberated and heretical statements.
    not recognize it, And so, they, say, the last part of article
     31 does not hold. Nothing, they-say, was decided by major-              In that error they continue to walk today.
    ity vote and therefore their suspension and deposition is not                                                                J.A.H.

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

I                                                                         was baptized: was baptism not necessary for sinners?  AS
     11,         Contending For The Faith                            II for the fact, then, that "others were not baptized" - they,
                                                                          however, were not companions of Christ, but enemies of the
                                                                          faith, doctors of the law and Pharisees. From which fact is
                  The Church and the Sacraments                           gathered an additional suggestion, that, since the opposers
                                                                          of the Lord refcrsed  to be baptized, they who followed the
              EARLY  VIEWS  6~  THE  SACR~ENT   OF  BAPTISM               Lord were baptized, and were not like-minded with their own
                                                                          rivals : especially when, if there were any one to whom they
                                 (Continued)                              clave, the Lord had exalted John above him (by the testi-
                                                                          mony) saying, "Among them who are born of women there
             We had concluded our-previous article with the objection     is none greater than John the Baptist." - end of quote. To
     voiced by heretics against any form of baptism that Abraham          this we merely wish to add that the disciples of the Lord
      was justified by faith only. The reader will excuse the un-         themselves baptized. - see John 3 :22, 4 :l-2.
      dersigned when he went off on a tangent when commenting                Finally, a fourth objection against the sacrament of Bap-
      on Rom.  4:16. We could not resist the urge to make the             tism is based on I Cor.  1:14-17, and we quote: "I thank
      comments which we did make in connection with the "con-             God that I baptized none of you,. but  Crispus  and Gaius ;
      ditions" controversy in our churches during the last few            Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
      years, a controversy, by the way, which does not trouble our        And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I
      Protestant Reformed Churches any longer. In replying to             know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me
      this objection against any form of baptism by the heretics,         not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom
      we may say, in the first place, that, notwithstanding the           of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none
      Lord's commandment that the sacrament of baptism be ad-             effect." It must be plain that one cannot quote this particular
      ministered, the truth that we are justified by faith verily         passage as a proof against the practice of baptism. Paul here
      remains intact. The sacraments do not justify us. We are            does not minimize the sacrament of Baptism as such, but
     ' justified only through the blood of Christ and receive it          merely emphasizes his calling to preach the gospel and
      through faith. That we are justified by faith is only because       thanks God that he baptized only a very few so that none
      it is through faith that the righteousness of Christ is bestowed    would be able to say-that he had baptized in his name, and
      upon us. Secondly, this objection overthrows itself. We             that he therefore used the sacrament of Baptism as a means
      know that Abraham was justified by faith only and this              to advance his own honour and glory. He is thankful that
      occurred several years before he received the sign of circum-       no one has the opportunity to say that the apostle ever sought
      cision. But, if he were justified by faith only (and this is        himself and even availed himself of the sacrament of Bap-
      true), why did the Lord command the administration of               tism unto that end.
      the sign of circumcision to all the male children of the cov-
      enant ?                                                                This concludes our discussion on: Early Views of the
             Thirdly, the objection was raised that the apostles were     Sacrament of Baptism. We have noticed that this sacrament
      not baptized. It. must be granted that  .the Scriptures mention     was held in very high esteem. It was not merely considered
      only one apostle who was baptized, namely Paul. He was              a rite or ceremony but as a sacrament it was considered
      baptized by a disciple of the Lord, Ananias, at Damascus,           efficacious. Tremendous significance was attached to the
      according to Acts  9:18. Replying to this objection against         sacrament of Baptism. With respect to the baptism of in-
      the sacrament of Baptism, Tertullian answers as follows, and        fants we may say that, although many of the references in
      we quote: "And now, as far as I shall be able, I will reply         the writings of the early Church Fathers are admittedly
      to those who affirm "That the apostles were unbaptized."            vague on this subject, we may certainly say that the practice
      For if they had undergone the human baptism ~of John and            of baptizing infants must have been general in those early
      were longing for that of the Lord, then since the.Lord Him-' days. Tertullian's strong opposition to infant baptism must
      self had defined baptism to be one; (saying to Peter, who           surely be considered strong evidence in. support of the asser-
      was desirous of being thoroughly bathed, "He who hath once          tion that the administration of this sacrament to infants must
      bathed. hath no necessity to zoaslz  a second time ; "which, of     have-been common in his day. Origin, definitely states that
      course, He would not have said at all to one not baptized ;)        infant baptism is a usage derived from the apostles. And
      even here we have a conspicuous proof against those, who, in        Cyprian  maintamed  that infants must be baptized as early
      order to destroy the sacrament of water,. deprive the apostles      as possible. In our series of articles on this subject we also
      even of John's baptism. Can it seem credible that "the way          noted- that practically all the various questions that are usu-
      of the Lord," that is, the baptism of John, had not then been       ally raised, even today, in connection with the sacrament of
      "prepared' in those persons who were being destined to              Baptism were already under discussion in that early period.
      open the way of the Lord throughout the whole world ? The           And we concluded our series by calling attention- to the here-
      Lord Himself, though no "repentance" was due from Him,              tics who opposed any form of baptism even as some do today.


                                               .THE  S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                                   329

                                                                                    0
        EEARLY  VIEWS ON THE  SACRAMENT OF THE                           be eaten.- The angel of the Lord, seeing the blood upon the
                          Lo~n's   S                                     doorposts, would pass on or over (hence the name: Pass-
                                    UPPER.                               over) the houses where the Israelites were because of the
 -il brief &szt?lTz,e  of its Old Testa:tlzent  symbol, the Passover.    blood of the lamb. The second element or feature of this
     The Old Testament Passover, to be rightly understood iti            feast was the eating of the lamb with unleavened bread and
 its true relation to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper as              bitter  herbs.  We need not, of course, discuss this now in
observed in ihe New Dispensation, must be viewed, no_t onljr             detail. The flesh of the ,lamb must be roasted with fire, with-
 as a feast which was annually observed in the land of. Ca- out coming into contact with the fire, his head with his legs,
 naan, `but as it was Divinely instituted in the land of Egypt.          and with the inwards -hence, the entire lamb. It might not
 The relation between the Lord's Supper and  the cross of                be eaten raw, neither sodden with water. This must be SC-
 Calvary is the same as that which existed between the Pass-             companied  with the eating of unleavened bread and bitter
 .over as observed in the land Canaan and -the feast as insti-           herbs; nothing may remain until the morning; whatever is
 tuted of God through Moses at the time of Israel's deliver- `left. must be burned. Finally, the Israelites must eat of
 ance out of Egypt.                                                      the lamb with their loins girded, their shoes on their feet,
                                                                         staves in  their hands,  atid in all haste. Such is the feast of
     The historical occasion for~the institution of the Passover         the Passover as instituted in the land of Egypt. It was the
 in Egypt is well-known. Israel had been sorely afflicted in             feast of-Israel's deliverance. We have already observed that
 that house of bondage. There the people of the Lord -had                it consisted chiefly of two parts or elements. In that night
 become .a mighty  people. The king of Egypt (the mighty                 the Lord would smite all the firstborn 04 the land. of Egypt
 world power at that time) resolved upon a  policy  of op-               and pour out the vials of His wrath and judgment upon
 pression arid affliction to curb this growth of the nation and          that sorely stricken and utterly wicked land. Israel, however,
 reduce  its threat to him and his mighty kingdom. That op-              would escape this wrath of the living God, not, of course,
 pression~ had been long and grievous. However, Israel's                 because it was in  an? sense of the  woid better than the
 deliverance was now at  hand.  .Untii now the Lord had                  Egyptians, -but  only because of the'blood of the lamb upon
.poured  out the vials of His wrath $0, wicked Egypt which               their doorposts. This, we understand, was a mighty type of
 had held His people captive unlawfully (Israel had been in-             the deliverance of the elect Church of God from the wrath
 vited to Egypt to sojourn `there as a guest, and had been               of the Lord through and only because of the blood of the
 treated as a slave). Terribly the Lord had plagued the                  Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of themwo,rld.  How-
 nation with nine mighty strokes in three waves of three                 ever, this Egyptian Passover was also a feast. Israel was
 waves each. The last plague is  now about to be  .inflicted.            .not merely--delivered frqm the wrath of God because of the
 God shall smite all the firstborn of the land, of man and               blood of the lamb ; they also ate of the lamb. Israel's deliver-
be&t. That plague, destroying Egypt's -firstborn, will be                ance does not merely -consist of escaping the judgment of
 Israel's deliverance, for Pharaoh will drive them out of the            Gqd but it consists, positively, .also in this that we eat and
 land, that all may know that the Lord is God and He al,bne.             drink of the `same Lamb of God.- Christ becomes our food
 However, before the angel of the Lord goes forth upon his               and drink, our, life eternal in covenant fellowship and com-
 &ission of death and destruction, Moses receives of the                 munion with the Lord God of our salvation. We are not
 Lord the institution of the Old Testament Passover;  tic-               merely saved from sin and darkness and death but also trans-
 cording to Exodus 12 :l-14. Israel alone receives-this revela-          lated into the blessed Kingdom of God's dear Son and ever-
 tion from Jehovah concerning the smiting of  the firstborn              lasting life. The deliverance of the Church of God is not
 and the institution of the Passover. This information is                merely negative but also and emphatically positive.. Of our
 wjthheld  from  Egy$. The destruction of the firstborn is               deliverance from sin and. judgment arid ours entrance into
 visited upon the house of bondage without warning. Egypt,               living fellowship and  comiminion  with the Lord the Old
 the mighty and wicked worldpower, is not given a "chance."              Testament Passover in the land of Egypt is a mighty type
    With respect to the Passover as in$ituted in the land of             and symbol.
 Egypt we may say that it consisted chiefly of two elements.                                                                       H.V.
 The first element or feature of this feast ,was thtit it consisted
 of an offer of atonement. The lamb, of- course, constituted
 the heart of the Old Testament  feast. This lamb, taken either
 from the sheep or the goats, inust be withput spot, might be
 eight days younger than one year but not one  dsy older.
 Each family df Israel must- procure such a lamb, slay it in
 the evening of the fourteenth day of the seventh month (the                The Hope Protestant Reformed School Society is in
 month, Abib,  which would henceforth be the first month in              need of a fourth teacher for the 1954-`55  school year Please
 Israel's "holy year"), and strike its biood upon the two side-          write nirr. Jphn Iialsbeek, -4132 Hall St., S. W., R. 5, Grand
 posts and the upper doorpost of the house wherein it should             Rapids, Mich. or call AR 6-7586 to arrange for an interview.


                                                                                   .


3      3     0                                           T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R

                                                                            decrees as not merely a question of logic, - which is after
                  The lidice of Our- Fathers                             II all rather academic, - but as a question of what is means,
                                                                            and what is purpose in the counsel of God, it becomes more
                                                                            difficult to conceive of. the election of Christ as following the
                     The Canons .of Dordrbcht                               election of the church. And especially from this latter point
                                   PART TWO                                 of view, it can scarcely be denied, in' the light of Scripture,
                        E                                                   that Christ, as the Head of the elect, stands not last, but
                             XPOSITION OF THE  CANONS                       first, in God's decrees.
            FIRST  HEAD OF  DOCTRINE OF  DIVINE  PREDESTINATION                 A second remark which must be made in connection
                              Article 7 (continued  j                       with the election of Christ is that it is at this point that
             Most beautifully do the  Canons  make mention of the           the traditional view of the covenant of redemption, or the
       Christ in this connection. He is "from eternity appointed            counsel of peace, (mad des efuedes),  is introduced by many
       the Mediator and Head of the elect, and the foundation of            Reformed theologians,.a  view which, happily, has not found
       salvation." And God, has chosen His people unto "redemp-             its way into the official literature of our Reformed churches.
       tion in Christ." And hence, "this elect number . . . . God           This so-called covenant of redemption is supposed to be an
       hath decreed to give to Christ." Our election is therefore           agreement, or pact, or covenant, between the First and
      not to be separated from the election of Christ. He has been          Second Persons of the Trinity (sometimes the Third Person
      from eternity- appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect.          is also introduced)`, with mutual stipulations and conditions,
      The relation of Christ and the elect is that of Head and              according to which the Father demanded of the Son all
       body, both in the legal and in the organic sense of the term. that which was necessary to acquire eternal salvation for the
      Appointed He is to represent. them before the bar of God's            elect, promised Him the reward of His Mediator's glory,
      justice, so that legally they stand' or fall with Him. Their          and in which the Son agreed to comply  with the  FatherIs
      righteousness can be only in Him. And. appointed He is                demand, in turn demanding the fulfillment of the promises
      also to be their Head in the organic sense of the word, so            made,~  for the benefit of both parties, Now it is not our
      that they are members of one -body, all deriving their. life          intention to enter into a detailed criticism of this view.
      and glory from their Head.  `He is the Head; they are the             We merely wish to point out the fact that while theologians
      members who can have no life-in separation-from the Head.             may. present, the idea, and undoubtedly introduce a goodly
      He is the vine; they are the branches. As their Head, He is           element of philosophy when they do so, their presentation
     the ~Mediator,  Who must redeem and deliver them out of sin            is not at  .a11 confessionally binding in the Reformed churches.
      and death, accomplishing our reconciliation to God. And               And in the second place, we venture the suggestion that if in
      therefore He is also called "the foundation of salvation."            the light of Scripture we are to speak of a "counsel of
       Notice, that the Canons refer here to salvation, not to elec-        peace," hit would be much more correct to conceive of it as
      tion itself. The ground of our election is God's good pleasure.       the eternal decree of God to reveal His own Triune cov-
      But the sole foundation of our`salvation  is Christ Jesus our         enant life in. the highest possible sense of the word in the
      Lord. God did not choose  us  because of Christ and His               establishment and realization of a covenant'outside of Him-
      redeeming work. But God chose us to be redeemed on the                self with the creature, in the way of sin and grace, of death
basis of Christ's work.                                                     and redemption to the glory of His holy name. This of
            In passing we may make two remarks. In the first place,         course, places the counsel of peace in a much different light,
      it is indeed difficult, even in -view of the terminology which        and presents it as the all-dominating element in God's eternal
      the  Canopt+  employ, to harmonize the infralapsarian con-            good pleasure.
      ception of the position of Christ in the decree of God with              The foregoing in passing.
      the presentation of the- Scriptures. The Canons themselves               Returning now to the presentation of Article' 7, we must
      do not very clearly delineate this position. of Christ at this        now notice'that the fathers do not at all conceive of election
      point. But the traditional infralapsarian view places the             as a thing by itself, nor as including merely the final salva-
       election of Christ as Mediator, in order to, realize the re-         tion  ; but they emphasize that the decree of election includes
      demption of the elect, after the decree of election and re-           the whole of our salvation. For the article states : "This
      probation. And while the  Can&s place the decree of election          elect number . . . God hath decreed to give to Christ, to be
      after-the decree of the fall, the language of Article 7 does          saved by him; and effectually to call and `draw them to his
      not necessarily depict the election of the Mediator as  fol-          communion by his Word and Spirit, to bestow upon them
     lowing the election of the saints. Now certainly, it is diffi-         true faith, justification and sanctification  ; and having power-
      cult to conceive of the election of the Head as logically fol-        fully preserved them in the fellowship of his Son, finally, to-
      lowing the election of the body. And it .is also difficult to         glorify them . . . ." -It is not necessary at this point to dis-
      conceive of God decreeing to give the. elect to Christ logical-       cuss each one of the elements mentioned here, since they will
      ly before the election of Christ as `Head- and -Mediator. And         arise in a different connection in the following chapters of
      especially if we view the question of the order of God's              the  Canozons. Besides, it would possibly becloud the main


                                              T H E   S T - A - N D A R D   B E A R E R '                                          331

  point to discuss them here. Now let us briefly notice that          the one body of Christ, in which body each elect saint oc-
  the Carzofzs here teach: 1) That God's election includes all of     cupies his own appointed position `as a. member. But over
  our salvation. We are given for the purpose of being saved          against the, Arminians, `who by their corrupt conditional
  by Him, which in this connection refers to the work of              view made the election of God indefinite, and made it pos-
  Christ for us. We are given to Christ to be called into His         sible that the number of the elect could be increased or di-
  fellowship. effectually. Further, this. election includes the      minished, according as the condition of faith was fulfilled or
  gift of faith, justification, sanctification. Significantly, it    not fulfilled, it was necessary to emphasize this other point,
  includes the powerful preservation of the elect. And finally,      that election is personal, and that the number of the elect
  it includes our glorification. 2) That the various elements        is fixed eternally and sovereignly.,
  here mentioned are part of  one  process.  In relation to the         Lastly, we may briefly notice that the fathers are thorough-
  last element mentioned, our glorification, therefore, they         ly theocentric in their view: all centers around the glory of
  stand in the position of  fezeans and end. All this is of the      God. Not the salvation of the elect is ultimately the purpose
  utmost significance. In fact, this may be called the crucial       of IGod.  But the demonstration of His mercy, and the praise
  point of the Canovts in opposition to the Arminians. For if        of the riches of His glorious grace is the purpose of the
  it be maintained that the whole of our salvation is included,      sovereign ,God of our salvation. And indeed, beholding the
  and therefore in reality finished, in the counsel of God, then     marvellous works of our God, how fitting it is that the
  all' Arminianism is forever destroyed. Then there is no pas-       redeemed elect should forever praise the riches of such a
  sibility of introducing a doubtful, conditional element in the     grace. He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord !     H.C.H.
  salvation of the elect anywhere along the line.                                              --%d-
     It is undoubtedly for that reason `that when the fathers        Dea.y Editor of the Standard Bearer:
  came to quoting proof texts for this article, they chose tw.0          In the March 15, 1954 issue of the Standard Bearer I
  passages which emphasize that very thought. To be sure,            read a paragraph, which is hardly factual and to the point. It
  these passages also provide Scriptural proof for other             reads as follows : "After I read this document to the Classis,
  thoughts in this article. But on the foreground in both the        it became plain that I was not guilty of anything worthy of
 passage from Ephesians 1 and that from Romans 8 is the Classical censure. And the motion to censure the Rev. Op-
 pertinent fact that God did not choose His people merely            hoff and myself was put to a vote and failed to carry."
  unto the end of glory, in order then to suspend both the               It is especially to the last sentence that I take exception.
  election and the glory on the condition of faith and repent-           The reason ?
 ance. On the contrary, both these passages teach that the               In the first place because you do not clearly state here
 decree of eternal election includes the means and the way           Classis'  own interpretation and explanation of the "censure"
 as well as the end. God has chosen us "in order that we             of you and Rev. Ophoff. You understood  Classis  to mean
 should be holy and without blame before him in love."' And          censure in the sense of, to quote Classis, "the accepted sense
 in Romans 8 :30 the whole process is literally included in          of  the-word  as outlined in the Art. 71-80 of the D. K.  0."
 the decree of predestination. For the text certainly does not       This is also evidently the meaning of "censure" in the para-
 teach that whom  `God chose in eternity He calls, justifies,        graph I here refer to in your Article in the Standard Bearer.
 and glorifies in time. But it places the calling, justification,    However, Classis  in their "censure" had in mind and so ex-
 and glorification of His people in as complete  a- state of         pressed in clear and unmistakable language that  "Classis
 realization as the predestmation. Otherwise the language            knows and hereby expresses that the decision meant no more
 of the text would have to be changed completely. But now it         than to express that the pertinent remarks were premature
 teaches that just as God did predestinate, so He also did           and therefore out of -order", Art. 140, Acts. of Classis.  East,
 call, did justify, and did glorify. The latter, therefore, are      April 16, 1953.      -
 as eternal, as sovereign, as complete, and as certain as the           The second inaccuracy is that it is stated, that a motion
 former.                                                             to censure you and the Rev. Ophoff was put to a vote and
     One more element'there  remains in this article, which we       failed to carry. The truth of the matter is that you received
 have reserved to the end, even though it appears in the very        Classis'  Committee, and that in the light of Classis'  explana-
 first part. We refer to the teaching of the Canorts that God        tion, as given above, you could again take your place and
 chose "a certain number of persons." In the original this is        function in your advisory capacity. For completeness it must
 even stronger, and might well be translated: "a certain defi-       be added, that, even so; you insisted that you had said noth-
 nite number of persons." Election is therefore definite. It         ing prematurely or out of order. Be this as it may,  Classis
 concerns pelfsons.  And the persons and the number of per-          did not vote on this matter again. No vote was taken on the
 sons are both eternally fixed. This does not mean, of course,       matter of "censure in the accepted sense."
 that our fathers conceived of the elect as a mere multitude,           I feel that the record ought to be kept straight. I there-
a crowd of saints. This is very evident from the Heidelberg          fore kindly request that you publish this correction in the
 Catechism, Qu. 54, where they speak of an elect  clswch.            Standard Bearer.
 The elect, therefore, form one organic whole, the one church,          Your brother in the Lord,              Geo. G. Lubbers.

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

ll-                                                                          no means identical. The dismissed minister may and fre-
                DECENCY  .and ORDER'                                      II quently does remain in good standing in the churches and
                                                                             is eligible to receive a call from another congregation. This
                                                                             is not so with one who is suspended from office under Art.
                           Dismissal of Ministers                            79. Such a`one is guilty of a gross sin. He is to be disciplined
               We are still busy with the eleventh article of the church     and, unless there are evidences of repentance, will ultimately
        order. Beside speaking of the obligation of the consistory to        be excommunicated . . _ (unless he severs himself from the
        properly support the minister of the congregation so that "he        church making this impossible). When this difference is un-
        may be free from all worldly cares and avocations while dis-         derstood it will be clearly  ,seen that certain recent happenings
        pensing spiritual blessings," this article also speaks of  dis-      in several of our churches have not been violations of the rule
        missing ministers from the service of the church. Concern-           of Article 11. Ministers were not dismissed (nor suspended
        ing this matter the article states : "And shall  .not dismiss.       and deposed) but rather several of them forsook the Prot-
        them from service without the knowledge and approbation of           estant Reformed Church which they once served. This will
       the classis and of the delegates of the (particular) synod."          become evident to anyone who will review the matter in the
               There are four distinct ways in which the tie between a       light of the entire history. We wish to cite here only a few
       pastor and the congregation he serves can be severed. The             pertinent facts in connection with this histdry as we know
       first of these is by the acceptance of a call to another field of     that there are still some who are rather confused and these
        labor. This -is treated in the tenth article of the church order.    may still be helped  .to see things right. The fact is that
       The next is by emeritation which is to be considei-ed in con-         when Rev. De Wo!f was suspended by his consistory (Art.
       nection with the thirteenth article of the church order. Third-       79) upon the advice of the classis,  he refused to  submit  to
       ly, under Articles 79 and  ,SO of the same  ordei- of the             that suspension as he had promised  upon his ordination.
       churches, a minister can be suspended and deposed from his            This insubordinate action caused schism. By it he separated
       office. The fourth way by which this bond can be broken is            himself from the First Protestant Reformed Church. And
       by dismissal from office which we are to treat in this present        this a&ion of his cannot be justified, as has been attempted,
       connection. Thus, positively expressed, the eleventh article          by claiming that the decisions were illegally made or  .en-
       may be said to teach: "The  consistory shall dismiss the min-         forced under &nidatio&  etc. which is, of course, not at all
       ister from the service of the church only with the knowledge          true. But had Rev. De Wolf submitted and properly made
       and approbation. of the classis  .and of the delegates of the         his appeal these matters could have been decided later in
        (particular) synod."                                                 their proper place. This, however, he did not do but by his
           The correlative  part--of--+liis  rule which is found in the      act of separation he made future appeal impossible. Not re-
       preceeding  article ought to be remembered in order to under          cognizing. the authority of the church, he seperated himself
       stand the thrust of this matter. There it was -stated that a          from her and precluded further treatment of his case. Now
       minister may not leave his congreg+tion  without the consent          when later other ministers and groups recognize this schis-
       of the'consistory. As we wrote before, this ruling grew out           matic faction and ally themselves with it, it ought to be clear
       of a situation where ministers, growing tired- of their labors that they too, by such action, separate themselves from the
       in a particular place, would sometimes abandon the c&gre-             Protestant Reformed Churches. They, too, have gone out
       gation, without the consent of the consistory or without noti-        from us. In several places the Protestant Reformed Church
       fying the classis.  This was not good decorum. To `prevent            refused to be destroyed by the action and conduct of these
       this indecency the rule was formulated.                               separatists. Instead, it continues, reduced in numerical
           There is, however, also another side to this. It is equally       strength, but strong in the faith. In such instances, it is not
       wrong and indecent for the consistory-or the congregation             necessary that the church either dismisses or suspends the
       ,to abandon its minister. Sometimes this too was done. The            niinister for they, the latter, by their separatistic action, make
       congregation would simply. refuse  to be shepherded and go            such a course impossible.
       elsewhere. Consequently his support was not provided either              To make the point still more clear let us use `an illustra-
       and the minister so treated was left in a lurch. This `is unbe-       tion. I am an American citizen. Suppose that I defy the
       coming to Christian conduct and even as a minister is obliged         laws of this nation and, consequently, am found guilty by the
       to remain with a congregation until the bond of union is              courts which decide that I am to be deported to Russia and
       severed in the proper ecclesiastical way, so the congregation         also am to be deprived of my citizenship in this land. At the
       is bound to maintain and support the minister. also. And              same time let us suppose that there are fifty others who re-
       -that support includes not only providing material necessities        fuse JO recognize this decision of the court and decide to go
       but also supporting hiln'in his labors and +nistry until he           to Russia with me. Isn't it crystal clear that those who thus
       has, if that becomes necessary, been dismissed in the proper          hold their government in contempt and recognize me to the
       way.                                                                  extent of supporting and going along with me in my deporta-
           We' must now clearly' distinguish. between "dismissing a          tion will likewise be deprived of their American citizenship  ?
       minister" and "suspending or deposing one.?' These are by             They cut themselves off from this country by such action.


                                              T H E S T A N D A R D B E A R E R                                                  333

  The parallel between this hypothetical case and\ the history       support from the churches for the remainder of his days.
  of our churches in the past year ought to be obvious to all.       Neither case applies. Both are quite different from the case
     To come back once more to the matter of dismissing a            of dismissal. The dismissed is made eligible to receive a call
  minister we must add that this must be done only when there        in any of the churches and for a certain reasonable period
  is sound and .valid reason. Just because a congregation may        of time he is to be supported by the church that dismisses
  grow tired of a certain minister-is no justifiable reason for      him. If, after that time, he does not receive a call he is
  dismissal. Nor may this article be used as  aneasy exodus          bound to return to some other  persuit of life and retains
  for certain troubles or difficulties which may arise in a con-     henceforth no official ministerial status in  the. churches at
 gregation and in which the minister unhappily becomes in-           all. The cases ishere  this has occured  are comparatively few
 volved. We ought rather to consider the provision which             and we cite again that the provisions of this part of the
 this article makes for dismissing ministers as one that fits        article cover--circumstances that are quite out of the ordinary
 and must be applied to certain unusual, extra-ordinary and          and, may well be classified as abnormal. And this the cbn-
 abnormal cases. It belongs to the exception. Such cases can         gregation may well bear in mind that she may never think
easily be visualized. For instance, we might think of a situa-       that Art. 11 is designed as an easy way to oust her minister !
 tion where a minister's character and mode `of working sim-                                                                G.v.d.B.
 ply does not fit a particular congregation whereas in another
 place he might be able to labor with much fruit. Or, we
 might think of a situation where a consistory does not co-                     ALL AROUND US
 operate with the minister so that all his labors become virtu-                                                                     II
 ally impossible. Then again, think of the possible situation        Reply to Rev. `Hofwms and Mr. Byker.
 where a minister, for reasons `of health, finds it impossible
 to labor in a certain place but if removed to another climate          My remarks under this caption are a continuation of
might be able .to perform ministerial labor most efficiently.        what I wrote in the last issue of the Standard Bearer relative
 In such instances and in the interests of the church it might       to an editorial of the Rev. W. Hofman in Concordia of
 be better that one is dismissed and made free to be called          March llth, and an article appearing in the same issue by
 elsetihere.                                                         a Mr. Byker of Hudsonville. These brethren consumed most
     Such dismissal cannot be made without the "knowledge            of the space in that issue criticizing the under-signed  .for
 and approbation of the-  classis and of the delegates of the        what he wrote in the Standard Bearer of February 15th con-
  (particular) synod." Originally. this article contained a          cerning Dr. Daane's "hitting the nail on the head" when he
 cladsec which read : "Classis decides whether .or no the min-       wrote in the Reformed Journal of. January that "not Hoek-
 ister shall be removed." This was later  .elided  because it        sema, but  Kok changed."  -
 was felt that it ascribed a power to the classis `which it did         Since many readers of the Standard Bearer no longer
 not rightly possess. Nevertheless, the approbation of such          read Concordia, I will quote the rest of Hofman's editorial,
 dismissals- must be procured from the  classis.    It is readily    and then' offer my comment. Mr. Byker will consider my
 understood why this is  necesary.  When a situation arises          comment also an answer to him, since he wrote virtually the
 where action of this nature is deemed necessary, the feelings       same thing as Hofman ; and, as I suggested last time, it is
 of those directly involved are often such that it becomes           my judgment that Hofman took his cue from Byker and
 practically impossible for them to judge objectively and fair-      should have given'him the "honor" when he wrote his. editor-
 ly. There are often prejudices which become the occasion            ial. At any rate, Rev. Hofman continues as follows:
 of misjudgment and abuse. In the interests of justice and              "Now, if all this is true, (namely, that Schipper is cor-
 fair play, therefore, it is best to procure the advice of a         rect when he says - Daane has hit the nail squarely on `the
 neutral party. Perhaps there is no need for dismissal at `all       head - and has correctly evaluated Rev. Kok's position -
 and the classis then can serve as an intermediary to find a         M.S.  j then Dr. Daane must also be a good judge of what the
 suitable solution to the difficulties. Furthermore, if  ,it is a    Rev: H.  .Hoeksema  and his followers believe and teach.
 case that requires dismissal, the  classis also certainly has       Schipper should also maintain that Dr. Daane  hashit  the
 an interest in the matter for even as no minister is permitted      nail squarely on the head in his judgment of Rev. Hoeksema,.
.to enter upon the office without having been examined and           And Schipper should have honored and quoted Dr. Daane in
 approved by the classis, even so he should not be dismissed         that too. This is what Dr. Daane wrote, in that same article,
 from the office without their approbation. Indirectly the           about the Rev. H. Hoeksema ahd his position:
 matter concerns all the churches as he is a potential minister         `But the difficulty is even more troublesome. Since the
 for any one of them:            ,.,                                 preacher cannot discriminate' between the elect and the re-
     What then is the status of the minister that has been dis-      probate, what can the preacher of the gospel say to any in-
 missed from service. He is not deposed for then he would            dividual man ? Moreover, since he does not know whether
 be barred from the possibility of serving another church.           the individual hearer is elect or reprobate, he cannot say
 Neither is he made emeritus for then he would receive his           anything at all. The gospel loses its addressability to the


 334                                          THE  S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R

 individual man. On Hoeksema's basis the Gospel cannot be            makes it clear that Hoeksema's conception of the gospel is
 preached.'                                                          a gospel deprived of its addressability to the particular man
        "Although Dr. Daane tries to maintain that Rev. Hoek-        - and every man is a particular man ! . . . . And what. ever
 sema has not changed he must admit change in Rev. Hoek-             else the gospel may be, we know from the command of
 sema. This is evident in several instances : (here Hofman           Jesus that it is something that can be addressed to every
 quotes Daane again- M.S.) `The manner in which  Hoek-               creature. Where this`addressability to every man is lost, the
 sema once upon a time (Notice implication of change. W.H.)          gospel of Jesus has been lost.'
 tried to solve this problem was indicated by the Rev. B. Kok           "Now if Dr. Daane has hit the nail squarely on the head
 in his letter to the Reformed Journal (Nov. issue). Rev.            in the one instance, doesn't it follow that he has also done so
 Kok quoted the following from Hoeksema's Calvin, Berlhof,           in the other  ?. Or if he is incorrect in his judgment in the
 and H. J. Kuiper,  `He (Calvin) affirms here, what we have          one case, isn't it just possible that this is also so in the
 always taught, as we have written often in the past, that, in       other? How  .about it Rev.  Schipper   ?"
 as far as the .message is general and comes to all, it is con-         I offer the following comment and reply :
 ditiona.2.   The offer is eternal life. The condition limiting         1. I repeat what I wrote the last time, namely, "that
 this offer is : turn from your wicked ways. This condition          my critics should have noted the first two paragraphs of my
 makes the contents of the general message partcular.  (p. 32)'      article, then they would have understood why I did not com-
  (Daane continues  - M.S.) `Here we see that Hoeksema               ment on Dr. Daane's criticism of our Protestant Reformed
 uses the conditional to pare down and limit the general to          position, and also why I used Daane's article to reflect on
 the particular. Is this a ,solution  to Hoeksema's problem ?        the position of Rev. Kok." I had no intention in that article
 Obviously  it~is not. It is a mere verbalism."                      of saying anything about Daane's misconception of the Prot-
        "A bit later Dr. Daane states : `Hoeksema's employment estant Reformed position, nor would I do this in any future
d of the idea of the conditional does not solve his problem.'        article until Dr. Daane had first talked himself out. My only
 And again: `To be sure he (Hoeksema) does not deny that             intention was to show agreement with Daane that those who
 the term condition, can be properly used.' In all these in-         hold to the conditional doctrine, if they are consistent, should
 stances there is implied change since Rev. Hoeksema would           move back to the Christian Reformed Church, and that
 no longer admit this.                                               Rev.  Kok has changed, not Rev. Hoeksema. Daane was
        "But Dr. Daane's main criticisnf  and characterization of    finished with his answer to Rev.  Kok, and I agreed with
 Hoeksema's position is found at the close of his article where      Daane. I say again, "he hit the nail squarely on the head."
 Daane writes as follows :                                              ~2. It is most interesting to observe how Rev. Hofman,
        `But if Rev. Kok and his group would return to Hoek-         and others with him, will quote another. When I read his
 sema, then they must accept the great weakness of Hoekse-           editorial, I referred to the Reformed Journal from which he
 ma's position, namely, his conception of the gospel . . . .         quoted the Rev. Daane. I put squares around Hofman's
 Hoeksema's gospel. cannot be preached. It has lost its  ad-         quotes and they really made quite a picture. I realize, of
 dressability. It has nothing to say to the particrrlar  man. At     course, that when one refers to an article of another, and
 best it can be merely- announced to a generality of men.            especially one as long as Daane's, he cannot quote everything
 Hoeksema must know the identity of the particular man, and          the -writer says, nor does he need to. But it seems to me that
 the particular man must be identified as elect before the gos-      there are certain laws of ethics one ought to stick to when :
 pel can be addressed to him. Hoeksema's gospel can only be          he quotes another, and the fundamental law is not to elide
 addressed to the Church, and within the Church. This ac-            from the quotation what one feels will hurt his own cause.
 counts on the one hand for the less than enthusiastic mission.      Hofman puts three dots in his quotation to show that he
 impulse in the Protestant Reformed Churches. His theolo,ay          elided something, but notice what he left out. I refer to his
  also accounts for and supports the kind of Ethics- which           quotation of Daane above which begins with "But if Rev.
 contends that God is not for the world, that the Church is not      Kok and his group would return to Hoeksema, then they
 for the world, a kind of Ethics which demands that the              must accept the great weakness of Hoeksema's position,
 neighbor be identified as regenerate or non-regenerate, Chris-      namely, his conception of the gospel." Then follows the three
 tian brother or non-Christian brother before the Christian          dots showing the elision. Hofman left the following out: "a
  dispenses  ,his love  - a matter which I shall treat in a fol-     weakness which  Kok's conditional theology is trying to over-
  lowing issue of this Journal.'                                     come." Now I know Rev. Hofman you didn't like what
        "And finally Dr. Daane writes : `By his denial of Point      Daane wrote here, and you no doubt would like to have many
  I, he (Hoeksema) has separated the general message from            believe that you disagree with it, but why not be ethical about
  the particular hearer, and is unable to establish a connection     it and let Daane say what he>actua.lly  said. You surely can-
  between them. In earlier years, as Rev. Kok points out, he         not plead over-sight, for YOLZ indicated elision. Our readers
 ,attempted  to do so by means of the term conditional! Today        would be very much interested to know why  you  omitted
  he sees that Protestant Reformed theology cannot accept            these.few very telling words of Dr. Daane.
  such a solution. This leaves his problem unsolved, and                 Again, Rev. Hofman, while you were quoting anyway,


                                                 T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                               335

   and  SO sorely needed material to fill your editorial space, why      do not believe that Daane understands, nor- does he present
  -didn't you also quote the following from Daane's pen? "Rev.           correctly our Protestant Reformed position. I will try to
   Kolc   believes that Hoeksema's. rejection of conditions is a         show this in another article. But does this mean that Daane
   departure from Protestant Reformed theology as Hoeksema               is therefore unable to know what conditional theology is, and
   himself taught it formerly.. Consequently Rev. Kok thinks T           that those who hold to this conditional theology, being con-
   am, mistaken when I declare that those in the Protestant              sistent, should also embrace the doctrine of the Three Points
   Reformed Churches who now believe in conditional theology             of 1924 ? I think not. I claim that Daane understands per-
   have taken a step toward the Christian Reformed Church.              fectly his own doctrines as well as the conception of those
       "In both instances I think Rev.  Kok`mistaken.   Hoekse-         who hold to the conditional doctrine, and that these two
   v&a  has not changed  his theology, except in ttje sense that        agree perfectly. In respect to the latter, I maintain that
   lze kas  pz&fced   it.  (I underscore.  - M.S.) Consistency de-      Daane has hit the nail squarely on the head when he told the
   mands that Protestant Reformed theology repudiate con-               conditional advocates to return to the Christian Reformed
   ditions. This theology can retain conditions in the abstract,        Church. And if Hofman and Mr. Byker think that I do not
   but it `cannot retain the conditional as a  means.of interpreting    understand Dr. Daane, let them ask Daane to explain his
  and determining gospel address. Protestant Reformed theo-             own writing.                                              M.S.
  logy has always denied that gospel preaching is of the nature
 of  an-"offer."  It must therefore deny that gospel preaching
 is of a conditional nature.  It  ,is  +tot  Hoeksema   but Kok  who                    CONTRIBUTiONS
  has departed fwm the genius of Protestant  Reforvvted  theo-
  logy." (Italics - M.S. j                                              Deal*  Editor-  of  the  Starhdard  Bearer:-
      Rev. Hofman, you  .say Hoeksema has changed, and even                 May I have a little space in the S. B., the paper which
  Dr. Daane implies that he did ? I ask you to show from the            is still the leading magazine in the Reformed Church world,
  above quotation that Daane thinks Hoeksema changed his                although Rev. -De Boer is of the opinion that it `is not worth-
  theology. And even if Daane thought he did, you- know                 while to read this magazine anymore, and it is no longer
  better that he did not, if you ever seriously studied Hoekse-         worthy of publication. That is what De Boer tells his readers
  ma's dogmatics. It is pure nonsense that Hoeksema changed,            in the Reformed  ,Guardian  of March 10 in his "A Moral  1
  `and you know it. Why then do you continue to try to camou-           Issue."
  .-flage  the business with your readers ?                                 It is-De Boer's deep conviction and considered opinion
      3. Finally, I wish to reply to the last paragraph of Hof-         that the trouble we have in our churches is the fault of Rev.
  man's editorial. He writes  :"Now  if Dr. Daane has hit the           H. Hoeksema. This type of leadership is domineering and
  nail squarely on the head in the one instance, doesn't it fol-        hierarchical, and as such contrary to the spirit of our Lord
  low that he has also done so in the other? Or if he is in-            Jesus Christ. Proof please!
  correct in his judgment in the one case, isn't it just possible          Let me put you at ease Reverend: In our Protestant .
  that this is also so in the other ? How about it Rev.. Schipper ?     Reformed Churches at present -is peace and harmony among
      I consider this a cute piece of sophistry. In brief, that's       its members, and we fully agree with the leadership of the
  my answer. Hofman isn't interested really in my answer at             Rev. HI Hoeksema and I can inform you that in his speech
  all. He is bent on warping the minds of his readers, trying           and writing he -is Reformed, and not selfwilled and schism-
  to make them believe what Mr. Byker literally says: that              tic, as you put it.
  Schipper doesn't have the intelligence of a fifth grader.`.              .By implication De Boer puts Rev. Hoeksema in the class
      What a jam that Rev. Schipper got himself into anyway !           with Solomon who builded idol temples for his heathen wives
  He simply writes without thinking. And, lo, he talked him-            in his old age. That means in this case that Rev. Hoeksema
  self into saying something  he,will now have to retract. Surely       in his old age, after his sickness, when he became more or
  Schipper will haves  to admit that Dr. Daane doesn't know             less feeble, he aims to lead the people of God in the wrong
 . much about Protestant Reformed theology. He certainly                direction, away from God and His precepts. How dare you,
  cannot go along with Daane when the latter writes that the            De Boer, slander a minister of the gospel in a manner so
  Protestant Reformed Churches cannot preach the gospel to              hateful. Shame on you!
  every man. Schipper will surely never admit that there are               I surmise you don't know anymore what slander is.
  weaknesses in the Protestant Reformed theology. And if he             Slander, Reverend, is a false or malicious report, and false is
  will admit that Daane-is all wrong here, won't Schipper also          untrue, dishonest, disloyal ; and malicious is bearing ill-will
  have to admit that Daane may be wrong when he agrees                  or spite prompted by hatred.
 -with Daane that the latter has correctly understood the-con-             Now, this you do not find in any of Rev. Hoeksema's
  ditional doctrine -of Rev. Kok, et al, as being on a par with         writings. He never has any evil intention to hurt others,
the common grace theology of the Christian Reformed                     but always speaks the truth based on Scriptures or the Con-
  Churches  ?                                                           fessions and this is more than can be said of your writing,
      I call this fallacious logic, plain sophistry. Of course, I       De Boer. It is full of slander from beginning to the end.


     The Reverend. notifies his readers that. the present. diffi- . themselves, and we as common members have not as yet lost
  culty is not a question of serious doctrinal differences. The        OU? thinking cap, and are not blinded by your unethical and
  Rev. Hoeksema lies when he claims it is. Proof please !              slanderous reasoning in the Reformed Guardian.
     The Rev. Hoeksema did point out time and again -how                i' And how dare you De Boer slander Rev. Hoeksema and
  serious it is, this` error of a conditional gospel,. but you and     the brethren, (who always aim at the well being of the
  your supporters want to keep this. adulterous baby, and it           Churches.) that they trample under foot the Church Order,
  grows nicely and ere long it will be full grown. Beware!             while you and your supporters have never done anything
     0 yes, De Boer still believes as he always did. He still -but that, also when you were suspended, and that in the legal
believes in election, and also that God must work faith from           way. Shame on' you !
  beginning to the end, and that man can do nothing,. He still             Who told you the lie  .that Rev. Hoeksema walked out
  believes in unconditional election, but he also believes in con-     in the final meeting of the Fuller Ave. Consistory prior to
  ditional election, for this is also in accordance with Scripture.    the split? The Consist&y told you different through the
  So, De Boer has unconditional, conditional election, whatever        S. B. Who gives you right, Reverend, to write that Rev.
  this may be.                                                         Hoeksema sowed the seeds of doubt and suspicion in your
     Now, Rev. De Boer, on the road to heaven through the              midst? Have  you  proof for it ?  You  have not! Nothing but
 midst of this world there are, no conditions, for we must be          slander.
  saved by grace, and by grace only, and we can do nothing,               Who informed you that Rev. Hoeksema preached split
 nothing to inherit eternal life, and as soon as you put some-         when `he ought to have called for unity ? and that all hap-
 thing between God and the cross, God will curse you for He            pened after -his illness that broke him in body and soul. I
 is a jealous God. De Boer believes all this, every bit of it,         assure you, De Boer, that he is not broken in body and soul,
  but he also believes the statements .of De Wolf. in his ser-         but preached the full counsel of God with more. power and
 mons that : "God promises every one of you that if you be-            vigor than even before, honor and praise to our covenant
 lieve, you shall be saved,"- and "Our act of  co'nversion is a        God. Yes, De Boer you. should read and re-read the exposition.
 prerequisite to enter the kingdom  of'heaven.".                       of our Heidelberg Catechism in `Lord's Day 43, and take it to
     Now,. De Boer, to my knowledge `you can not believe               heart, for then  you  desire no more to falsify a man's word
 both. The one'excludes the other.                                     nor be a backbiter or slanderer which are the proper works
    This was explained to `you and your -supporters again and          of the devil.
 again by H. Hoeksema in the S. B., but to no avail. You will             Well, De Boer, will  you  be so kind' if-you write in the
 not listen, for you made .up your mind that- Rev. Hoeksema            Reformed Guardian the next time, to tell your readers that
 is not trustworthy, and you do not listen to the co-editors -De Wolf did not confess his sin, and that the consistory
 in the S. B. either, for all of you are not Prot. Ref. anymore,       found him guilty of the heresies charged ; and the Rev. Hoek-
. and you hate that paper, and therefore you must repent of            sema does not claim that his opinion is the one and only one.
 your evil way De Boer and not slander your former profes-                It also is De Boer's considered opinion that those who
  sor H. Hoeksema who still taught and preached the uncon-             have forced the split, have done it to gain power for them-
  ditional truth of God's sovereign mercy for His elect people;        selves. They do it not for the glory of God. Such leadership
 and I should know it, for all these years I was a member of           has not in mind the preservation of the truth, is the opinion
 Eastern Ave. Christian Reformed Church, and of the present            of `De Boer. It is impossible for him to believe it. This I
 Prot. Ref. Church whose members meet .in Christian High,              believe Reverend, for in all of your writing in the Reformed
 and of which Rev. H. Hoeksema, and Rev. C. Hanko                      Guardian you have not the mind of Christ, no love for the
 are pastors in good standing  ; and don't forget Rev. De Boer,        church it seems, but seek self and condemn others without
 you are not.anymore a preacher of the.-gospel in any church,          proof.
 for in Edgerton  Rev. Veldman  is the God-ordained servant               Now, De Boer, you may see the marks of the false church
 in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.                               coming to the fore, in the Prot. Ref. Churches, but that also
     De Boer also finds fault `with Rev.  Hoeksema's leader-           is nothing but slander, the very works of the Father of Lies.
 ship that a few years ago he made .plain in the S. B. that               You know very well, Reverend that the Prot. Ref. truth,
 Rev.  Kok and Rev. De -Jong misrepresented our Prot. Ref.             which is the truth of Scripture, is preached in Christian High
 `truths in the Netherlands. How come-De  Boer, that at that           every Sunday.  `.Repent,  and take heed to Paul's warning,
 time you didn't find fault?. Shall I tell you Rev., you have          "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro
 changed  ?                                                            and carried about with -every wind of doctrine, by the sleight
     Who told you De Boer that Rev. Hoeksema `in the con-              of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait
  ditional debate led many of the lesser spirits' in the wrong         to deceive." (Eph.  4:14).
  direction, because of--his specious reasonings. I can inform          I  thank'you,  esteemed Editor, for the space granted me.
 you that those who serve with Rev. Hoeksema as pastors in             ,May %od spare you many years yet as Editor of the Standard
  the Prot. .Ref, denomination always give' a -good account of         Bearer, and as preacher of the full counsel of God.    S.D.V.


