mistreated the Negro people, and for that I make no excuse. But some of us have some good colored friends whom we have lived with and whom we have befriended and by whom we have been befriended and whom we love. I resent the way in which we were "raked over the coals" with this barrage of harassing questions.
I wish to answer one of these questions, namely, "What is the teaching of the Bible regarding the so-called races of man and their relationships to each other? " One of the passages most often quoted in this connection is Acts 17:26 where we read, "God made of one all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth." That fact is obvious. But this is one of those passages often misquoted, and the rest of the verse says, "And hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation."
In my humble opinion the report did not touch the heart of the segregation question as it relates to the South, namely, social life and intermarriage. The fact that God set the bounds of the nations shows that He knew that it was best for them not to intermingle socially. The ways, thoughts, and habits of some people are diverse from others. We must differentiate as to nationality in social life that may lead to intermarriage. It is not a question of equality, but a matter of compatibility. I believe that Acts 17:26 has a local as well as a national application. Certainly we should be kind and gracious to all races of people, seeking to give them the Gospel that they might be saved. But evidently the Lord never intended a union of the races in domestic life. "Physical separation and spiritual union" is the best formula for race relationships.
The late Dr. R. A. Torrey, speaking of the intermarriage of persons of different nationalities, as of a white person to a Negro, said, "I certainly do not believe in it. Such marriages will involve the persons in difficulties that will hinder, if not absolutely prevent, their largest usefulness for Christ. Such a marriage will certainly bring great misery to the resultant offspring."
CREEDS
By Gordon H. Clark, Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy in Butler University
Indianapolis, Indiana
This is the second in a series of articles by Dr. Clark, written for the journal.
Today many church leaders consider creeds as obstacles to ecumenical union. It would please such men to hand over the discussions of credal differences to those impractical fuddy-duddies, the theologians, while they themselves made the important organizational arrangements by which the right people would get the prominent positions.
Besides these ecumaniacs there are other more humble people who sincerely believe that the adoption of a creed is an act of ecclesiastical presumption. Therefore several denominations have no creed. Then there are others who regard creeds, not as necessarily presumptuous, but as unnecessary. This would be the attitude of those who, though their zeal is unquestioned, find creeds intellectually heavy.
An evangelist I heard a year ago seems to be an instance of both these latter types. In his appeal to the unsaved he said that first they must repent, then they must have faith in Christ, and finally they must be born again. Since his denomination has no creed, no rule of his church forbids him to preach in this way. But had he been a Presbyterian, he would have been sailing under false colors, for I take it that no intelligent and honest Presbyterian would preach that faith and repentance precede regeneration.
However, it is to be feared that not all Presbyterians are both intelligent and honest. There are those who regard the Westminster Confession as a meaningless form to which lip service is paid at ordination. In the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. on several occasions candidates for the ministry, when examined by Presbytery, have doubted or denied the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the existence of Satan and hell—not to mention effectual calling and the perseverance of the saints—and yet the Presbytery voted to ordain them, and they professed in words their adherence to the Confession they had just contradicted.
No one compels a young man to become a Presbyterian minister. It is a voluntary choice. Therefore honesty seems to require that he be loyal to the flag he has chosen, or rather that he choose a flag to which he can be conscientiously loyal. If he does not believe the Confession, why should he solemnly affirm that he does? Similarly, if an older minister changes his views and comes to disagree with his ordination vows, no one compels him to remain in the denomination. Rather honesty compels him to find a church with which he agrees. How can God be expected to bless perjury and hypocrisy in the pulpit?
The Westminster Confession was never intended to be either an empty form or an obstacle to church union. With the other reformed creeds, the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of the Synod of Dort, it was a statement of what all the ministers earnestly believed and faithfully preached. These creeds were bonds of union, not causes of discord. Discord comes when men of opposing views subscribe to the same verbal formula. But the creeds were never intended to hide differences behind a veil of meaningless words. On the contrary, the year before St. Bartholomew's massacre Bishop Jewel of the Anglican church wrote to Peter Martyr on the continent, "As to
