Mr. Chairman, Dr. Woodbridge and Christian Friend, I must take just a moment in which to express my great sense of privilege at being here this evening in this great gathering. It's an encouraging sight to see so many people who realize that this great event which we are commemorating together tonight is something that should be commemorated. And it's a particular pleasure to me to be sharing this meeting as speaker with Dr. Charles Woodbridge. I've known of him for a number of years. Mr. Kager told you just a little about him, about his distinguished career as a professor of church history. But he didn't tell you that unlike many professors of church history, Our distinguished guest tonight is not merely one of these theoretical academic historians who can write and speak learnedly about the glories of the past. He's a man who has in his own life put into practice what he teaches and what he preaches. This man stood in the early 30s of this century and before that with the great Dr. Gresham Mitchum in that epic and notable fight in the Presbyterian Church in the north of the United States of America. And he was excommunicated with Dr. Mitchum and others because of his stand for the faith. If ever a man, therefore, had a right to speak on the Pilgrim Fathers, it is Dr. Woodbridge. That was a fact which is even more important than the fact that his forebears landed in the United States in 1634. He's a pilgrim himself by conviction, and has proved this by his action. We therefore honor him as a visitor to our country, and we thank God that he was able to come and to join us in this celebration service. Now, why did we feel in this country, a number of us, that this notably event in the history of the human race and of the church should be commemorated. If we had no other reason, it's one of the great epic stories of all history. Its dramatic character and the men involved in these flabby, flaxy days it's good to be reminded again of men of character, men of strength, men of conviction, men of stature. One of the American poets has put this very well in well-known words, lives of great men all remind us we can make our lives sublime and departing leave behind us footprints on the sands of time. footprints that perhaps another, sailing o'er life's solemn main, a forlorn and shipwrecked brother, seeing, may take heart again. And I believe that as we look together this evening, as we have been doing, and as we shall continue to do for a brief while, at the footprints of these pilgrim fathers, and those sins in New England, we shall, under the blessing of Almighty God, take heart again and decide to go forward with this great fight. But I'm particularly interested in this commemoration because, in a most extraordinary manner, there is a very perfect parallel between what happened in those early days of the 17th century and what is happening today. This is why it seems to me that one of the most important things for all of us as Christians to do at the present time is to study church history, and particularly this period. Why? Well, because that was an age of transition, and this is an age of transition. Everybody's agreed about this. The period of the Renaissance and the Reformation and the hundred years or so afterwards was one of those great turning climactic points in the history of the whole human race. And you and I are living in a similar period. We are living, it's a privilege to be alive at the present time, with all its problems and all its difficulties. We nevertheless are living in one of these great turning points of history. And as I see it, it is a most astonishing and remarkable thing that we are confronted as Christians and as members of the Christian Church by precisely the same questions and problems as confronted those men 350 years ago and more. Now, what is the great question? Well, the great question confronting them and the great question confronting us is the nature of the Christian church and the character of Christian worship. That's what it was all about. And that, as we've been reminded, is the great question ultimately facing us today. Now the value you see of church history is this, that it not only presents us with the doctrine, and the doctrine must come first, and is all-important, but it also makes us concentrate on the practical application of the doctrine. And this is where so many people fail. They may be correct in their doctrines, but they never apply them. They're theorists. Their attitude is objective and entirely objective. But it seems to me that the moment you read history and confront what men actually did, you're compelled to ask yourself the question, not only what do I believe, but what am I doing about it? And another great value of church history as I see it, and this particular history about which we are concerned tonight in particular is this. in this age of transition, when everything, as it were, is being thrown into the melting pot. And may I interject here that I am one of those who doesn't fear to say this, that in some respects, I'm grateful for the ecumenical movement. Now, let me explain what I mean by that, lest I be excommunicated immediately. What I mean is this, that this movement has at any rate, as it were, thrown into the melting pot again all the major denominations. They say so themselves. Very well. I think that's a good thing. And I think it has compelled, or should compel, all Christians to think these things through once more. Of course, we shall think in a different way from the ecumenical people. We'll arrive at a different conclusion. But I'm grateful in days like these for anything that even helps us to think. Because the main trouble is that people will not think. They're content to rest with what they were brought up in, and in their indolence and laziness, they will not face the issues. Therefore, you see, this history is of value to us. Here we are, we can see that things as they've been in the past are no longer to continue. And then the question arises, well, what then are we to do? And it's a very good thing that you should read history in order that you may become aware of some of the pitfalls, some of the dangers, some of the errors that godly men can fall into. The Pilgrim Fathers even, we will find, were not perfect. So we have this great advantage. We not only have our doctrine, we're able to look back and to see how these men tried to apply the doctrine and the various errors and dangers and pitfalls. Very well. We've been given a very masterly summary of the history. These church historians are very special men and they're very difficult men to follow in a meeting like this. They are so full of their matter, and they know it. But you will never have a more perfect summary of the story than that to which you've been privileged to listen tonight. I simply want to underline some of the things that Dr. Woodbridge has put so clearly and so powerfully and so feelingly before us. Now, it seems to me that it is very important that we should spend at least a moment in an exact definition concerning these pilgrim fathers. People are no longer aware of church history, and they don't understand these things. Dr. Woodbridge has painted in The Essentials Forest. A reformation took place in this country. But immediately, there were people who were not satisfied with that reformation. They said, oh yes, we've reformed the doctrine. But we've not carried the Reformation right through. We haven't carried it through in our practice and in our views of church government. And they began to agitate about this. These are the people who were called Puritans. They felt that the Reformation was incomplete. that in this country it hadn't been carried through, the thoroughness with which it had been carried through in most of the European countries and nations. But unfortunately, a division developed even amongst the Puritans. Not immediately, but from about 1562 to the end of the century. And there were three main groups. There were Puritans who believed in staying in the Church of England and continuing as they were. But they had the idea that they would gradually bring pressure to bear, trusting that things would gradually be improved and that they should obtain a complete reformation. But then there were others who soon appeared who were not content with this. They said that you must immediately introduce a different type of church government. For instance, there was a man like Thomas Cartwright, and incidentally, this is an anniversary in connection with him. Thomas Cartwright was in many ways the first Presbyterian. And he was ejected from his post as professor of divinity in the University of Cambridge in 1570 because he was teaching Presbyterian principles rather than Episcopalian principles. Well, there was that group with him. They didn't believe in separating from the state, nor did they believe in separating from the church. But they wanted to turn the Church of England from an Episcopal church into a Presbyterian church on the lines of the Church of Kelvin in Geneva. But then later another group arose. And these were men who said, this is all wrong. We must act immediately. We mustn't wait. This is nonsense. We must go out at once. We must separate immediately. They were led by a man called Robert Brown and were known as the Brownists. And in many ways, he was the originator of congregationalism and independency. I know there are modifications, but in its essence, he was the leader. And then, you see, there was yet another group that soon began to appear. And these were people who agreed so much with Brown, but said, we needn't go out of the church to do this. We can form congregational churches within the Church of England. Now, it's just a bit important that we should know something about this. All the Puritans were agreed with what was stated, for instance, by John Fox, the great author, you remember, of that martyrology, the Fox's Book of Martyrs. He said that there were still baits of potpourri left in the Church of England. He wished that God might take them away and ease us from them, for God knows they be the cause of much blindness and strife amongst men. He pleaded for more conformity to the law of Christ and primitive Christianity. They were all agreed about that, but they differed in the way in which I've outlined to you as to how this should be done and when it should be done. Why have I said all this? Well, because we are confronted by exactly the same thing at the present time. There are evangelicals, people who are equally evangelical, but they disagree at this point in much the same way. There are those who say, stay in where you are and gradually reform, and so on. And then there are the various other groupings in very much the same way. But the great and the basic question in the last analysis is this. Here is the great dividing line, it seems to me. It was then the dividing line, it is now. Are all in every parish who have been baptized Christians and members of the Christian church automatically? Was Richard Hooker in his ecclesiastical polity which has been the main governing book of the Anglican Church of England. Was he right when he said that the English state and the Church of England were coextensive, that every baptized person, and by law they should have all been baptized, was therefore automatically a Christian? Is that the right view of the church? Or is the church a body that consists only of gathered saints. Not those who have been baptized, but those who can be regarded and who give evidence of the fact that they are saints. Now, this is still the great issue that is before us. There are still these two basic views of a Christian church. Are all baptized people Christians and members of the church? Or is it only those who can testify as to their belief and who give evidence of regeneration? There was the basic issue then. It is still the great and the basic issue today. And of course, it was in the light of this that the church was formed, as we've been told, in Gainsborough and in Scrooby, and that went out to Leiden and so on. And I'm so glad that Dr. Woodbridge emphasized the fact that these Pilgrim Fathers, who left Holland for the reasons that he put before us, were not revolutionaries. There are people who are interested in the Pilgrim Fathers purely in a political sense. They regard them as politicians, as rebels, as revolutionaries. They were nothing of the sort. They were anxious to go out to form this new land in America, which would be a colony of England. And they swore their allegiance to James I and were very anxious to do so. There is no question whatsoever but that their main motive in crossing the Atlantic was a religious one. and that was furthered and accentuated by the other reasons which have been given to us. John Owen, the great Dr. John Owen, the great Puritan, I think put it perfectly in these words. Multitudes of pious, peaceable Protestants were driven by the severities of church and state to leave their native country and seek a refuge for their lives and liberty with freedom for the worship of God in a wilderness in the ends of the earth. That undoubtedly is the reason why they went. Now, what did they establish then? Well, it's important, I think we should know these things. They established congregational churches. They didn't establish new branches of the Church of England. They didn't establish Presbyterian churches. They established congregational churches. Their beliefs, as we've been reminded, were the beliefs of all Puritans at that time. These men were all Calvinists. You didn't know, perhaps, that John Robinson, the pastor of these people in Leiden, was a great protagonist of the truth of the canons of Dort. And he was greatly respected and admired by the Dutch theologians. He was put up to defend them and did so, and did so in a very masterly manner. He was a very, very able and erudite man. His books prove that quite clearly. Very well, they held what we would call the reformed faith, the Calvinistic doctrine. Now, this is the truth about every single one of them. There was a mixed multitude, I know, in the Mayflower, but we are talking about these religious people that formed the core of the Pilgrim Fathers. And therefore, in forming their churches, they had certain rules. And they were very punctilious about this. You couldn't just join a church whenever you liked. You had to be scrutinized, you had to be examined. all members had to make a confession of their faith. They had to make it clear that they believed the great cardinal articles of this reformed faith, as it had been taught by Luther and Calvin and so on. But in addition to that, they had to subscribe to a covenant to belong to that particular church. A church, according to these people, was a gathering of people who, holding these views, now covenanted together to live together and to worship God in this way and to make the gospel known. So they covenanted together to do this. And you wouldn't be received as a member of the church unless you signed the covenant. Then another thing for us to note is this. Clearly, in view of these ideas, they had no bishops. They had ministers and elders and deacons. But this is what's important. Each church chose and ordained its own ministers and admitted and expelled members of the church. No outside body decreed this. You see, it was a real departure from Anglicanism, from Episcopacy, and indeed also from Presbyterianism. It was a congregational church, and the other churches were influenced by them. Now, as you read the story of these various emigrations that went out during the following years, you'll find that many of them went with different and varying ideas. But this became the common practice and the common principle, and the New England churches, speaking generally, were congregational churches. That is what they established. Now, at this point, I would venture on a criticism. The Pilgrim Fathers, as I said just now, were not perfect. They were men of their age and of their own generation, as we are, and this is where we can learn. They attempted to form a theocracy. There's no question about this. Only church members were allowed to vote, for instance, in appointing the officers of the state. There is no question that, in a sense, they still carried with them certain tyrannical ideas, and they were not clear on the relationship between the church and state at that point. It took a number of years for these settlers in America to get clear on this issue in all the various denominations, and there is no connection between church and state in America at this present time. It seems to me that they were also guilty of imagining that you could so lay down the conditions of church membership and church government and so on, that you could do so in such a way that it would continue like that in perpetuity. This, of course, is always the danger that confronts reformers, men who have to start afresh. They've left another body. And they feel that they've seen things clearly. Their danger is to say, well, now then, we will make it impossible for the church ever to go astray again. The old church was right at the beginning. She went wrong. Now then, we're going to form a new church, and we're going to so define her and safeguard her that she can never go astray again. They believe they could do that. But history has proved that it cannot be done. Now, I'm saying this for this good reason. There are people today, many of them in this country, who are disturbed about the whole situation, disturbed about their own denomination. The one thing that seems to me to hold back many of these friends, at least this is what they say to me, they say, oh, but if we go out, what guarantee have we that what we go out into will be all right in a hundred years' time, so they stay where they are? Well, now, both these attitudes, you see, are quite wrong. Your responsibility and mine is today. What are we doing? We cannot legislate for posterity. Let's learn that from the Pilgrim Fathers. They thought they could. History has proved that it cannot be done. Now, there's a very wonderful statement by John Robinson himself about this, and I want to read it to you, because it not only puts this point right, but it helps me to deal with another error with regard to John Robinson. There is a statement of John Robinson's that is most frequently quoted by liberals in theology. They think that he's on their side. Let me read his statement to you. This was a statement that he made at the end of his last sermon to the Pilgrim Fathers before they sailed. And incidentally, he preached on that passage that I asked Mr. Kager to read at the beginning. That's why he read it. He preached to them on Ezra 8. What an excellent choice of a text for such an occasion. I hope we shall learn from him, those of us who are preachers. But then this is how he ended. Brethren, he said, we are now quickly depart from one another. And whether I may ever live to see your faces on earth anymore, the God of heaven only knows. But whether the Lord have appointed that or no, I charge you before God and before his blessed angels that you follow me no further than you have seen me follow the Lord Jesus Christ. If God reveal anything to you by any other instrument of his, be as ready to receive it as ever you were to receive any truth by my ministry. Listen, for I am verily persuaded, here's the phrase, I am very confident, the Lord hath more truth yet to break forth out of his holy word. But let's complete his statement, it's a great one. For my part, I cannot sufficiently bewail the condition of the Reformed Churches, who have come to a period in religion, and will go at present no further than the instruments of their first Reformation. The Lutherans cannot be drawn to go beyond what Luther saw. Whatever part of his will our good God has imparted and revealed unto Calvin, they will rather die than embrace it. And the Calvinists, you see, stick fast where they were left by that great man of God, who yet saw not all things. This was the great pastor of the pilgrim fathers. What a balanced and sane man he was. He says, this is a misery much to be lamented, for they were burning and shining lights in their time, yet they penetrated not into the whole council of God, But were they now living, they would be as willing to embrace further light as that which they first received. I beseech you to remember it. It is an article of your church covenant, that you will be ready to receive whatever truth shall be made known unto you from the written word of God. Remember that. and every other article of your most sacred covenant. But I must herewith all exhort you to take heed what you receive as truth, examine it, consider it, compare it with the other scriptures of truth before you do receive it. For it is not possible the Christian world should come so lately out of such thick anti-Christian darkness, and that perfection of knowledge should break forth at once." What a great and a glorious statement. We all need to pay heed to it. But the phrase that is so frequently quoted by liberals is this. It has almost become their great key word. I am verily persuaded, I am very confident, the Lord hath more truth yet to break forth out of his holy word. They interpret that to mean this, that it is very wrong of us as Christians to still adhere to and to hold on to the 39 articles of the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the teaching of the Protestant Fathers, that life is advancing, science has developed, and that those men were all right at that time in what they saw, but the whole situation today is entirely different, and this there play in the realm, therefore, of theological belief and definition. whereas it is abundantly clear from the context that John Robinson at this point was talking about one thing only, and that was church government. He was an honest man, you see. There was a time when he had adopted and bespoused the teachings of Robert Brown. He'd been a Browness. But he'd been persuaded by a Congregationist called Henry Jacob that this was wrong, and he modified his opinion. Great men are ready to change their opinions if they can be convinced. These men were not rigid bigots. They were godly men, and they were ready to consider points of view and to evaluate them and to consider them carefully in the light of the teaching of the Scripture, and they were open to conviction. And as John Robinson says so clearly and so excellently here, He says don't imagine that Luther or Calvin in a few years could put everything right. They dealt with these great central fundamental truths of the faith. But they haven't got the time apart from anything else to work out all these other matters and it is here he suggests that further light may yet break out from the scriptures. So if ever you hear anybody again justifying his heterodoxy or liberalism in theology in terms of the statement of John Robinson, give him the lie direct and put him right on his facts. Now then, what is it that explains these pilgrim fathers? What is it that led to this epic story? And there's no doubt about this answer. It was their knowledge of God. These were godly men above everything else. They were sober men. Nobody would ever mistake these men for a film star. They were men who lived under the eye of God, and they feared God. and they walked in the fear of the Lord. I've told you about their theological views, but these were not merely held intellectually. They penetrated the very fiber of their being. Their lives were entirely submitted and subordinated to this. They believed also very deeply in God's guidance even in the details of our lives, and in his providential care. And this, of course, had led to this. They'd got a very characteristic view of life. And life to these men was a pilgrimage. This, of course, was the great note of that century. John Bunyan, we know, wrote his Pilgrim's Progress. But there were many other men before Bunyan who'd written along these same lines. The great secret of these men was that the whole of life in this world to them was nothing but a pilgrimage. And they were journeymen in this world. Haller, William Haller, who's written a most excellent book on the origins of Puritanism, has got a very pregnant statement of this. He says, men who have assurance that they are to inherit heaven have a way of presently taking possession of the earth. And that is a profoundly acute and true remark. These men who are mainly concerned about heaven and who have an assurance that they're going there have incidentally been the men who've done the greatest things in this world. and have been the pioneers in so many respects. These men, before they ever decided to go to America, were pilgrims of eternity. They'd already been pilgrims on Earth for 11 years in Holland before they set sail for America. This was but a further step. If you decide to leave England and to go to Holland because of your principles, well, it's only a little bit further to cross the Atlantic and to go to America. It all depends upon your point of view. And the governing thought of these men was what we find so much emphasized in the epistle to the Hebrews. Here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come. They were not interested in affluent societies. They didn't talk about settling down in this world and having a good time. No, no. They were strangers and pilgrims. They were travelers and they were journeymen. They said with Paul, our citizenship is in heaven. That was their whole view of life. Or as the author of the epistle to the Hebrews puts it again, These men were looking for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. And they knew that they'd never have it in this world. So their eye was set on the ultimate. They believed in making the best they could of life in this world while they were left in it, because it is God's world. But they never expected much from this life and from this world. They knew it was a world of sin, it is vanity fair, and they passed through it as quickly as they could as it were, untouched and untarnished by its tinsel and by all its sham and pretense. They went as pilgrims to America because they were already pilgrims in their minds and hearts and spirits. That seems to me to be the real ultimate explanation of these men. It was not merely their theological orthodoxy. It was that this had turned them into men of God, strangers and pilgrims in this evil world, journeymen on the way to God and to glory. One other thing I'd like to emphasize is this. What explains what happened to them? And here, it seems to me, there is only one answer, and that is, it was the providence of God and his blessing upon them. We have been reminded that their original idea was to go to Virginia, but they soon had to abandon that. Then their second idea was to settle along the Hudson River. They never planned to go where they eventually landed. But they now were proposing to lend in the region of the Hudson River. But they were not allowed to do so. There's a bit of a dispute as to why not. Some say that it was the treachery of the captain of the ship, although recently people have been trying to exonerate him. But whether it was that he was in league with the Dutch or not, and that they didn't want them there, Whether that's the case or not, they were not allowed to land there, and they landed more in the neighborhood of Cape Cod. Now, this was a most amazing providence. I can draw no conclusion but that it was God who contrived this. Why? Well, for this reason. If they had landed near the Hudson River where they intended, there is very little doubt but that every single one of them would have been killed. There were large numbers of Indians there, and they were vicious, and they did kill many who landed in that particular area. God, I believe, did not allow them to land there. So they had to go further north, and eventually they landed in what we now know as Plymouth. Now, here again is a most amazing providence. Did you know this, I wonder? that six months only before the landing of these people, a pestilence had broken out amongst the Indians who lived in that area. And according to some authorities, the pestilence had killed 19 20th of the Indian population. So before the pilgrims arrive, six months ahead of time, Nineteen-twentieths of the Indians who were to be their enemies had been removed out of the way. Is this accident? My dear friends, the story of the Pilgrim Fathers tells us not of the God of the deists, but of the living God, who knows us one by one, who's counted the very hairs of our heads. and who watches over us and takes care of us in his fatherly and providential care. Then another thing. Almost by accident, as it seems on the surface, if you don't view things from the biblical standpoint, they were able to capture from some of the Indians that remained some Indian corn. And this Indian corn proved to be their salvation. It not only gave them food immediately, it gave them seed for sowing later on in the year. Dr. Woodbridges reminded us that during that terrible winter, half these people died of various illnesses. Do you know that even there one can see the providence of God? If they hadn't died of these various illnesses, it is more than likely that with the limited supply of food that they had, that they all would have died of starvation. So God, as it were, mercifully took half of them and left this remnant to carry on with the work. But yet, I have to tell you the most extraordinary thing of all. Two Indians suddenly appeared amongst them, quite unexpectedly. These Indians that remained had done their best to get rid of them. They'd employed sorcerers to curse them. They'd invoked their devils, but still nothing would avail. Then two Indians suddenly appeared amongst these settlers and welcomed them in broken English. Now, how did this come to pass? This proved to be a most remarkable and providential happening in the life of these pilgrims. Two Indians able to speak broken English. What's the story of these? Well, the name of one of them was Squanto. And do you know his story? My dear friends, I'm telling you this that we may know that we have a living God who sees the end from the beginning. Nothing happens by accident. Do you know the story of Squanto? It is this. Certain English adventurers would lend from time to time in this very area. They'd go there to fish, and for various other reasons. And unfortunately, they were bad and evil men. And from time to time, they would capture some of these Indians, and they'd take them on board their ships, and use them as slaves. And this had happened to poor Squanto. He had become a slave of the English people. Eventually, they had sold him to someone in Spain. But he was able to escape from Spain, and he managed to arrive in England. And here he lived for some time. And while he was here, he picked up this little knowledge of English, this broken English of his. And then, through the kindness of the men in this country, he was able to go home again. And believe it or not, This man, Squanto again, arrived back in this very area six months before the arrival of the Pilgrim Fathers. And he and his companion, as I say, visited the little settlement. They were able to tell them about the number of Indians and their attitude towards them. They were able to instruct them how to use Indian corn. Everything that they needed most urgently, these two men were able to provide for them. And it had all happened in that way, as God allowed Joseph to be taken captive wrongly and to go down into Egypt to prepare the way for the children of Israel in the famine. I believe he did precisely the same thing with Squandal in order to make it possible for the pilgrim fathers to settle in that land. Indeed, subsequently, he was able to bring amongst them one of the greatest Indian chiefs in that whole area. and he made a treaty of peace with the Pilgrims and indeed became an English subject himself. I give you but these brief details in order that you may see that what ultimately accounts for the Pilgrim Fathers and all that their settlement there has led to during the intervening 350 years was not only their own sterling qualities their orthodox faith, their godliness, and everything that I've emphasized concerning them. It was ultimately the guiding hand of God, and it emerges most clearly as you go through the history. Very well, then, shall I try to sum up what we have both been trying to say this evening? How are we to react to all this? That's the question. Surely none of us would be content with reacting merely in an antiquarian or mere historical manner. There are people who do that, you know. There are church historians and church historians. I've known church historians who could speak eloquently about the facts of the history of the past, but who in their own lives were utter contradictions of everything they'd been saying. their interest was merely that of the historian or the antiquary. I'm sure that nobody here tonight is animated merely by such an antiquarian interest. And I imagine that you'll all agree with me also when I say that we mustn't react to this story in the way that the present master of Balliol College in Oxford, Christopher Hill, clearly reacts. I'm going to quote to you a sentence in his recent biography on Oliver Cromwell, God's Englishman, which, from the purely historical standpoint, has many things to commend it, until Mr. Hill begins to give us his own theological opinions, for this is one of them. He says, an approach to the world which in that period produced a Luther, a Descartes, a Milton and a Bunyan would today produce nothing but psychiatric cases. You see the idea? An approach to life which 350 and 400 years ago would produce a Luther or a Descartes or a Milton or a Bunyan. would today produce nothing but a psychiatric case. In other words, his view is that if we are going to pay too much attention to the views of the Pilgrim Fathers on God and on men and on life in this world and the purpose of existence and how one is to live, the result will be that we shall all become psychiatric cases. My only comment is this. Would to God that England had more psychiatric cases tonight. Isn't this the very need? Look at what happens when you reject these views. No, no, let's learn from the pilgrim fathers that this is the only true view of life. The opposite has been tried. Look what it leads to. Look at the lawlessness amongst us in every respect. Amongst the students, in the homes, in industry, politically, everywhere. Lawlessness and confusion. This country may go down from industrial causes. Why? Because men no longer believe in God and are ready to bow before him. Every man is his own God. Every man is as good as anybody else. Every man's view is right. There was no king in Israel. and every man did that which was right in his own sight. That's chaos, and we have it today. And what is needed is a return to the very views of life in this world as they were held by these men. So I say we don't react like Mr. Christopher Hill. It is equally important that we shouldn't react in the manner that our Lord says that the Pharisees and scribes behaved in his time and in his day and generation. Listen to him in Matthew 23, 29 to 32. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you build the tombs of the prophets and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous and say, if we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore, Ye be witnesses unto yourselves that ye are children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Why do I say this? I say it because there are men who have and are proposing to pay tribute to the pilgrim fathers who deny the spirit, leave alone the practice of the pilgrim fathers. Any man who holds ecumenical ideas today is denying the spirit and the practice and the life of the pilgrim fathers. And any tribute that they may attempt to pay to these men is hypocritical. These men, as we've been rightly reminded, stood for these great principles. And if we don't stand for the same principles, we don't honor them. Very well then, how do we honour them? I leave the answer in the form of a number of questions. Do we hold the same doctrines as were held by the Pilgrim Fathers? That's the first great question. Do we hold the same general doctrines, as we've been reminded, about the Scriptures and their inerrancy? Do we hold the same view of salvation, the way of salvation, as they held? But more particularly, evangelicals, are you subscribing to recent modern teaching in the name of evangelicalism, which says that bishops are essential to the church, that they belong to the bone structure and skeleton of the Christian church. The pilgrim fathers didn't, and evangelicals hitherto have not done so either. Do we follow them in this, that bishops are not essential to a new unified church? Do we agree with them in their view of sacramentalism and its practices? Are we equally clear in rejecting baptismal regeneration and various other sacramental errors? Do we agree with them in their view of the Church of Rome? For to them, the Church of Rome was the great whore. Now, it's no use paying tribute to the pilgrim fathers, unless you ask yourself these questions. Their views were quite unequivocal. They were perfectly clear. I therefore ask, do we take these things seriously? These men took these things so seriously that they did what they did. Are these matters vital to us evangelical people? I'm addressing you in particular. Are you content to go on just as you are? Don't you think it's about time you face these issues? These are not issues merely for preachers. They are issues for every member of the church. So I go on to my next question. Are we ready to act on our beliefs as they were? These men left the churches in which they'd been brought up and nurtured. They left their homes. They left their relatives. They left their friends. They left their occupations. They even left their country. Eleven years in Holland, the rest in that wilderness in America. They faced the Atlantic. They faced the wilderness and all its horrors and possibilities and the antagonism of the Indians. They faced it all because of the principles which animated them. But let me emphasize this as I close. History is vital, and exact history, precision, is important. 1620, remember, was in the age of James I. It was pre-Charles I. We know the change that came in with Charles I, how things deteriorated sadly when Charles came to the throne, but these men acted before Charles ever became king. They also acted, let me remind you, in pre-Lordian days. You know how things deteriorated under Archbishop Lord. But these men acted before Lord had ever become Archbishop. These men separated in the pre-Charles, pre-Lordian days on these specific issues. Now, let me remind you again. they were in general agreement with the others as regards theology. That wasn't the difference. The difference was over these matters of rites and ceremonies and church government. On those issues, though in general theological agreement, they separated and faced the rigors of a cruel Atlantic and an unknown wilderness in the West. This is all I ask. If they were prepared to endure all that for those issues, if they were prepared to separate on those issues, are we not prepared to separate from those who are liberals in their doctrine, who deny the Christian faith, and who preach actively against it and ridicule it Sunday by Sunday from supposedly Christian pulpits. That's the challenge of the Pilgrim Fathers. If they acted on their issues, how much more so should we act on this issue of liberalism, a denial of the very elements of the Christian faith and a rejection of this inerrancy and total authority of the Scripture. Are we not ready also to divide on this issue of sacramentarianism, sacerdotalism, this issue of fraternizing with Rome? Indeed, is not the call to us to separate from everything that is represented by the World Council of Churches and the ecumenical movement? Are you content to say I don't want trouble? I've always been brought up in this chapel, and I've always worshipped here. There are many evangelicals who are saying that to their pastors and ministers today. They say, we agree about your theology, but we don't want to be disturbed. We've always done this. My dear friend, if you can sleep tonight in that position, after hearing what you've heard about the Pilgrim Fathers, well then I am in utter despair with respect to you. You have no right to mention the Pilgrim Fathers or to pretend that you honor their memory. Face the issues. Face the facts. Or are you one of those who says, I'm still hopeful that I can reform the church in which I've been brought up? The answer of history is this. The Pilgrim Fathers anticipated by 42 years the great ejection of 1662. It took the rest 42 years to see what these men had previously seen. By 1662, they saw it was impossible and took a stand which led to their rejection from the Church of England. No, no. When a church becomes apostate or when a church is in error on these matters, you cannot reform her. This is the testimony of history. You must try to do so. You must try to get discipline to be exercised. If they will not do so, in, as Dr. Woodbridge has reminded us, separate yourself from them and be not a partaker of their evil deeds. Have you heard the challenge of the Pilgrim Fathers? This is how it comes to me. A noble army, men and boys, the matron and the maid, around the Saviour's throne rejoice In robes of light arrayed, they climbed the steep ascent of heaven through peril, toil, and pain. O God, may grace to us be given to follow in their train.