The position of this leader of India is described as on the fence. That posi­tion is a dangerous spot. If he moves toward the West, he is in danger of the Communism, and so too if he moves to­ward the Russian block, aid from the capitalist countries will be cut off.

So far Nehru has been a disappoint­ment to the West. He has told his countrymen that the West is their tra­ditional enemy, and that the conflict between Communism and the West is not their concern.

It is interesting to note what he thinks of the U. S. I quote a few sentences from Time. “Nehru equates U. S. capi­talism with imperialism. He wrote: “The Americans do not take the trouble to annex a country, as Britain annexed India; all they are interested in is profit, and so they take steps to control the wealth of the country. A country may appear to be free and independent if you consult geography or an atlas. But if you will look behind the veil, you will find that it is in the grip of another country, or rather of its bankers and business men.” Nehru has spoken ad­mirably of U. S. political democracy, but, as a Socialist, he considers ‘eco­nomic democracy (i.e., a state-enforced minimum economic level) just as im­portant. In Nehru’s mind the U.S. and Soviet Russia come out just about even: “All the evils of a purely political demo­cracy are evident in the U. S. A.; the evils of the lack of political democracy are present in the U. S. S. R.”


Synod of Dordt, 1618_19.

In reading about the Synod of Dordt, I came upon an interesting episode that may interest you.

After the Remonstrants had left the Synod and the Synod was considering the five propositions, which are now our Canons of Dordt, we are told that un­expected storms arose among the dele­gates.

Especially was there a strife between Martinius and Gomarus.

Martinius belonged to the delegates from Bremen, who was ranked among the professors who were present at the Synod. He is described as a learned man but not a deep thinker, whose stan­dard of judging doctrinal statements was their use to edification. In his dog­matics Martinius recognized as primary that Christ died for all. Martinius is the one who remarked that he saw at Dordt something divine, something hu­man, and something diabolical.

Gomarus was the leader of the strong Reformed group which opposed Arminius and his followers. With respect to learning and influence there was not a greater personality on the Synod of Dordt.

Concerning one of the storms that broke out this is told us. In the discus­sion about Article III and IV, Martinius expressed himself that there were things in the Reformed doctrine which he did not understand, dubia. For example, he said, he could not understand how God could on the one hand demand faith of man while on the other hand we con­fessed that faith was a gift of God. Against this statement, Gomarus angrily replied that one who made such silly statements was not worthy to unloosen the shoe laces of Calvin. After an at­tempt at understanding was made with no result, Martinius left the gathering. The delegates from Bremen stayed away the following day. After the English am­bassador wrote a sharp letter to Bogerman about his failure to lead the gather­ing, Bogerman asked the brethren to restore brotherly love. Then Gomarus and Lubbertus visited the Bremen dele­gates and expressed that they recognized them as learned and honest men.

Considering the personalities and their differences of opinion that appeared on the famous Synod it is a remarkable thing that the Canons of Dordt were signed by all the members, even the Swiss delegates who had received word not to sign.