Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

February 17, 1909. THE PRESBYTERIAN truths for which in common we have been "contending earnestly as the faith once delivered to the saints;" and to erect in the historical records of the Church a monument which shall at once declare to those that come after us our appreciation of the inestimable value of these principles as the bulwark of the Christian liberty wherewith Christ sets his people free, and a definitely expressed statute testimony, to which ready appeal may be made hereafter as direct authority in support of those who stand for the truth as it is in Jesus against those who again may treacherously attempt to subvert the doctrine and order jf Christ's house." Among the doctrines and constitutional principles forming a part of the basis of the solemn covenant here referred to, is the following: "Hence this Synod anil its Presbyteries have steadfastly protested against and resisted the assumption of authority by t'ie church courts, to advise, direct and assist the civil government in its policy by the exercise of their spiritual authority, or to interpose the power of the spiritual sword for enforcing any theories of social organization, or theories of labor or political theories, or to direct men as citizens in the choico of tlieir political policy," (Assembly's Digest, p. 423). This language is perfectly explicit. To many it will doubtless appear to cover, as if by prophetic anticipation, the social program put forth by the Federal Coun cil. Its terms should be carefully noted. The Synod denies the right of the Church courts to "advise, direct, and assist the civil government." It denies their right to use the spiritual authority for enforcing any theories of social organization, or theories of labor, or for the purpose of directing men as citizens in their choice of a civil policy. To this statement of doctrine by the Synod of Kentucky, our Assembly replied: "Yet the Assembly feels free solemnly to assure the Synod of Kentucky not only of our cordial approval of, and sincere concurrence, substantially, in the Synod's statement of doctrine and constitutional principles, as contained under the four heads of the third division of their letter, but our sincere joy to And our brethren of Kenturkv ?o ronHv t/% imko .... J VMM,; V\- UUtVO TTIWU ua I 11 solemn covenant, with a view, among other things, to the advancement and maintenance of these doctrines and principles, as against the apparent Erastian tendencies of our American Protestantism," (Assembly's Digest, p. 413). The foregoing facts, taken from the record, raise this grave question, which no doubt will receive due atten-. tion from our Presbyteries, to wit: Are we not, as a Church, pledged under the sanctions of a solemn covenant, not only to the position that the Church can have no social program, but also pledged to resist, as unscriptural and pernicious, the doctrine that it can have such a program? CHRIST ALL IN ALL. Remember it is not thy hold of Christ that saves thee; it is Christ; it is not thy joy in Christ that saves thee; it is thy faith in Chrigt, though that is the instrument ; it is Christ's blood and merit. Therefore look not so much on thy hand, with which thou art grasp | ng Christ, as to Christ; look not to thy hope, but to Jesus, the author and finisher of thy faith. We shall never find happiness by looking at our prayers, our doings, or our feelings; it is what Jesus is, and not what we are, that gives rest to our souls. If we would at once overcome Satan, and have peace with God, it would be by "looking unto Jesus." Let not thy hopes *r fears come between thee and Jesus, I OF THE SOUTH. 5 CALVIN AS A REFORMER. By Prof. Henry E. Dosker, D. D. VI. The next question to be discussed is that of the position of Calvin among the Reformers. Chief among them are the great quartet?Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon and Calvin. Of these Zwingli died young and Melanchthon was by nature and temperament precluded from the task of true leadership; Luther and Calvin, therefore, remain as the two greatest leaders of the Reformation. And between these two a fair comparison seems impossible. Each was marvelously great in his own sphere. We can. however, conceive of Luther without Calvin, but not the reverse. Their task was divinely appointed, each moved in his own orbit and occupied his own peculiar place, in the great work of the Reformation. Luther stands forth as the great originator of the iveiormation, L.aivin as its great organizer. Both men thoroughly respected each other. Melanchthon tells us that, after reading Calvin's "Institutes" on the Supper, Luther said: "I hope he will some day think better of us. It is right, however, to bear something in so excellent a spirit." Calvin addresses Luther as: "Very renowned man and faithful servant of Jesus Christ and at all times my revered father." Luther said of Calvin's letter to Sadolet: "This writing has hands and feet and I rejoice that God has called up such people, who, if it be His will, may give the final blow to papacy and finish, by His help, what I began against Anti-Christ." And after reading Calvin's special tract on the Lord's Supper, he lamented the fact to Maurice Goltschen, his bookseller, "that Zwingli and Oecolampadius should not thus have explained themselves." Said he of Calvin, on that occasion,? "Certainly a learned and pious man, and I might well have entrusted the whole affair of this controversy to him from the beginning." Luther therefore deeply ap preciaiea L-aivin s conciliatory spirit. Mclanchthon became Calvin's bosom friend and although pointed things were frequently said in their correspondence, especially when Calvin detected signs of weakness in his friend, the tie between them was only broken by Melanchthon's death in 1560. Some passages in this correspondence, especially on Calvin's part, are pathetic in their tenderness. An equally strong and abiding friendship existed between Calvin and the Strasburg Reformers and especially between ^aivin ana muunger, tne successor ot z.wingii at Zurich, and his spiritual heir. There was not a theologian of name in his day with whom Calvin did not stand in direct contact. Melanchthon first called him "the theologian" and afterwards Scaliger said of him?"Calvin stands alone among the theologians." His great power and erudition were recognized on every hand and his relation to nearly all the great leaders of the Reforma- * tion was one of mutual esteem and confidence. Luther was the idol of the German people, even his enemies paying him secret homage; Calvin re