Newspaper Page Text
? w
VOL. IV. RICHMONI
THE MODERN CHURCH AND ITS MISSION,
LATHERING AND PERFECTING
OF CHRIST'S PEOPLE.
BY E. C. GORDON, D. D.
Most well informed Christians know that a
wide spread and most determined effort is making
to divert the Church form its God-appoiafcd
mission, the gathering and perfecting of Christ's
people, and to set it on the task of saving society.
The philosophic basis of this effort is the doctrine
of evolution; or rather, one phase of that doctrine;
for several evolutions have been evolved,
mutually destructive of each other. The theologic
basis of this effort is the denial of the Biblical
doctrine of human guilt and depravity and the
insertion that men are naturally good.
It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss
that particular brand of evolution which underlies
this movement. It is enough for present purposes
to say that it is now discredited by very
many distinguished philosophers and men of
scientific attainments; that M. Henri B?.rgson
has given it its "coupe de grace;" that, like the
headless snake of the negro story, it is dead;
though it docs not yet know that it is dead.
On the other hand the error that denies the
doctrine of human guilt and depravity is very
much alive. It is specially to be noted that the
dispute gathers about the cause or cause of the
manifestations of depravity rather than about
the facts. 1 he facts are patent and cannot be denied.
The question is, Why are men depraved 1
The old answer traced the facts back to a first deliberate
sin of the first parents of the race. The
modern answer attributes man's depravity to
"the unjust political and industrial conditions
of organized society." We are gravely told by
men who pose as Christian philosophers and ministers
that the Church, failing to see this real and
efficient cause of the depravity which is apparent
pnhlinrli /Inin tlno /Innt r*i no aF linitrnrcul notiun
"MWUjjUj UVTi*?\.U luio UUCH lug VSJL UUiTVlOOl UUIML'
depravity as the only adequate explanation of
the facts. Indeed this hideous mistake of the
Church is the tap-root of all our woes. "It is
just this conception of humanity which lies at the
bottom of all the oppressions, all the slaveries
and tyrannies which have been since the world
began." It is now proposed that the Church
abandon this colossal error, that it accept the
obvious doctrine that man is naturally good, that
whatever evil he manifests finds its explanation
"partly in heredity, no doubt, but principally
in the repressive and corrupting influences of his
political and industrial environment." The
logical and practical outcome, "is the automatic
redemption of the individual soul through the
deliberate reconstruction of the social organism.
''
It is evident that this means revolution, philosophical,
theological, political, economic, religious
and moral. It may be worth while to
point out some of the misstatements of fact and
some of the sophistries which underlie this proposed
revolution.
jt&WI
The Southi
BR* I ) the cent*
repays* Jw_ The Sou*
), NEW ORLEANS, ATLANTA, MARC
Students of history know that unjust and oppressive
eonditious of organized society have existed
among men ever since man has made record
of his deeds. They are flagrant to-day in every
land; and, what is specially to be noted, far more
so in the countries where the discredited doctrine
of universal native depravity is unknown; or, if
known, denied, than it is where it is generally
accepted as true. Indeed it is only where the
Christian religion with its doctrine of depravity
is to some considerable degree accepted, than any
continuous and well directed efforts are made to
improve these oppressive and corrupting political
and industrial conditions.
Again, it may be asked, How did these evil
conditions arise, if men are and have been naturally
good? Have men naturally good intentions
and practiced these injustices, these tyrannies,
these frightful oppressions, which befoul every
?t)e H>outt)lanb
The charm of the Southland is o'er me?
Its glamor encircles the soul;
I sec not the scene that's before me,
Nor list to the music's soft roll.
My heart is away in the Southland,
'Mid orange, palmetto and pine;
The Southland, the Southland, the Southland,
For that dear country is mine.
The voice of the Southland is calling,
Is calling its wanderers home;
IIoxv sweetly its echoes are falling
On hearts that are longing to come.
For oh, they are loved in the Southland,
Ana bound by the tcndcrest ties,
The Southland, the Southland, the Southland,
Dear land of the sunny blue skies.
?Hilda Mairhead Norwood, in "The Land
I Love."
page of their history. A current formula am t
those who are prompting this revolution is this:
"Sin is misery, misery is poverty, the antidote .
poverty is income." If this be true, then "in
come," certainly a sufficient income, is the only
needed saviour. Income will remove poverty;
poverty removed, misery will disappear; with the
disappearance of misery, sin will disappear. Yet,
according to these same revolutionists, the holders
of income, of large and ample income, are
the chief of sinners. Notoriously it is the rich
who grind the faces of the poor; it is those who
have who take from those who have not. Moralists
and reformers in every age have sought to
comfort the poor by condemning those who devoured
widows' houses and were guilty of all
anner of extortion and excess. If income is
to remove depravity and sin, the rich and the
powerful ought to be the best of men. According
to our revolutionists they are the worst.
We are told that "poverty inheres neither in
the will of Qod, nor in the constitution of the
material world, nor in the nature of humanity.
(Continued on Page 3.)
western Press,
>al Presbyter/an a "
rtiern Presbyter/a n
!H 27, 1912. NO. 13.
NEW LIGHT ON AN ACCEPTED FABLE
OR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN
MARYLAND
Part III.
BY JUAN ORTS GONZALEZ.
In accordance with the plau adopted iu the
last article, I shall lay before iny readers the results
of a thorough examiuatiou of the charters,
aud the laws passed by the Assembly of Freemen
of Maryland and we shall soon find out whether
there is in them such a thing as religious tolerance
and if this be the case let us tind out
whether this tolerance was granted by Catholic*
in aecoiaance witn and under the guidami .
the Catholic Hierarchy or not.
There were two separate and distinct charters
granted to the Lords Baltimore. One is called
the Avalon Charter and was applied for by
George Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore and
granted by King James, April 7, 1G23. I beg my
readers to keep in mind both the name of the
king and the year the chaittr was issued because
these two facts have a great deal of bearing on
the right solution of the problem.
The other charter was called the Maryland
Charter and was also requested by George Calvert,
but it was not issued until June 20, 1632,
that is one year and a half after his death. It
was then granted by the king to Cecil Calvert,
the second Lord Baltimore.
Since my desire is to demonstrate what Catholics,
as such had to do with the establishment of
religious freedom in Maryland, I can dismiss the
Avalon Charter in a very few words. First, because
the only clause which speaks about religion
is the XIX and this is what it says: "Phovided
always that no interpretation be admitted thereof
wereby God's holy and truly Christian religion
or Allegiance due unto our heirs and successors
may in anything suffer any prejudice or dimunition."
Second and chiefly, because it was requested
and obtained by George Calvert when he was
yet a Protestant. He planned and obtained the
cnarter in the year 1623 and did not become a
Catholic until the year 1625. Therefore, if the
Avalon Charter contains anything which could
be interpreted to mean religious freedom then
the glory of it does not belong to Catholic influence
but to Protestant gentlemen since the
king who granted it and the subject who requested
it were both Protestants.
Hence, I shall make no further reference to
this Charter because neither a Protestant or a
Catholic acquainted with the facts will question
tko lortlr ??? * 1 ? *
uv vi aujr otaiciucuL ueanng on religious
tolerance. Moreover no one can doubt that the
petition for the charter and the granting of the
charter were matters transacted entitrely by
Protestants. The only ones who concede any
importance to the Avalon Charter in regard to
religious tolerance are those who mix up the