Newspaper Page Text
April 10, 1912 ]
Live Issues
1)0 OUR APPORTIONMENTS COME t
FROM THE RIGHT SOURCE! t
The question of how much each h
church shall be apportioned is a vexing
one, especially at this period of the 1
year. On what basis shall the amounts
apportioned among the Presbyteries be
apportioned among the churches of the 11
Presbytery? Three Ideas prevail: (a) F
Th P nnmher nf momhoro (\\\ T*Vi,? l(
amount of pastor's salary. (c) The F
previous gifts of the congregation.
There are objections to each one. a
It seems grossly inequitable, to ap. s
portion on any of these bases. The 8
writer knows well, two churches in the '
same city, of about the same member- 11
ship. The people of one church re- s
turns $5,895,000 for taxation; the other, *
$224,000; yet under one plan they would
be apportioned the Bame. These 11
churches pay substantially the same
salary. 'So the basis of pastor's salary 11
seems Inequitable. To put it on pre- 8
vious gifts is saying, "Because you ^
have not done your duty once, we do not 0
expect you ever to do it."
PerhaD8 the trouble lies In the source
from which the apportionment comes.
From outside the only court that has
absolute authority to fix the apportion- c
ment for a particular church.
Our plan now is: The Committee of
Systematic Beneficence, against which
I have nothing to say, but believe it a c
wise step in the right direction, after c
consultation with the Secretaries, P
recommends to the General Assembly f
that such an amount be apportioned for 1
Foreign Missions, Home Missions, and ?
the Assembly sends down the afount to h
the Synod?the Synod to the Presbytery b
and the Presbytery to the Session. n
Is not this the wrong progression? 1
Ought It not to begin at the other end? b
What do these higher courts know t
about the financial ability of the con- f
gregatlon that is to raise the money? t
Absolutely nothing. They know the o
need for the money, and the use it is o
put to, but the other side they do not t
kroow. 11
Why not let the Committee of System- P
atlc Beneflcene, and these courtB fur- tl
nlsh this much needed Information, and ti
then, the Sessions respond by saying
we will meet the need according to our f<
ability, which we know and not an- 1<
other? t
It may be objected; that many Ses- d
ions will not come up to what they 1
ought to give. It may be true. But v
cannot we stir up their minds, by such li
appeals as Paul made to the Church at 1
Corinth, comparing them with the other h
churches; by pouring more fuel and d
fanning the flame, till they give, not n
from ecclesiastical compulsion, thinly "
veuea, dui Hilariously. n
Many Sessions would pay no heed to n
the injunctions of the Presbytery. Per- ti
haps so. Then the Presbytery could ex- d
erclse Its Episcopal authority and ap- t
portion the amounts. \
There are two reasons clearly In favor a
of this plan. v
1. It Is In accord with the Booh of d
fhnrch Order. This is a somewhat s
ancient treatise, and may need a re- f
vision, but It contains a vast fund of 1
common sense. t
In describing the duties of the Ses- d
s'on, it says, "To order collections for c
jjiuuts ubcb. mere in not a worn hdoui c
collections, or money in the duties of 1
the Presbytery, Synod or General As- i
sembly. Of course it is true the powers 1
of the inferior court abide in the su- I
perior, but thS exercise of that power is c
not wise except in special and unusual i
rases. If the Session flagrantly falls 1
then the Presbytery can take up the
matter.
The Sessions know the ability of the i
neople. The Secretaries and Aseem- 1
hlies can furnish the need of the work, 1
THE PRESBYTERI
Discussed
he use to which the money Is put and
he results in the up-buuilding of the
Jngdom.
Why may not the two work together
u happy accord?
2. It is Scriptural.
While the Synod of Jerusalem may
isve let the distress and misery of the
ivwi uuu |/vi OC^UICU oaill CO cUClC uc
mown, they d'd not send down an aplortionment
by the hands of the
Lpostles. Neither did Paul, as anxious
s he was for a handsome sum to be
ent up, apportion any amount, but
aid, "Let every one of you lay by him
n store as the Lord has prospered
ilm. The Session was to gather it and
end it by the hands of the Apostolic
reasury.
We suggest a return to early church
sages.
We might not get so much, as under
iigh pressure methods, but it would be
teadler, and at last the Church would
mow better, Its Income for beneficent
bjects. A. A. L.
THE SYXOt?. TTS PLACE AND
PrtlVPl*
A few reasons wby It should toe acorded
Its place of service and power
a our system of courts:
Logic demands It.
The Presbyterian Church has been
onsplcuous among denominations of
hrlstendom for Its Insistence upon the
lower of logic. Its demands have been
elt to be Inexorable and right and safe,
ts demands have had much to do with
ur church's Interpretation of truth and
ave saved us from many doctrinal
lunders that have d'mmed the testilony
of some of our sister communions,
'here Ib no slavery here. It does not
ind us with a hurtful bond. It opens
he wav for truth, the truth that mahes
ree. Who can estimate the stores of
ruth, the doors to which have been
penw xo our view oy tne requirements
f this pond teacher! Now we believe
hat we have at least the stronp outInea
of an orderlv system of conrts
iven us in the Bible. We bep'n with
he Session, then lopleally and scrlpnrally
where do we po? to the Synod?
res an'd no. We have the name. We
eel that that for reasons of scriptural
oplc we are bound to bave tbe tblnp
hat we call Synod, but our loelc breaks
own when It comes to us'ne the Svnod.
"he Implement is there. Tt 's labeled
rlth a pood Greek-Presbyterian soundnp
name, but we do very little with It.
'he house Is there, apnarently well
mllded, but we do not live In 't. It
oes very well for occasional "bouse
laities" pud for so-called occasions of
Inspiration:" but for eood, sturdv and
>ed rock business of tbe church we
mist pet nwpv from ft. Tt Is a verv rood
ifece of machinery. but 't. would never
lo to turn Into ft any of the serious
ulsiness of the church. Think of ft!
Ve arrange In a neat and orderly bulk
ill the work of all our churches for a
vhole year and convey ft rfeht by the
loors of Synod into the General Asembly.
The Svnod does not even hear
roTit Its Presbvterles unt'l the followng
autumn. Then It looks over what
he Presbyteries have recorded of their
lolngs and also examines the minutes
f the General Assembly. This by way
if Imposing upon itself the notion that
t Is doing something, although not very
nuch is set for It to do. Does not the
ogle of Scripture and of the truth of
'resbyterianism require ub to conduct
>ur business different and accord to the
Svnnd its place of service and responslJlllty?
The power of service demands If.
Of course I can permit and lnsist<hat
ny right arm hang at my aide unused
'or the most part. I have a neighbor
vho has two arms, but only one band.
AN OF THE SOUTH
He assigns a little service to bis handleBs
arm, but for tbe most part he keeps
It hid in the sleeve of his coat. It is
better to use both arms with even Impartial
regularity. It is better for both
arms and for the whole body.
Of course I can preach a one featured
Gospel. lit is possible for a herald
of the whole Gospel truth to select one
shining truth and with every device and
argument press it home upon, every
audience, leaving great realms of truth,
well nigh untouched and unheralded.
He may preach enough truth to save
many a soul: but how much better to
"preach the word," all of it, witholding
no part of it.
Now Presbyterlanism with its system
of courts is divine. The Synod does not
represent an ecclesiastical blunder. It
is not a "fifth wheel." It is an arm
that needs service for its own sake and
for the sake of the power that it can
and will bring to the entire body of the
cnurcn ror me sane 01 wnoBe emciency
and well rounded service It has a place
In our system of courts.
There are many reasons why the business,
all the business of our church
should have Its Inning with the Synod
before getting before the General Assembly.
A little reflection will make
his evident. For more than twenty
years I have been in Arkansas. I am
perfectly certain that our churches and
Presbyteries and Synod have lost most
seriously in healthfulness, efficiency and
power, by the fact that Synod, the assemblage
of all four of our Presbyteries
have never had a "square deal" in the
matter of our church business. The
Synod has, to my certain knowledge,
often been painfully embarrassed for
something to do. This situation was so
r1(of|.ABoU? II.- O J
uioncDsiiig ai una uuio luai ..ue oyuuu
appointed a number of committees to
make it their business during the year
to collect information from various
sources, digest this Information and
bring it before Synod for its consideration,
without referring report of it to
Btanding committees. What a strange
sort of thing is the docket of a Synod!
It (the Synod), represents the assemblage
of a number of Presbyteries, and
yet not one item of the business of those
Presbyteries as such finds place on the
docket of the Synod, barring of course
judicial business (et id omne genus).
How it would enlarge, invigorate and
empower our starved, distressed and
sicklied Synods, if they could only be
fed with the food that properly belongs
to them!
This is not all. The question that concern
Presbyteries so nearly related as
those of the same Synod demand cons'deration
by the assembled representatives
of all those Presbyteries. The
Vw ? ???*? J
uj"uu i-uuiu uj miciui cAaiiiniaiiuii aiiu
elimination and adjustment carry up to
the General Assembly a very much better
and more useful presentation of the
business of its several Presbyteries
than the Assembly could possibly secure
from each of the Presbyteries separately.
(To be continued.)
Fayettevllle, Arkansas. R. B. W.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT UNSUPPORTED.
After a long time there has not been
any successful efTort to produce sufficient
Scriptural warrant for the proposed
amendment to the Confession of
Faith.
The argument proposed y Dr. Charles
Hodge in his Systematic Theology has
been referred to his son, Dr. A. A.
Hodge, who succeeded his father at
Princeton, saw that the Scripture argument
proposed by his father fell short
of giving sufficient basis for an article
of faith, and wrote: "It is not positively
revealed that all infants are elect,
but we are left, for many reasons, to
indulge in a highly probable hope that
such is the fact The Confession
C429) 17
affirms what 1b certainly revealed, and
leaves that which revelation has not
decided to remain, without the sugestlon
of a positive opinion upon one Bide
or the other."
Of course the passage: "Suffer the
little children to come unto me" has
been cited, but If we give due weight to
the clause, "come unto me" In this pass
age, we will see that It does not Imply
that Infants are fit for heaven apart
from Christ, and that It says nothing
about the salvation of those who do not
"come" to him. It gives no support to
the proposed amendment.
Matthew 18:14 has been cited as
proof. The Twentieth Century New
Testament translates this verse: "So,
too, it is the will of my heavenly Father
that not one of these lowly ones shoald
be lost." Dr. B. B. Warfleld, of Princeton,
after a careful and exhaustive
exegesis of all the passages where our
Lord uses the expression, "these little
ones" concludes: "We may tahe It,
thpn_ oh natnhllahfirt fhnf
- ?, v-??w?v?wu tuni, ciiu puiaoc
'these Httle ones' on the Master's l'ps
meant not 'children.' hut distinctly *My
disciples.'" And he says further:
"Whoever causes a single one of them
to stumble, were better drowned In the
sea; no single one of them must be
despised, since their angels abide In the
Father's presence: If only one of them
stravs, all Is left until he be recovered:
the Father's will Is that not a single
one of them shall perish. It were absurd
to suppose that the subject of all
these great assurances were the whole
body of human infants,?of a large number
of whom such assurances are
never fulfilled. . . . Christ's 'little
ones,* in short, are just who he tells us
thev are?'those that believe on him."*
All the passages that have been cited
to support the proposed amendment
were before Dr. Webb, and had been
carefully considered by him, when he
wrnfo* "Thnf nil Infonta In
fancy are elect Is an Inference of the
fallible human mind, and no direct and
Immediate ouotatlons from Scripture
ran be made In Its support, fairly and
lnd'sputab'y yielding the proposition:
therefore, it Is not available for creedal
lncnrparatlon." And the same may be
said of the rest of the vast host of tbeo'oglans
who, while having the comfortable
hope that all dying In Infancy are
saved, hold that there Is not sufficient
scr'ptural warrant for making It an
article of faith.
The one argument for the amendment
Is that people demand It, and to
be popular we must put It Into our
creed. Should our church be like the
weather vane, turning with the wind?
CkA.,l A maiaIw i ?41
ciuuuiu vrc mcicij reuccb puuuu dcuu"
ment, or mould and guide public sentiment
by adher'ng strictly to the revealed
will of God?
J. W. Lafferty.
-WHAT I'RESBYTERIANISM STANDS
FOIL"
This is the title of a booklet written
by Rev. T. M. Hurst, Charleston, Ind.,
and can be obtained from him, 25 copies
75 cents, over 25 at the rate of $2.50
per hundred. The work was undertaken
as a business venture, but written
at the request of Princeton Presbytery.
And the author was surprised
when his Presbytery had It printed for
its own use; surprised again when it
was favorably noticed In The Continent:
and still more surprised when he received
orders for hundreds of copies?
which he could not fill till another edition
was published. In a private letter
he says:
"I am a former Cumberland Presbyterian,
and fought the church union,
and then looked for a fighting point
against Calvinism, and found that it
exists only in the imaginations of
Ignorant men, I mean Ignorant as to
(Continued from page 21).