Newspaper Page Text
May 22, 1912] THE]
rarely given to insurrection. Anglo-Saxon governments
are seldom troubled with rebellions,
because they live under a form of Christianity
that constantly insists on the observance of the
Sabbath of rest and worship, and this has no
equal in malting them law abiding.
But man needs the Sabbath most of all, with
reference to his religious interests. So far as
lie is concerned this is the supreme end for
which Cod made the Sabbath. "Its stated return
arrests the strong currents of this world
and men look up to heaven. It calls them to
those instructions of divine truth, and those
acts of divine worship which are adapted to
enrich the intellect, purify the heart, and
transform the life."
Surely man never needed the Sabbath more
than now. If then the necessity of the Sabbath
remains with us unto this day, will God
remove it with all its blessings from us? Not
only is the Sabbath law still binding, but it
shall continue of binding obligation while the
present order of things remain, or until time
is swallowed up in eternity. The Apostle, in
the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
teaches that the Sabbath has a typical
signification?that the Sabbath rest is typical
of the Heavenly rest. If then the Sabbath rest
was originally designed to be typical, it is not
reasonable to believe that it should be abolished
till that which it prefigures shall have arrived.
As the Apostle intimates that the Sabbath
Is a figure of that "rest that remaineth to
the people of God," it must continue until time
is no more and the people of God have entered
into their eternal rest at God's right hand. Let
us hold to the blessed Sabbath; reverence it?
"remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy."
T?Jti JMUNCETON CENTENNIAL.
REV. S. S. IjAWS, D. D.
1 have just returned from the Centennial of
the Princeton Theological Seminary. As a
graduate of 1851, I gathered with several hundred
of the six thousand Alumni at the Centennial
celebration observed May 5, 6 and 7,
15)12. The Faculty at the time of my graduation
consisted of Archibald Alexander, his two
sons, .James W. and Joseph Addison, and
t'harles Ilodge. W. II. Green was tutor in Hebrew.
Dr. Miller died in my first year; 1 sang
ui the choir at his funeral and Dr. Archibald
Alexander preached his funeral, the subject being
"Faith." There were then, about one hundred
and fifty students. All told, the catalogue
of 1912 gives nineteen (19) in the Faculty and
one hundred and eighty-five (185) students. In
view of the rather scanty increase of students
this is a bewildering increase of Faculty; and
unless my observation is misleading, the graduates
of recent years are in no important respect
better than those of fifty years ago. But
tlie endowment has arisen from hundreds of
thousands to "three millions" ($3,000,000).
It would seem, therefore, that the chief improvement
of the seminary have been in financial
income and in magnificent piles of
stone and brick and mortar. Judging from
the sensible Campus Exhibit, the improvement
has been wonderful.
Judging critically but fairly and justly of
the centennial just past, as a public and pronounced
exhibition of a venerable institution
with o ...?u
? woriu-wiue lnneritea reputation as the
fading conservator, expounder and defender
of the Reformed Faith in America, the evidence
seems to be glaring and convincing that
' rinceton Theological Seminary, as a school of
orthodox theology, has been Smitten with a
Might.
PRESBYTERIAN OF THE SC
In looking over the semi-quarto leaflet of
this "Centennial Celebration and Program of
Exercises,"' there are ten pages (25-35) of
delegates from "Other Theological Seminaries
in this country," colleges and universities.
Among the seminaries represented by delegates
are: "The Pacific Unitarian School for
the Mitlistrv r'n 11 fnvnio " n.wl 1 --
__ -?.?> vuu'-viiiia, anu me ucirgaie is
"The Professor of Systematic Theology;" also
"The President of the Meadville Theological
School, Meadville, Pa.;" and these seminary
officials are re-euforced by "The Bussey
Professor of Theology and Dean of the Faculty
of Divinity of Harvard University."
Unless I am mistaken as to the information
given in these notices, we find three distinguished
Unitarians as delegates?Unitarian
theologians and professors consorting and associating
by invitation on perfectly equal footing,
on this memorable theological occasion,
with the Faculty and Alumni of Princeton
Theological Seminary.
As an alumnus of over sixty years, and a
devoted pupil of the four men who have done
more than all others to give standing and
reputation to this seminary, 1 feel fully warranted
in pronouncing and denouncing this
whole procedure as an offensive ami ahanlnto
ly unjustifiable outrage. For myself 1 repel?
indignantly repel?the insult thus offered me
as an alumnus of Princeton Seminary, and to
the sacred name of the seminary. In its simple
and ultimate analysis, it is palpably a case
of treason to the Lord Jesus Christ prompted
by a worldly ambition to extend misplaced
'courtesies to distinguished men who are conspicuous
leaders of the enemies of our Lord
who rob Him of all Ilis glory.
Of course, it matters not who may have
formally extended these invitations, the Faculty
of the seminary is supremely responsible.
It could not have been done without their acquiescence
; and in my judgment, whatever
the qualifications may be, every individual
member of that Faculty who shares this guilt
should sans cerenionie be dismissed as unworthy
of further confidence.
In Phil., Chap. 2, we distinctly learn that
our Saviour's Deity pertains to Him in propria,
persona and is not robbery of the godhead;
and any man and every man who countenances
the denial or withholding from I Jim of that
nature and honor is guilty of a most sacrilegious
robbery.
One of the earliest contributions of Princeton
Seminary to our sacred literature was Dr.
Samuel Miller's letters in refutation of Unitarianism.
We cannot say of these people
however accomplished they may be as expounders
and defenders of natural religion,
which in fact, in its best estate, is no gospel,
that they have taken away our Lord and we
know not where they have laid Him. We know
full well and sadly.
In one of the post-banquet speeches, the
speaker representing one of the recent classes,
stated that one of his class had gone over
to the Unitarians. Presbyterianism in England
has a suggestive history that should not
e forgotten.
1733 Q St., Washington, D. C.
THE APPARENT POWER AND REAL
WEAKNESS OF THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC ORGANIZATION.
BY JUAN ORTS GONZALEZ.
Some of my readers may say that if Catholics
are not a doctrinal unit they are at least
a political one. Undoubtedly they are so theoretically,
since they have to believe in union
IUTH (559) 3
of Church and State and in the supremacy of
the former and its control over the latter.
They are bound, too, by conscience to put in
the public offices only Catholics who will
recognize this supremacy. They must vote only
for politicians who will bring about this
control and they must exclude by all means
both unbelievers and heretics who may legislate
against these plans and purposes.
My readers will soon see that I have the best
and most reliable Roman Catholic authorities
for the statements 1 make and that 1 do not
exaggerate the abuses of the Roman Catholic
system in speaking as I do.
But are the Roman Catholics practically
and in reality a political unit? No, I unhesitatingly
assert no, a thousand times no. As
soon as the Roman Catholic Hierarchy openly
plays politics it will not only be openly disobeyed
by a large majority of native American
Catholics, but it will even he exposed by the
liberal party which, as we shall see in another
article has already begun to be restless and
in disaccord with Rome.
1 can not but smile at the over-confidence
of some American prelates. They have not yet
tested their people. They have played politics
indirectly and not openly but when the issue
comes squarely and openly, and it will come
'in that way soon, then if Protestants watch
and speak frankly and honestly the truth, they
will realize that the political forces of Roman
Catholics are smaller, a great deal smaller
than they expected. Then the nohti<'hmc
1 ' ??
are defrauded 111 their expectations will in the
future be more cautious in their favoritism.
1 am a man who for years took part in polit.co?leligions
campaigns in favor of the Roman
Catholic Church. For years 1 have followed
closely the politico-religious campaigns
of 1 ranee. Italy and Spain and I know by oft
repeated experiences and countless instances
that when the crisis come3, when the decisive
hour arrives Catholics as a whole will folloA"
rather their respective parties rather than
tlu ir church and obey rather their political
leaders than their priests even when priests,
bishops and popes make every ed'ort to sway
their opinion and even threaten them with the
penalty of damnation in order to enforce obedience.
1 shall soon give some instances, dealing particularly
with the npwilio"
L UWIUIILIOIIS in
America.
In this article 1 shall endeavor to show that
the strength of the Roman Catholic Church in
America does not rest on her exceptional organization
but on the unspeakable attitude, the
unpatriotic carelessness and the sinful neglect
of many Protestants in dealing with the problem.
No, a thousand times no; the Roman
Catholic Church will never be able to dominate
or be supreme among Americans and American
institutions. To believe that Americans, even
Catholic Americans will tolerate political
priesthood rule, when even the ignorant Mexican
peasant and the fanatical Italian laborer
have turned away from it with scorn and horror,
is to believe something entirely inconsistent
with all sociological laws and movements.
At the same time I say, once mor<? if
i'rotestantism does not soon awake from its
lethargy and organize to defend itself, then
Romanism will in a short time ruin and destroy
everything that is great and noble in this fair
land of ours (mine by adoption).
The Roman Catholic Hierarchy is not able
to control America but it is more than able to
east discredit upon Protestantism to defile
Christianity and to transform this country of
(Continued on page 5.)