Newspaper Page Text
IS THE BIBLE GOD S WORK OR MAN'S?
We venture to say that this is the entire
question behind the Modernism. If this is set
tled, then all is settled. There is no question
about what the book says about the other
points at issue. The deity of Jesus Christ, His
iiniuaeulate conception, the bodily resurrection,
the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, the
sin of man and every other disputed question
is affirmed most positively by the Word.
In approaching; this question we must see
that man is in a vast universe, and ignorant
of its ways, of himself, and of the outcome of
the future. Even if we go so far as to deny
that he is lost, we must admit that he is be
fogged and mystified by the limitations of his
life.
Then is it not a powerful presumptive argu
ment that God would be likely, being what God
is. good and kind and thought fid and fatherly,
that He would make a guide for His creature,
man? And, if we find a book that claims that
would not the laws of evidence incline, nay,
compel us. to aceept this as true, until proved
otherwise? Add to that the fact that this book
accomplishes what it claims, namely, shows
man a way out. is not this presumption almost,
if not altogether, a certainty?
Then, may we not expect that God, being
what He has proved Himself to be, a God of
truth and accuracy, would see to it that this
Book was absolutely truthful in statement, ap
plicable in nature, and kept intact for future
generations? God is not a God of tradition.
He writes His name and character on various
things. "The heavens declare the character of
God."
When we follow the history of the Book, and
see how carefully, and sometimes miraculously,
it has been preserved intact, we are driven to
believe that a God who presided over its birth,
is also caring for its preservation.
Our ignorance of many things in it is no ar
gument against it, especially when we remem
ber that we are learning every day of its ac
curaey. By spade and shovel, by manuscript
and hieroglyphs scholars are crawling into the
light of gome things that have been dark. The
presumptive hypothesis is, that we will come to
see and understand all its facts ere long.
The Book says it is inspired, ami hence true
in every detail. Paul says, "All Scripture is
inspired and is profitable." The two adject
ives are so related that both must be predi
cates. Else you have tautology, of which the
Scriptures arc never guilty. Peter declares
that. "Holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost," not by their im
pulses, or literary style. Jesus constantly af
firmed th" accuracy of the Old Testament and
appealed to Ihem as ending all argument for
reasonable men.
Now, when we find a book telling the truth
about everything in life, outlining its prin
eiples with an almost uncanny accuracy, af
firming only those things that we know to be
true, is it not a reasonable assumption to think
that they are speaking truthfully when they
corne to testify about their own origin, and
correctness? Any credible witness is allowed
to testify in his own behalf. Why not allow
the Bible to do so?
Among the many arguments for the affirma
tion of our question, that this book is God's
creation, none is so convincing to our mind as
the evidence from the results of receiving and
believing this Word of God. "By their fruits
shall ye know them," applies to this Book as
well as to everything else.
Tins Hook has not been believed thoroughly
by any one nation. There has always been a
large number who do not and will not shape
their lives by its precepts t\mong the most
Christian nations. Now what does this Book
claim that it will do, if believed and followed?
It will lead us out of the mists of life and away
from the pitfalls, enable us to overcome temp
tation, and bring us at last to a holy life. Has
it done so?
When some one said to Bishop Brooks : '"The
teachings of Buddhism are as good as the
teachings of Jesus; why do you claim that
Jesus is divine?" He answered, "The argu
ment is the moral condition of India as com
pared with America."
That is the evidence. The writings of
Buddha have made India with its moral rotten
ness; the writings of Confucius, the moral in
ertia of China; the writings of Mahomet, the
crulety and worthlessness of the Turk; the
writings of God in the Book, partially believed
and practiced, have made the rectitude of
England, Scotland, America.
The Bible delivers the goods. It produces
the fruit. It accomplishes the desired object.
It is rock for all moral foundation; light for
all darkness; hope for all misery, salvation for
all lost. It is God's Book.
A. A. L.
Contributed
THE LATEST EVOLUTION OF
PRESBYTERIANISM.
By Presbyter.
In the Presbyterian Chureh all episcopal
power, so far as churches and ministers are
concerned, is supposed to reside in the Pres
bytery ; and as to members, first in the pastor,
who is bishop of the church, and secondarily in
the Session, sitting with the pastor as modera
tor. Clandestine meetings of Session, held in
pastor's absence, are illegal, and their pro
ceedings null and void. Rut quite recently we
have witnessed the evolution of a new order
of bishops, yclept, "Home Mission Superin
tendents," while not a few of our "ruling el
ders, " misled possibly by the extra-scriptural
title given them by the Church, seemed to im
agine that* they have been born to rule both
church and pastor. Further, the current
Church press reports that a certain Presbytery
the other day constituted its Committee of
Home Missions a commission to deal with all
matters in its home mission fields. In that Pres
bytery, therefore, so far as those fields are con
cerned, the Home Mission Committee, of which
the "superintendent" is chairman usually and
"manager" always, will perform all the func
tions of Presbytery at all times. The mission
ary pastors are, therefore, tinder the power of
on oligarchy composed of the members of that
committee. For the committee, being also a
commission, may determine the duration of a
pastorate, or for what is deemed by them a suffi
cient cause, suspend a minister from his pasto
rate or even from the communion of the church
or depose him.
Does our Church need and desire such a
system of autocratic rule, even in our Home
Mission fields T And must we have an order of
bishops whose duties shall be those of Metho
dist Presiding Elders, who are in fact deputy
bishops f Possessing episcopal authority over
the ministers in his district in the absence of
the bishop, a presiding elder may, at his dis
cretion, remove a minister from his appoint
ment and send him elsewhere. "Superintend
ents" are apt to magnify their office and be
come bishops in fact, because their title makes
them bishops. We may not forget that the
first bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church
were ordained by John Wesley as "superinten
dents," and that the title was changed quickly
to "bishops." Our new Presbyterian bishops
visit at will the fields under their supervis
ion, gather information as to the work and ac
ceptability of pastors, count themselves au
thorized ex-officio to hold conferences with ses
sions even in a pastor's absence, and, as a
matter of course, are appealed to by those who
wish to hasten a pastor's resignation. They
not only feel themselves empowered to fill the
home mission pulpits with men of their own
selection, but to empty them as soon as the
good of the work appears to them to require
it. Their prejudices, from which there is rarely
the possibility of an appeal to the people, may
prevent efficient and acceptable men from ob
, taining work, or bring about their premature
retirement. Availing themselves of their op
portunities in the conscientious discharge of
their duty (?) they get between a pastor and
his session, not as mediators, but as judges,
and thus may at any time embarrass a pastor
who happens, as many of us have happened
to have, a session in which there is a "ruling
elder" who counts it the highest, holiest and
most delightful duty of his sacred office to get
rid of a pastor whenever he deems it proper
and feasible. There are such elders in not a
few of our churches ? men elected for life, but
by reason of infirmity or personal character
become unacceptable to the congregation and
non-representative. Yet superintendents, judg
ing by appearances, as visitors are likely to do
in any congregation, may deem such men the
real leaders of the church.
Such a system of superintendency breeds es
pionage. It is quite usual to tell the "superin
tendents" of the minister's faults and failings.
It induces restlessness in our home mission
fields, putting a premium upon fault-finding.
It involves an ever present danger of serious
injury both to churches and pastors. "When
disaffected individuals complain, if the super
intendent happens to be a man who, like most
men, confounds reticence with prudence, he
may keep a pastor in ignorance of some scheme
to oust him until it is too late for the pastor
to protect himself from outrage or the church
from injury at the hands of incompetent and
vicious elders.
Such a system is not Presbyterian. "There
is always disaffection," said a wise man to me
not long ago. And a wiser one said to His dis
ciples, "Woe unto you when all men speak
well of you." Yet the tendency in the church
es is to demand the services of a man who la
bors under the curse of his Lord, because he
offends nobody, not even the devil. Person
ally, I want no man to visit my churches occa
cionally, to listen to clandestine complaints,
and then go home fancying that ho knows more
about conditions than I do. Under such a sys
tem a man may be railroaded out of a pasto
rate, and so left stranded for want of employ
ment years before his infirmities would have
necessitated his retirement. From "prudent"
home mission superintendents and from secre
tive and treacherous ruling elders, good Lord,
deliver us! When a minister's resignation is
forced frolh him by a "superintendent" who
makes common cause with marplots and mis
chief-makers, he has no appeal.