Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.