| OCR Text |
Show ji ' Cl)UiXl) 1 1 1 which oTer- I ' torn 9 f cometh tfca I J Universal V : 2 J $2,130,000 FOR THE SEMINARY. i , It is not for the Apostolic Mission f I House, but for the Theological Semi- t , nary of the Presbyterian church at Princeton, New Jersey. The generous I ' donor is Mrs. Mary J. Winthrop. She 1 inherited the greater part of her I wealth from her husband, Henry JL j Winthrop; and while she lived she enjoyed the pleasure of giving to ? F charitable purposes, and at her death ' she arranged that her entire estate, ; with the exception of some small gifts would be given to the Presbyterian Theological Seminary "for the exten- ' ' sion of the Church of Christ upon : . ; earth and the promotion of the glory : M of God." j We certainly do commend the good 1 lady for a generosity that nowadays j is altogether rare. But we cannot j help thinking of the spending of two millions in their relation to the re- ! , cently revised creed of the Presby- ( terian church, because the donation i of the money and the revision of the j Creed have occurred at the same mo- ; ., i ment. I , In the Westminster Confession it is r t IqiH Hnwn thai i "By the decree of God, for the man- i , ifestation of His glory, some men and I angels are predestinated unto ever. I lasting life and others preordained to i everlasting death. These angels and I men, thus predestinated and preor- ! dained, are particularly and un- " changeably designed; and their num- ber is so certain and definite that it 1 cannot be either increased or dimin- U: ished." i' But a declaratory statement is add-ed add-ed in the revision that "no man is condemned except on the ground of i : sin." As all men are sinners, who f J? can tell but he is one of the throng ff "preordained to everlasting death." l" The declaratory statement practically I defines that this or that man who has It I sinned, by that very fact presumably H puts himself in the category of those If tion. Two millions of dollars are giv- H en to disseminate this horrid doctrine I among our American people. I Again, in the old form of the West- j minster Confession, the statement in j J regard to the Pope was as follows: I j "There is no head of the Church "I but the Lord Jesus Christ, nor can I I the Pope of Rome in any sense be I I the head thereof, but is the Antichrist, if that man of sin, and son of perdition, I that exalteth himself in the Church I against Christ and all that is called ' God." I'.J But this language was a trifle impo- I lite. It called names, and that was j I 4 not in accord with the canons of refined re-fined society, so the language must , be changed without relinquishing one ( iota of the strength of the denuncia- tion against the Pope. The revised I creed now reads: "The Lord Jesus Christ is the only head of the Church, and the claim of s any man to be the vicar of Christ and , J the htad of the Church is un-Scdp- tural, without warrant in fact, and is a usurpation dishonoring to the Lord .esus Christ." To educate ministers to demon-t demon-t , strate that the good old Leo XIII., whose every breath is for virtue and ;) integrity, is "the man of sin" and "the son of perdition," two millions of dollars have been given. Dr. Van Dyke, who is the spokesman of the Creed unanimously revised at Los Angeles, declares "that this revision does not mean that the Presbyterian I church has changed her base one jv. inch." They still believe that the i White Shepherd of Christendom, the 5 saintly Leo, is Antichrist, the ap- I ' ocalyptic beast who utters blasphe- ! ! mies and destroys the saints of God; though, as becomes gentlemen as they ! are, they say it in language of parlor , f and not of the scullery. It takes if men learned and proficient in the f . Gospel teachings to demonstrate this fact to the American public, and hence If i two millions of dollars have been giv- ; ( en for this purpose by the good lady of Garden Citv. It would havo hpn I I infinitely better for her to have bur- I ied her treasure like Captain Kidd un- til a few more generations pass away, 1 and then there will be no Presbyterian church to defend. In the meantime the work of dis- seminating the sweet and wholesome f doctrines of the true and real church I ; of Christ will go on. We may not ) i have two millions to spend to assist 1 In this work. If we had how we r might flood the country with litera- " ture, and how many earnest mission- ; I aries of the truth we might send out I into the highways and byways to per- suade the people of the true teachings t of Christ! It is to accomplish this ', work that we are looking not for two ' ' millions, but for but a quarter of one :i i million. PRESBYTERIANS CHANGE BELIEF REGARDING POPE. ; By a unanimous vote of their Gen- . eral Assembly the Presbyterian church ; of the United States at Los Angeles . ' j on Thursday last struck from their I creed the article declaring the pope j "Anti-Christ, the Man of Sin." By a t similar vote they decided that unbap- : tized infants were not damned, but, 1 i on the contrary, all saved. With but one dissenting voice they also de- i clared that the predestination of God . I does not in any way Interfere with t the free will of man; and that no man . - is damned save for sins voluntarily ' i committed. The conflict over the Westminster confession has been in ,r progress over ten years, and is thus I settled. , f J The change in the confession In its , reference to the pope is significant ! and will be of interest to Catholics. The old statement in the Westminster Westmin-ster confession read thus: The Pope Not Anti-Christ. "There is no head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ, nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be the head thereof, but is the Anti-Christ that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God." The same subject is now treated with the following accession of manners man-ners : "The Lord Jesus Christ is the only head of the church, and the claim of any man to be the vicar of Christ and the head of the church is un-Scrip tural. without warrant in fact, and is a usurpation dishonoring to the Lord Jesus Christ." The clause in the Westminster confession con-fession which caused the most discussion discus-sion among the Presbyterians was that with reference to the fate of un-baptized un-baptized infants and to predestinating. predestinat-ing. Of these subjects the old confession con-fession says: "By the decree of God, for the manifestation mani-festation of His glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlast ing life, others foreordained to everlasting ever-lasting death. "These angels and men thus predestined pre-destined and foreordained are particularly partic-ularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be Increased or diminished. "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when and where and how He pleaseth." Obviously the fair interpretation of this was that some human beings were predestined to eternal damnation, no matter what kind of life they led good or bad. If a man's fate were thus predetermined, his own actions would have no effect on it and he was robbed of moral responsibility. Under the old belief the good Presbyterian lived under the shadow of beins on of the unfortunates predetermined to be damned and bound to go to hell, whatever he did. On the other hand the wicked Presbyterian could comfort com-fort himself withe the probability that his fate had meen predetermined to be one of everlasting bliss and continue con-tinue in his wickedness. Instead of this horrible doctrine the following version of It has been substituted: Doctrine of Predestination. '"That concerning those who are saved in Christ the doctrine of God's eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine of His love to all mankind. His gift to His Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and His readness to bestow be-stow His saving grace on all who seek it. That concerning those who perish, the doctrine of God's eternal ucire 13 uem in narmony witn the doctrine that God does not desire the death of any sinner, but has provided provid-ed in Christ a salvation sufficient for all, adapted to all, and freely offered in the gospel to all; that men are fully responsible for their treatment of God's gracious offer; that His decree hinders no man from accepting that cffer. "With reference to chapter X, sec tion 3, of the Confession of Faith, that it is not to be regaded as teaching that any who die in infancy are lost. We bleieve that all dying in infancy are included in the election of grace and are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who works when and where and how He pleases." The crisis over the Presbyterian creed came upon the withdrawal of Dr. Newell D. Hillis from the Presbyterian Presby-terian church three years ago. .a taking this step Dr. Hillis made a sensational sen-sational attack from the pulpit upon the confession, in which he said: "I would rather shake my fist in the face j of the Eternal and fling every vile epithet epi-thet toward His stainless throne, where eternal mercy sits with the world's atoning Savior, than lift my hand with that creed toward' Gd's throne and affirm that I taught or be lieved it." This ra1her hysterical outburst aroused the liberals within the church. The Interior, the western organ or-gan of Presbyterianism, at once came out with the announcement that it favored the substitution of a brief, modern, evangelical creed for the Westminster confession. At the same time Dr. Parkhurst of New York asserted as-serted in the pulpit of the Madison Square Presbyterian church that the place for the confession was "in the museum." From this on the contest waged, with the above result. Catholic Catho-lic Citizen. EVILS OF DIVORCE. Sophie E. Skidmore Gardiner in California Cal-ifornia Ladies' Magazine. Over one hundred discontented couples cou-ples obtained divorces in the city of San Francisco alone during the month of April. Many of these people, as the records show, had only been married mar-ried a few months, and with some the time was counted by weeks since they stood before a minister of God and vowed to take each other for better or worse until death only should part them. Now utterly disregarding that solemn sol-emn promise, ignoring that plighted troth, they rush with indecent haste to break those bonds, In order that they may be enabled to form new alliances. al-liances. For it has been openly stated stat-ed and proven that the reason so many last month sought the aid of the courts to sever their matrimonial ties, was to take advantage of the lapse of the law (for a few days) that forbids anyone in this state marrying within a year, following legal separa- 1 tion. The marriage license issued immediately im-mediately to these same persons that had just slipped their yoke show this to be an. appalling fact, and the cause of their hurried action. Though the sacred words of Divine Writ are still used in the marriage ritual, yet half the world seems now to regard matrimony only as a simple contract (very easily broken) and not a bond for a lifetime that shall be severed sev-ered only by death. Half a century ago divorces were rare and deemed something like a disgrace, dis-grace, a sort of immoral proceeding. Many a good woman submited patiently pa-tiently and suffered much from man's tyranny and brutality rather than expose ex-pose herself to the shame and odium of appearing in a divorce court. Today To-day we can most of us count among our old friends or acquaintances numbers num-bers of persons who not only are divorced, di-vorced, but have also married agaiD. We have grown used to the fact, and if if does not please our religious ideas of strict morality, yet it does not shock us as it would have shocked those before our time. But even the most liberal minded in this lax age of progress must condemn con-demn this wholesale destruction of the sanctity of marriage as shown by this ever increasing number of divorces, di-vorces, often obtained under the slightest possible pretense. From a daily paper we quote the following statistics on this subject: There are now 51,538 divorced people peo-ple in the United! States, of whlom 32,205 are women and 18,384 are men. The reason for such an excess of women is explained on the theory that divorced men are more apt to remarry re-marry than divorced women; there are very few cities in which the num ber of divorced men is greater than or even equal to the number of women. wo-men. Omahc is the most conspicious, for among its inhabitants are 250 men and 236 women who have been separated sep-arated from their conjugal mates by the courts. Quite a startling showing, telling of many a wrecked home. One of the most serious consequences of divorce is the bad example and effect it so often has upon the children of these unhappy people. It is impossible for them to have the same affection and respect for parents that have separat-ed separat-ed and become as strangers to each other. The following incident is an actual fact, the persons mentioned are well known, wealthy people living in San Francisco. It was in the parlor of one of the fashionable private hotels a few years ago, that the conversation turned upon some sensational divorce in the papers, when a young lady present remarked: Oh, sometimes when I go to the theatre with my mother and her new husband, just right opposite will sit my father and his last wife, you know this is the second one since my mother divorced him. Mamma says he is awfully bad, but he tells the same story about her. so I guess there is not much difference differ-ence between them. . Anyway, he was always very Indulgent to me, and now he says he will give me anything I want if I will go and live with them so if I am kept too strict here I will certainly do so." This same young lady soon after eloped with a gay young man of the town, from whom she soon got a divorce, and has re- cenuy iuarneu again, ur course, it was all the natural outcome of a very badly mixed state of morality. The bishops of the Anglican Church have now taken a very decided decid-ed stand against marrying persons who are divorced, and one of their ministers who recently officiated at the marriage of a divorced New York millionaire is in danger of being unfrocked un-frocked for that offense. This seejmsi a little inconsistent when we remember that it was Henry VIII who first constituted himself head of the English church (a title given ever since to the kings of England) Eng-land) after his withdrawal from the Church of Rome because the Pope refused re-fused to sanction his divorce from Katherine, and allow him to marry the beautiful but faithless Anne Boy-len. Boy-len. But we know that Henry soon tired of her as he did of each of the four that came after, and this is generally gen-erally the case with those of even humble station in life. The first marriage mar-riage tie broken, the new one formed rarely bears as well the strain of domestic do-mestic fret and worry and so they are apt to multiply. Quick release by divorce from troubles trou-bles great and small may seem to make life easier for a brief snell. but can never bring permanent peace and contentment. If in this age. of progress pro-gress the divorce laws were stricter, no doubt more patience and charity would be practiced by those who now are so ready to throw off those responsibilities respon-sibilities they assumed when they vowed to love and cherish each other until the end of life. A well known writer says civilization civiliza-tion gave us marriage, in respecting which we are above savages. Progress is giving us divorce, wholesale, cheap, immoral, a degradation beneath that of those primitive people who make no promises -and break none, who do not set right as a fashion and wrong as a practice, "the truth for the ensign en-sign and the lie for the course." 0 PROTESTANT THEOLOGIAN. Exposes Protestant Erros About Cath. olic Doctrine. Professor Starbuck, of Andover, in an article in the Boston Review, says: Professor Foster, in Part II., Chapter Chap-ter I., of his work, says: "The central point in the controversy of Protestants Protest-ants with the Roman Church in the claims which that Church makes to possess divine authority to prescribe the doctrines which men must believe I as well as the course of practical conduct con-duct which they must pursue." This form of statement can not be called happy. The natural sense of it seems to be that doctrine and morals are believed to be discretionary, like discipline. Christ is held by Catholics to have committed to the Roman Church the full power of the keys - over the Catholic Church at large, fcr all disciplinary purposes, so that Rome determines, not by immediate direction from God, but by her present pres-ent judgment, what bishops shall occupy oc-cupy what sees; what shall be the conditions of a lawful episcopal institution1; insti-tution1; what rights pastors or chapters, chap-ters, or monastic foundations shall enjoy over against the bishops; what local usages shall be allowed to derogate de-rogate from general canon law; what parts of the Church shall be under Propaganda and what not; in what regions a married priesthood shall be allowed and in what not; where Latin, Lat-in, where Greek, where Slavonic, or other tongues, shall be used in the mass; what form of the liturgy shall prevail in what district; what conditions condi-tions of valid marriage shall be imposed im-posed in each country; what fasts and feasts shall be locally obligatory. All such matters, being in themselves them-selves "indifferent and alterable," are held to have been by Christ committed com-mitted wholly to the discretion of the Roman See. As Bellarmine and St. Alphonso Liguori remark, extreme and manifest unwisdom or oppressiveness oppressive-ness could alone excuse from obedience. obedi-ence. As Dr. Byrne says, no simply ecclesiastical law binds Christians to incur grievous incommodity. Yet the presumption is always for a complL ance, especially since, as observed by three eminent Episcopalians, Dr. Briggs, Bishop Creighton and Bishop Stubbs, Rome has from of old been remarked for a calm and central view of things, and in general for a tolerant toler-ant reasonableness in her disciplinary disciplin-ary enactments. Now I can; not believe that Dr. Foster really supposes that Catholics view Rome as having the same dis cretionary power of prescribing faith or morals as of prescribing discipline. Yet the word "prescribe" naturally signifies that anything is a matter of optional enactment. Moreover, most" Protestants vaguely imagine Rome to claim very nearly the same power of altering faith or morals as of altering discipline. Nay, when a Baptist paper (and that not Southern Baptist) lately late-ly declared that Catholics hold the voice of the Church to be as good as the voice of God, "or better," in determining de-termining all matters whatever, the unspeakable foulness of this horrible calumny appears not to have evoked the faintest remonstrance from any one of its many readers. Of course I do not for a moment 1 imagine Dr. Foster to stand in the category of such evil men as these two Northern Bantist priitnrcs. TTa io plainly a Christian, a scholar, a thinker; never falling into virulence, and sincerely solicitous to present Roman Ro-man Catholic doctrine objectively as it is. Perfectly candid he is not, for, Where you find candor perfect, as in Augustus Neander, controversy has disappeared. You may say the same of Mandell and Creighton. On the other hand, when Luther is discussing with Rome, or with Henry VIII, you do not find in him the remotest approach ap-proach to truth, honesty, decency, or to any Christian quality whatever. I have read two of his works through in the German, his answer to Henry, 1 and "The Freedom of a Christian Man," and as Dr. Janssen points out, ! it is astonishing to see the contrast 1 between the marvelous spiritual beau- ty of the latter, and the embodied 1 rumanism or speech and temper in such works as the former. Therefore, when we are talking of Luther we ought always to signify, which Luther we are talking of, for it almost seems as if there were two souls in the one man. To come back to commonplace men like Dr. Foster and me, I have no doubt that he would be as nearly detached de-tached from Protestant prejudices as I can claim to be, in his presentation of Catholic doctrine, had he too had a childhood fusing the remembrances of the two religions, ' and then been for years secluded from ecclesiastical urgencies ur-gencies among the tropical mountains, moun-tains, and afterwards in an invalid's chamber. As he has not been thus dealt with, he is still with all honesty of purpose, imperfectly able to detach himself from the commonplaces of Protestant prejudice. Otherwise he would hardly use "prescribe" for the profoundly different word "define," or ("declare," or "expound," or for "set forth." There is the more occasion here for insisting on the utmost exactness of expression, as so distinguished and deeply read a man as Mr. Henry Charles Lea evidently imagines doctrine doc-trine at least, is not Trmmlsi tn Via alterable at the will of the Church. As I have several times cited his words, he expressly declares his belief be-lief that Catholics hold it to be within the power of an infallible Pope, assisted as-sisted by an infallible council, ta con vert an article of faith into a simple provision of discipline, or to make the same thing a matter of faith here and of mere discipline there! We see here how sometimes no possible pos-sible breadth of reading will enable a man to penetrate into the interior apprehension ap-prehension of a system from which he is alienated by inveterate prepossessions. preposses-sions. Mr. Lea is one of the great writers of the day, yet here, in a vital point, he suddenly lapses into ! as vulger a misapprehension of Ro- j man Catholic doctrine, although cer- i tainly into no such vulgar expression S of it, as would have been possible to a Townsend or a Lansing. His blun- ' der over the attitude of the Church I towards Jews and Saracens, and bnw the Nation had to help him out of it, I S have already mentioned. Such a fundamental misunderstanding misunderstand-ing is the less excusable, inasmuch as the Vatican definition has taken the utmost pains to render it impossible. impos-sible. The "Pastor aeternus" expressly express-ly reminds us that the Holy Ghost has not been given to Peter and his successors in order to communicate ' new doctrines, but in order to render ; them faithful in the interpretation of the original revelation. Therefore the Church does not for a moment imagine that she has any I power, through Pope or council, to ; "prescribe" faith, as she can prescribe i discipline. She can only "declare" t faith, a doctrine of faith as it has been l from the beginning, and will be to fi the end. 'T " j" " ' " |
