The Watchtower, November 1, 1889

VOL. XI. ALLEGHENY, PA., NOVEMBER, 1889. NO. 1.

Zion's Watch Tower

AND

HERALD OF CHRIST'S PRESENCE.

PUBLISHED MONTHLY.

TOWER PUBLISHING COMPANY.

BUSINESS OFFICE: No. 151 Robinson St., Allegheny, Pa. C. T. RUSSELL, EDITOR.

TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION.

DOMESTIC,--Fifty cents a year, in advance, by Draft, P.O. Money Order, or Registered letter.

FOREIGN,--Two shillings per year. Remit by Foreign Postal Money Order.

TO POOR SAINTS.

This paper will be sent free to the interested of the Lord's poor, who will send a card yearly requesting it. "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters; and he that hath no money, come ye, buy and eat--yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price." And you who have it-- "Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labor for that which satisfieth not? Hearken diligently--and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness." --`ISAIAH 55:1,2`.

Entered as SECOND CLASS MAIL MATTER, at the P.O., Allegheny, Pa.

DAWNS IN CLOTH BINDING.

AT A SPECIAL PRICE TO TOWER READERS.

Many TOWER readers, deeply interested in MILLENNIAL DAWN, are among the poor of this world, and have not, heretofore, felt that they could afford to purchase the various volumes in the more substantial cloth binding. We propose to help over this difficulty by hereafter supplying all TOWER readers the cloth bound books at 50 cents a copy, postage free. This rate will apply to Vols. I. and II. in English, and Vol. I. in German. Order all you want of these and have something substantial for your own reading, for reference and for loaning to neighbors.

The price to the public will remain as heretofore $1.00 per copy; at which rate DAWN is as good value as any book of its kind, surely.

The public, if they choose, may subscribe to the TOWER for a year (50 cents) and one volume of the books (50 cents), and thus obtain both for the price of a book alone.

CONCERNING THE GERMAN TOWER.

During the past four years, by the assistance of Brother Zech as translator, we have published a small sized TOWER in the German language; chiefly translations from the English edition. We published quantities of these and scattered them through the mails--probably 200,000 copies or more. The result has been the finding of here and there some German friends who could not read English who gladly received the truth in their own language. For the sake of these also Vol. I. of DAWN was translated into German and published in both cloth and paper binding, also German translations of the Arp Tract.

We feel that we have done what we can for our German-speaking brethren and sisters, and hence have discontinued the German Tower. We will still, however, supply the German translation of DAWN, Vol. I., and of the Arp slips. The former at same prices as the English edition; the latter free, to all who will circulate them judiciously.

THE HARVEST SICKLE.

This (in German, Die Ernte-Sichel) is the name of a new paper in the German language, designed to take the place of the German Tower; but it is much larger, and the price will be 50 cents per year. It is under the control of Brother Zech, and proposes following the same lines of truth that the TOWER has all along pursued, pointing out the way of the cross-- the ransom--as the only way to God, to everlasting life and joys.

We bid the Harvest Sickle God speed: as the successor of the German Tower, may it be still more successful in turning many to righteousness and the Truth and Love and Grace of our God--out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Address all orders for the Sickle to-- THE SICKLE PUBLICATION SOCIETY, NO. 23 ADAMS STREET, ALLEGHENY, PA.

VIEW FROM THE TOWER.

KNOWLEDGE INCREASED AND ITS RESULTS.

--CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER.--

On the other hand, it is well to remember that in our present imperfect condition, all, no matter how honest, or how anxious for the truth, are liable to fall into erroneous views, and to see only one side of a subject. We have been looking at the falsity of that view which would make a few men, and not because of special mental or physical qualification, rulers and masters, landlords and kings over others because of a supposed birthright. Let us now notice the other side of the question, which we will introduce by what to Americans will seem, at first glance, an astonishing statement, viz., that all men are not born free and equal.

No one can dispute that the many more or less bound by ignorance and superstition are far from full freedom. And no man can look about him, thoughtfully, and not admit that the common view, that all men are equal, is a gross error. All men have not an equal amount of physical strength. So far from all being equal, it might be said that no two men are exact equals. Nor can it be said that men are equal in the sense of the qualities of one being an offset or equivalent to the different qualities of another. As a matter of fact, brain and muscle are not separate and independent; some have very little of either power and hence are very far from the equals of those who have considerable of either or of both.

If we could suppose two men, one all physical power and the other all brain power, we could not class them as equals; for the former certainly is far inferior to the latter. The lower animals have muscle; and machinery, steam and electricity, under brain direction, can do much and sometimes more than muscle can do. Hence muscle must and should be servant to brain. It always has been, it always should be, and it always will be inferior and subjected.

How many men have the muscular ability to wheel or cart a piece of iron who have not the additional ability and intelligence necessary to hammer it to shape, and to size and temper it for its work? How many of the latter lack the education and inherited mental talent or ability to plan, design and arrange the sizes, shapes and strength of those irons for bridges, buildings, shippings, etc.? This is a still higher order of intelligence and skill, and requires more educational preparation. Does all this persistent study and natural ability count for naught? Is this successful architect or engineer only the equal of the intelligent iron-worker, and of the non-intelligent laborer? Similar comparisons could be instituted between all brain-workers and all muscle-workers; and while there are drones and slovens in each field of labor, it cannot be disputed that those who have largest mental capacity and who develop it by application-- by study and use--are quite the superiors of those who have less of it, even though the latter have superior physical strength.

(On just one subject does this rule fail; that is in religious matters--in an appreciation of the will and plan of God. This is beyond human wisdom,--it is a matter of revelation; and the more humble the man the easier for him to be "taught of God." Hence, not many great, not many wise, not many learned make greatest progress in the divine knowledge. We do not in this, either, disparage mental ability and culture--on the contrary, these will be very helpful and will increase the ability as servants of the truth, provided they are backed by humility and consecration, which will enable such to be like him who was meek and lowly of heart, and to learn of him. We would merely point out here that mental capacity plays a different part in the religion of Christ from what it does in the worldly affairs of men. God himself has the mental capacity for carrying out his own plans; and to become his children, at present, requires only so much mental capacity as to be able to understand and accept his testimony, and to will to act accordingly. But with such a consecration to God, and with such humility and teachableness of mind, the more brain capacity the better; --the greater the appreciation the greater the service, and the greater the joy--but only in proportion; for the capacity for appreciation, the capacity for service and the capacity for joy are proportionate.)

There are two mental qualities which often fail of popular appreciation, because they are more of natural gifts than the results of education; and because, as result of this, many with very slight education are among the most successful in them. We refer (1) to the mental quality exhibited in planning and invention and construction, which make some men (often without education) inventors and constructors of articles of great advantage to mankind; and (2) to those other, but somewhat similar mental gifts, but with other mental combinations, which constitute business talent, exhibited in men whose genius is seen not in the constructing and organizing of machinery, but in the construction, organization and successful operation of extensive works and commercial enterprises which furnish to hundreds of fellow-men (laborers, tradesmen, architects, engineers, overseers, book and time keepers, etc., etc.) steady and remunerative employment.

Without the mechanical inventors and contrivers with their peculiar mental talent, the world would be without its telephones, telegraphs, railroads, steamboats, and ten thousand other conveniences which go to make our day so far superior to the days of water-power and ox-teams. It is, therefore, to the advantage of the whole world that we say to these who have such talent--We will give you a patent right to the product of your genius for a period of years. We will not rob you, but will protect and pay you for the fruit of your genius and of your hours and perhaps years of patient study and labor. This is presumed to be a just compensation, with the understanding that at the expiration of that time the invention or discovery shall belong to the public. Surely this is but a just recognition of the inventor's rights; and the expedience of thus doing justice has been manifested in the great increase of inventions which it has helped to stimulate.

And mankind is similarly indebted to the constructive, inventive and organizing skill manifested by the manufacturers and financiers of the world. They, too, are inventors and constructors, but in a different line. Instead of thinking out mechanical combinations which will give beneficial results, these have that peculiar and excellent talent of bringing together, combining and co-operating for the general good, machinery and muscle-workers and brain-workers. This talent is really and rightly the master quality among men; because it is the one upon which the amalgamation and co-operation of society depends. It is this quality which in another field constitutes the real statesman.

We do not claim that this ability is always directed in accordance with the golden rule; but neither is that of the artisan and others. Nor do we claim that they organize men, and plan and arrange great enterprises, and invent ways and

means of accomplishing great results, from the purely benevolent motive of giving steady and profitable employment, and thus many of the comforts of life, to thousands who have not that organizing and executive talent. Nor will any one claim that laborers, artisans, farmers, attorneys and others are laboring daily and hourly

from purely benevolent motives. We do not question that financial ability is sometimes misused to the public injury, in wrecking corporations financially, for individual gain; but is the same not true in other lines? Do not laborers sometimes use their muscles contrary to the public good? Do not inventors plan contrivances for war, etc., which bring death and sorrow to thousands--consequences a thousand fold more injurious than the financial wrecking of a railroad? And do not mechanical engineers and artisans, clerks and attorneys, help forward the work of constructing the evil, death-dealing machines, etc.? And no one can deny that all do it for the same end--from selfishness, from greed of gain.

It must, however, be conceded that notwithstanding their talent is sometimes misused like those of other men, there is no class more valuable to the world than its merchants and manufacturers. No other talents among men are so essential to financial prosperity as their inventiveness, and organizing ability. Without theirs, all mechanical inventions and discoveries would be mere theories and suppositions, not put into practice: we would have no railroads, no steamships, no telegraphs, no telephones, no sewing machines, no harvesting machines, --no machines of any kind. Hence, without this class the world would have few of the luxuries it now possesses. Nay, more, we hold that, if men possessed of this commonly called "business talent" were all to die to-day, within three years telegraphs, railroads, mills, etc., would be bankrupt and stopped; and while the barns of the West would be overflowing with grain the cities of the East would be starving and idle.

The instructions of the Scriptures, though given to the church, are often applicable to the world in general. For instance, we can apply to the world our Lord's words to the church--"He who would be greatest among you, let him become servant of all." As the church is to esteem and honor its members according to their ability and usefulness as servants to the whole body, so with mankind in general: in the world each person should be esteemed and honored in proportion as he has and uses his abilities, and in proportion as these are important and useful to mankind in general. The Apostle Paul expressed the same thought, when he said, Esteem them very highly for their works' sake (even though there be other qualities or weaknesses which you may neither admire nor endorse); and, "Render, therefore, to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."--`Rom. 13:7`.

But should not the manufacturer divide up with the skilled laborers, mechanics, etc., each year or each month whatever profits he may realize? We answer, No; no more than the skilled mechanic who gets $5 per day should divide evenly with the day-laborer who receives $1.60, or with the boy who receives $1. To introduce such a policy, now, would be to strangle enterprise and stop the wheels of progress. The laborer would have no ambition to learn a trade or to prepare his children for a higher plane of usefulness in the world. The mechanic would lose ambition for proficiency, and would refuse to tax his energies and strain every resource to become a small manufacturer and by and by a greater one, if he had already a pro rata share of all profits without the care and difficulties, and without any share of losses, fear of panics, etc.

But while the general public welfare and prosperity demand that each man shall have freedom to use whatever and all the talents he possesses, it has also the right to demand that those whose greater talents naturally give them greater power, shall deal justly by their fellow-creatures dependent upon them; exacting only reasonable hours of labor, providing reasonably healthful, comfortable and safe places of work, and paying at least living wages-- even to the most illiterate and unskilled laborer. The public also has the right to prevent the strangling of healthful competition by the formation of gigantic trusts. And these things are done or are being done gradually but surely in this country; and if they could proceed for the future as in the past, society, under the influence of the increase of knowledge, would soon right and regulate itself. But one thing is lacking; and that one thing will, as the Scriptures show, ere long put an end to progress in the right direction, and instead of peace and safety, of which the world fondly dreams, will bring about the great trouble such as was not since there was a nation. That one thing is selfishness; and it hinders and will hinder both the parties of the coming conflict from recognizing each other's rights, and from granting freely even those which they do see.

Selfishness includes approbativeness and pride as well as special self-care and disregard of others in other respects. Selfishness is now the ruling principle in the world. It is the opposite of the law of the New Covenant, which is love to God and to our fellow-men. Selfishness will lead and is leading the more able of men to abuse present increased knowledge and advantages by organizing selfish and powerful combinations, trusts, monopolies, etc., which will be grinding and oppressive upon the masses; who, in turn, governed by the same selfishness, under the same increase of knowledge, will seek and are seeking by means of labor organizations, laws, etc., to rule, and to tyrannize, and to dictate to capital and brains; in vanity claiming that they are fully the equals of any in ability, and merely not so favorably circumstanced. Here the struggle will come; and only the results will show clearly to the masses what we have here pointed out of the actual inequalities among men and the necessity on both sides for the mutual recognition of each other's rights and abilities. By means of this long foretold trouble the Lord will give the world a great and a lasting lesson, which will benefit all, and fit all for the kingdom which he will set up.

The superiority of mind over muscle has long been recognized--and properly. Men have long realized that some of the race have fallen lower than others, and have admitted that those retaining the vigor of mind to the largest degree should be the rulers of the world. They see that it would be to the general interest of all that the ablest and wisest should have control. And taken as a whole (always excepting the Lord's true church, which the world has never known as such), the world has had its strongest, brightest and ablest men in power. And as a whole the ruling and aristocratic classes of to-day are in education and natural ability, as well as in time and opportunity, far superior to the average of the people for whom they make and execute laws.

Why, then, do we find fault?--Because their wisdom and ability are used so selfishly --for their close family relatives, almost exclusively, and not for mankind in general, as one family. As shown (September and October Views) they have shaped the laws and customs of society for their own perpetuation as a class, and have turned all the streams of wealth and influence toward their own quarter. This condition of things, veiled by ignorance and superstition, was not realized by the masses in the past, nor is it clearly and fully realized yet; but knowledge is increasing, the heat and steam of public sentiment are rising, and something ere long must give way. This great explosion and revolution of society will precipitate the impending trouble, pointed out by the prophet as the great finale of sinful man's attempt at self-government. But above the ruins of present kingdoms the Kingdom of Christ will rise.

But contrary to the expectations of some, this great government will be, not a republic, not a socialistic arrangement in any sense, but a monarchy. Nay, it will not even be a limited monarchy, but an imperial and autocratic one. Jehovah our God will be the Autocrat and his will shall be enforced in the earth; and all who will not gladly and heartily obey his righteous laws when granted ample knowledge and ability, shall be cut off--shall die the second death, have life forever extinguished. And there will be an aristocratic class then, too; a class whom the great Autocrat will exalt to power and great glory and distinction, and to whom he will commit the ordering of this world's terribly disordered affairs. This class is the Church of God, of whom Christ Jesus is Lord and Chief. All power will be claimed and exercised (`Matt. 28:18`; and `Rev. 2:26`; `11:17,18`); and infallible laws will be rigorously enforced. Then every knee must bow and every tongue must confess. That will be the strictest government the world has ever known; absolutely no liberty will be granted to do wrong.

If this kingdom were of the same character as present governments, operated upon the same selfish principles, it would be all the worse for the increase of power. But it will be based upon other principles. Not injustice and selfishness, but principles of justice and love will be the foundation of that throne. And backed, as it will be, by divine wisdom and power, good results, everlasting blessings, will result to the upright in heart. All its power and all the wisdom of its rulers will be exercised lovingly and justly, for the good of the fallen human family, for the elevation to perfection of all the willingly obedient; to the intent that when this Millennial reign of Christ is finished, all such being perfected may then be given the control of earth as kings or sovereigns in common, subject to God's general government--as in a limited republic the citizens of the several states arrange their own affairs subject to the laws and regulations of the general government;-- while the disobedient, unworthy of life, shall be cut off from life in the second death.

Thus the original dominion of earth, lost by Adam through sin and redeemed by Christ's ransom-sacrifice, is to be fully restored to such as shall be found worthy of it by their Redeemer in the close of his Millennial reign--God's due time.

Only those who see God's plan of the ages can appreciate the care with which he is now selecting and disciplining every member of that "little flock" for the important positions and work of that kingdom --to be kings and priests unto God and to reign on the earth as joint-heirs with Jesus Christ their Lord. "A peculiar people" they will indeed be, very different from the haughty, proud, arrogant aristocracy of the present time. None of the proud and haughty (`1 Pet. 5:5`), and not many rich or great or noble hath God chosen, but the poor of the world, rich in faith and love and humility, to be joint-heirs with Christ in the coming kingdom.

None of the candidates for these coming honors and opportunities of blessing the world need wonder, then, at the course of instruction, discipline and experience to which they are now subjected, as though some strange thing happened unto them. (`1 Pet. 4:12`.) But let them rejoice that they are counted worthy of the discipline and seek to make their calling and selection sure by permitting the promises and providences of God to work in them to will and to do his good pleasure. Let all such remember that love in them is to take the place of selfishness, otherwise they will be unfit for the coming glory and service. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. And hereby know we that we dwell in God and he in us, because he hath given us of his spirit --love.--`1 John 4:7-19`.

Verily, too, God is about to show the world the true and beneficial operation of the law of Primogeniture, which they borrowed in part from the typical characters and customs of Old Testament times and misapplied, to the world's enslavement and class exaltation. The Church of the FIRSTBORN (whose head is Christ Jesus, and whose members are the humble, faithful overcomers of the world and its spirit of selfishness,) is soon to have the entire inheritance, as well the land as the power and dominion, the glory and the honor. --`Psa. 2:8`; `1 Cor. 3:22,23`; `Rev. 21:7`; `Matt. 5:5`.

A happy day it will truly be, when God's little ones, his humble ones, his thoroughly tested ones, perfected in their new bodies like unto their Lord, shall become earth's aristocracy and rulers.

"O hail, happy day, that ends earth's tears and sorrows,

That brings her joy without alloy;

O hail, happy day!

There peace shall wave her scepter high,

And love's fair banner greet the eye,

Proclaiming Victory! O hail, happy day!"

It is for this grand consummative development of God's plan of the ages that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now, waiting [though ignorantly] for the manifestation of the sons of God, in whom all the families of the earth shall be blessed. And even we ourselves also [who hope to be those glorified sons] groan within ourselves, waiting [also, for the same glorious epoch] for the adoption, [or full introduction to the glories and honors of our Father, the King of kings, which according to his plan belong to us, the Bride of Christ, his firstborn, and heir according to his many exceeding great and precious promises], to wit the redemption of our [one] body, the body of Christ.--Compare `Rom. 8:17-22,23`; `Gal. 3:16,29`.

Primogeniture, then, as selfishly applied, and adapted by fallen men to selfish ends, serves to enslave and oppress and injure men. But primogeniture, as designed of God, and as he will use it in his great plan, operated upon the great bed-plate of love (the fulness of all law), will work the greatest good for all, and be the power of God and the wisdom of God unto human recovery--unto deliverance from sin and death of all now "His people," and all who shall become "His people."

HE THAT SCATTERETH INCREASETH.

"Is thy cruise of comfort failing?

Rise and share it with another,

And through all the years of famine

It shall serve thee and thy brother.

Love divine will fill thy storehouse,

Or thy handful still renew.

Scanty fare for one will often

Make a royal feast for two.

"For the heart grows rich in giving;

All its wealth is living grain;

Seeds which mildew in the garner,

Scattered, fill with gold the plain.

Is thy burden hard and heavy?

Do thy steps drag wearily?

Help to bear thy brother's burden,

God will bear both it and thee.

"Numb and weary on the mountains,

Wouldst thou sleep amidst the snow?

Chafe that frozen form beside thee,

And together both shall glow.

Art thou stricken in life's battle?

Many wounded round thee moan;

Lavish on their wounds thy balsams,

And that balm shall heal thine own.

"Is thy heart a well left empty?

None but God its void can fill;

Nothing but a ceaseless Fountain

Can its ceaseless longings still.

Is the heart a living power?

Self entwined, its strength sinks low.

It can only live in loving,

And by serving love will grow."

--Mrs. Charles.

PRESBYTERIAN CREED REVISION.

"The wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid."--`Isa. 29:14`.

The various Presbyteries of the United States are severally discussing pro and con the proposed revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The meeting of the New Brunswick (N.J.) Presbytery is one of the more notable, because it includes Princeton College, an institution under Presbyterian control. We extract the following from the report of the discussion published in the New Brunswick News:--

"The Princeton faculty members were out in force at the meeting of Presbytery, all prepared to discuss the question, and among them was Dr. McCosh, the venerable ex-President of the College. The greatest interest was, of course, felt in what he should say on the subject.

"Dr. McCosh expressed himself wholly in favor of revision. 'There is danger,' he said, 'in stirring up this matter, but there is more danger in ignoring it or postponing it. The movement in favor of revision has been pushed very earnestly by the young men, and it will as surely be pushed in the future. Revision seems likely to come, and if it must come it is better that there should be no hesitancy, but that the movement should be guided by the older and more conservative men, and guided courageously and openly.

"'It may be doubted if some passages are contained in the word of God. Now in logic it is law that there shall be nothing in the conclusion for which there is not a foundation in the premise, hence what is not in the word of God must not be in the confession.'

"Dr. McCosh spoke briefly of the language of the clause declaring that 'God, for his own glory, hath fore-ordained some men to everlasting life and some to everlasting death,' and then continued: 'There is a want in our confession of a clear and prominent utterance such as we have in the Scriptures everywhere of the love of God to all men and of the free gift of Jesus Christ and of salvation to all men, not to the elect alone. I find that some of our best and soundest young men are turned from their inclination to enter the ministry, or having entered upon it are annoyed and hindered, by a few obnoxious phrases that keep staring them in the face, and by the absence of the complete recognition of the infinite love and mercy of God. Leave out, then, these obnoxious phrases, and put in the very front as the most prominent expression of our doctrine this one of God's love to all and of the free offer of salvation. Our confession meets the heresies of the seventeenth century, but not the heresies of the nineteenth.'

"'I confess, too, that I should like to have in the Presbyterian Church a shorter and clearer creed than the Westminster Confession. Our theologians do not accept it as a whole. I know these theological seminaries; I know them. Some reject one part, some reject another, all reject something.' In conclusion the ex-President spoke of the nature of the fight which the church in this age is entering upon as an argument for the revision. He was too old, he said, to enter into a fuller discussion of the subject, but he thought the time had come when all should take a stand on it; do it honestly and not be a coward.

"There was a pause when Dr. McCosh had concluded, and then Mr. Slaid, a prominent Trenton layman, arose. 'What do we ask,' he said, 'when we demand revision? Are we going to throw the confession aside? Are we going to put it at naught? No, we are merely to place it in the hands of a picked body of men, who will bring it into conformity with the best thought of this century and make it express what we believe.'

"In conclusion Mr. Slaid said: 'One of two courses is open to us; to put this confession aside as a relic, that shall only show what people believed centuries ago; or to put it in shape for use now. I care not which is done: if I have any preference it is putting it in use. But if it is to be kept as a relic let us have it understood that it is a relic and nothing more. Let us not keep it as a relic and yet pretend to use it.'"

In one sense these are noble, bold words, as well as words of truth and soberness. And yet, one cannot help wondering that these gentlemen, and others who took the same side of the question with them, should manifest their boldness only in words. They surely have not reached present conclusions suddenly; they probably have held them for months or for years. Why, then, have they remained Presbyterians in name while at heart they utterly repudiate those tenets which represent Presbyterianism? Why do they now stand before the world as the slaves of a sect and its creed, praying the majority to ease up some of the tighter bonds which gall and fret them? Why, if really courageous soldiers of the Truth, do they not step out of sectarian bondage into the liberty wherewith Christ makes free all who appreciate his work and doctrines? Really, instead of considering these men as brave heroes, we cannot help pitying them in their ludicrous position, when we see that the bonds which hold them, and

against which they so vehemently declaim, and from which they pray to be released, are not really chains of rusty steel which are cutting the flesh but only some old paper chains, hard and ugly and strong looking from age, but really so fragile that the smallest "babe in Christ" could shatter them, yet so grim and horrible to look upon that they terrify many gray haired ministers and college professors, so that while some weep and pray that the burden be lifted, the majority decide that the chains are too sacred and too strong to be touched.

On the other side of this question, Dr. Warfield, professor of theology in Princeton Seminary, is reported to have "opposed the revision, on the ground that the present Confession is the correct expression of the general sentiment of the Church, and a satisfactory interpretation of Scriptural faith, if itself properly interpreted." This agrees well with a statement made by Rev. I. N. Hays before the Pittsburgh Presbytery, discussing the same question. He said: "I am a Calvinist through and through. There is not a doctrine essential to our system which I would have altered, modified or softened, if I had the power to do so. As I see it, the Bible is just as full of God's sovereignty as it is of free grace. To get the Calvinism, which is in it, out, you must get a new Bible."

From these and from the expressions of many Presbyterians, it is our opinion that there are four parties in the denomination: (1) a radical class which believes as thoroughly as Calvin ever did that in the counsels of eternity, before man was created, God predetermined not only the creation, but also fixedly determined who should be so "effectually called" to salvation and so thoroughly environed by circumstances, etc., that they could neither will nor do anything which would in any way affect or alter that predetermination to land them in glory; and that regarding the others of mankind God just as fixedly predetermined that they should not get an effectual call, and should have no opportunity for salvation, and that nothing that they could either will or do could prevent them from being everlastingly tortured--that they might thus by unending groans and curses illustrate God's power and sovereignty, as the elect would illustrate (by no work or merit of theirs, they claim) God's sovereign power to save whom he would: (2) a class which says, quietly, Calvin was probably all right, we do not dispute it, but we prefer not to think or talk on this side of the subject; let us rather talk about God's goodness and love to the elect, and hope that we and our friends are not of the non-elect who are to be tormented; and especially let us not make this election doctrine prominent; let us revise the creed, not because it really belies our faith, but because in this day of refined sensibilities the creed expresses our views too clearly and shocks outsiders as well as grates harshly upon our own feelings: (3) another class totally repudiating the above doctrines and vainly endeavoring to prove to themselves and others that Calvin never believed thus. They construct for their finer sensibilities an election without any special predestination of individuals, and contrary to Calvinism they recognize the freedom of the human will and the importance of the individual both willing and doing according to his ability. These think themselves capable of twisting and turning and explaining away the objectionable features of Calvinism, and object to a creed revision, claiming that it would show weakness and fallibility to change it, and that it really needs no change, but should be understood not logically and as it reads but according to the gloss they are able to put upon it. These represent the majority of the educated men and of the ministers. (4) A fourth class is represented by Dr. Schaff, of New York. They hold practically the same views as class three, except that they are too honest or too logical to claim for Calvinism and the old Westminster Confession of Faith any other meaning than their plain statements will honestly and logically justify. These admit that Calvin and their creed teach what in the present light they can clearly see is a horrible, God-dishonoring doctrine of which they are heartily ashamed. This class, to a man, desire the revision.

But why do men of so different ideas cling together so tenaciously and insist that they are all Calvinists, all Presbyterians, while really only classes 1 and 2 are such? Is it from loyalty to Christ? No; Christ never told any to believe in Calvinism or to call themselves Presbyterians. Quite the contrary, indeed, loyalty to Christ would lead to the remembrance that "one is your Master" and teacher, even Christ, and would show that fealty to Calvin and the owning of his name as their great teacher is really disloyalty to Christ--the putting of another in the place of the true head of the Church.

Can their anxiety to stay together as one be accounted for as love of the Truth or love of each other? No; they admit as above that they are not agreed as to what is Truth and often find in other denominations fully as congenial persons for associates. What then holds them thus? It is sectarianism and the fact that they have a sure thing of a certain amount of honor, support, etc., where they are, which they would run, at least, a risk of losing by changing. Besides, would it not prove that they were fallible teachers and that they and others whose teachings they had endorsed had really taught more or less error? This would be very much more humbling to pride than to stick to the old creed, claim that it is infallible and seek to turn and twist its various declarations to keep pace with the growing enlightenment of the people, which they cannot restrain. Would that we could see some of the noblest step entirely out from all man-made creeds, and declare themselves disciples (learners) at the feet of Christ, students of his Word (and not learned D.D.'s), and see them seeking and planning as diligently how to harmonize God's Word, as they now are seeking to sustain the false doctrines of mistaken men.

Concerning the real import and ultimate effect of changes, at present under consideration by great religious systems, the secular press seems to be fully aware. They realize the situation as fully as the theologians, and much better than many of them. The editor of a New York daily thus reviews the matter:--

"The General Convention of the Episcopalians now in session at St. George's will not be disturbed by controversies over questions of doctrine. Such differences of opinion as there may be will be concerning matters of form; the revision of the prayer book and hymnal, the basis of representation in the Convention, and also a change in the title of the Church.

"Meantime, in the Presbyterian Church the movement for a more or less radical revision or transformation of the standard of faith is gaining force, and this subject of controversy will unquestionably occupy the chief attention of the next General Assembly as the most important which has arisen in the communion during all its recent history. Even President McCosh of Princeton expressed the opinion at the meeting of the New Brunswick Presbytery on Tuesday last that this discussion is bound to come, and that it will be more dangerous to try to head it off than to give it encouragement. He went further and declared himself squarely in favor of revising the Westminster Confession of Faith. It seems to him too harsh, and as lacking in 'a clear and prominent utterance, such as we have in the Scriptures everywhere, of the love of God to

all men and of the free gift of Jesus Christ and of salvation to all men, not to the elect alone.' The younger Presbyterian clergy, according to Dr. McCosh, 'find the doctrine of election as expressed in the Confession a serious stumbling block in their way. They are unable or unwilling to defend it, and for his own part he discovers that it meets the heresies of the seventeenth century, but not the heresies of the nineteenth.'

"The same feeling prevails in Scotland and England. There also the doctrine of election is becoming more and more unpalatable, especially when it is put thus remorselessly in the Westminster Confession:--

"'By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and some angels are predestinated to everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.

"'These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished.'"

Certainly, the unscriptural doctrine of a hell of torment for any to suffer in eternally must go along with or shortly after the doctrine that God predestinated a fixed number of his creatures to endure such an eternity. Because the foreknowledge of God, at least, must be admitted; and if he foreknew such an eternity for any, why did he create them; or to put the matter in another form, Why should God--a just and loving God--foreknow that he would do thus with the wilfully wicked? Why should he not make a much more reasonable plan and arrange to destroy and not preserve such wicked ones, and foreknow that? Such, as we have frequently shown in these columns, is God's plan and such an end of the wicked he foreknew and has foretold by the prophets, by his Son, and by his apostles.*

But some great theologian will perhaps answer,--God cannot destroy a man. He

*See Old Theology Tract, No. 1, "Do the Scriptures teach that eternal torment is the wages of sin?"

can destroy all lower animals' lives, but man is immortal and must therefore live forever somewhere; and since such could not be allowed to mar the harmony and bliss of the righteous, God had to provide a place for such to spend their eternity, and that place we theologians call hell.

Well, well! Who would have expected that a wise God would so overdo his work of creation as to make creatures whose existence he could not terminate. But do not all theologians agree with us that God is infinite in power and in wisdom? But, if infinite in wisdom, he would not have made man so great as to be beyond his own control. And, if infinite in power, it follows true that there is nothing that he has not the power to destroy--angels or men. Theologians have a theory on this subject of man's power and God's weakness, as well as on the subject of the predestination of the non-elect to everlasting torment. But both theories are erroneous; both are thoroughly opposed to Scripture teachings; both are dishonoring to God and injurious to the church and to the world; and both are belittling to the reason and common sense of the great theologians who concocted such flimsy subterfuges,--subterfuges which any man of unfettered reason and any knowledge of the Bible, or willingness to study it with the help of a concordance, can today easily and quickly see through.

In this connection we give the views of another celebrated Presbyterian minister, of Union Theological Seminary,

PROFESSOR SCHAFF D.D. COMMENDS DR. M'COSH'S POSITION.

To a Tribune reporter who called upon him on Saturday Dr. Schaff said that he was in favor of a revision of the creed, and was willing to state his reasons for his belief that the time had come for a change in the Standards of the Church. In the main he agrees with Dr. McCosh.

He said, "I am glad that the Tribune published the testimony of this venerable scholar in favor of a revision. His testimony will have great weight, owing to his long experience and representative position. Not only for Princeton University, but also for Ireland and Scotland can he speak. He is certainly right when he asserts that revision must come sooner or later. He touches the vital point in the Westminster Confession when he says: 'There is a want in our Confession of a clear and prominent utterance such as we have in the Scriptures everywhere of the love of God to all men, and the free gift of Jesus Christ and of salvation to all men, not to the elect alone.'

Reporter.--"What are the special parts of the Confession that need revision?"

Dr. Schaff.--"The chapters that relate to predestination and the loss of non-elect infants are specially under fire now, but I am in favor of dropping the reference to the pope as 'Antichrist,' and the two hundred millions of communicants in the Roman Catholic Church as 'idolators.' Such a judgment is untrue, unjust, uncharitable and unsuitable in any Confession of Faith. But that is not the special point to which attention is called. Let us keep to the text. Take the subject of 'elect' and 'non-elect' infants. You cannot escape the logical conclusion that if there are 'elect' infants, there must be 'non-elect' infants, that may be lost. Now, it is the general belief of the Presbyterian Church to-day that all infants dying in infancy are saved, while in the seventeenth century all Calvinist divines believed that some of them were lost forever. But the opponents of revision do not teach or preach this doctrine now; why, then, have it in the Confession?"

THE WONDERFUL LOVE OF GOD.

Reporter.--"Is not the Westminster Confession broad enough to include all men?"

Dr. S.--"It is a Confession framed for the benefit of the elect, while, at the same time, the most prominent and the most cheering doctrine, which may be read on every page of the New Testament, is this: 'God loves all men; God made absolute provision for the salvation of all men; God wishes no man to be lost, but would have every one come to a knowledge of the truth.' I scarcely need to quote a verse to prove this, though many might be given, which are not used as proof texts in the Confession, because that doctrine is not contained in the text.

"'How often,' said the Savior, 'would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not:' the emphasis is on the 'would not' of the people. 'God so loved the world,' the whole world, not the elect merely, 'that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever [embracing all men] believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life.' 'God, our Savior, willeth that all men should be saved.' 'The Lord is long-suffering to you-ward not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance,' and so I might go on."

Reporter.--"But if this doctrine is emphasized, does it not destroy Presbyterianism, and make us all Methodists?"

Dr. S.--"By no means. The doctrine of divine sovereignty is still maintained; the doctrine of election is not destroyed, but alongside of these important doctrines is placed that other, the groundwork of our religion, namely, the doctrine of the universal love of God. The Calvinist to-day, whatever be his theory as a theologian, stands on this basis. He preaches and works as if salvation depended on men; he prays as if all depended on God. The Calvinist preaches like an Arminian, and the Arminian prays like a Calvinist."

Rep.--"But is this not inconsistent?"

Dr. S.--"If it be logically inconsistent, it has the high support of the great Apostle to the Gentiles, who bids men work out their own salvation with fear and trembling, adding, 'For it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure.' That seems inconsistent, but it is Scripture."

In the above expressions by Dr. Schaff we find two points for brief comment. (1) Note that he objects to Papacy being considered Antichrist; he considers this unjust, untrue and uncharitable. In this he merely follows the liberal worldly sentiment which is rapidly spreading over and influencing the judgments of the entire nominal church of all denominations of Protestants. As we have attempted to show before, Protestants to-day are such only in name; they hold so much of doctrine, custom and form in harmony with Papacy, that neither they nor the world see any reason for either one to call the other antichrist; for in so doing they practically implicate themselves as at least blood-relatives of antichrist. Nevertheless, as we have sought clearly to show in DAWN, Vol. II., (and will further show in Vol. III.,) there is the strongest of grounds for knowing that Papacy is the great antichrist system of the Bible, and for getting farther and farther from her and her false doctrines of the dark ages, which continue to stain and taint every Protestant creed to the extent that it contain, much or little of the same false doctrines.

(2) We object to Dr. Schaff's concluding remark, relative to the Apostle Paul's teaching. We have no right nor wish to object to the branding of Dr. Schaff's theories on the subject of election as illogical as well as inconsistent; for that is just what any sensible, thinking man must conclude; but we do object when by his claims that greatest and most logical and inspired writer, Paul, is made to appear foolish and illogical also, by the claim that his words agree with the confessedly illogical and inconsistent theory of Dr. Schaff and Calvinists generally, of all shades, on this subject of election.

We cannot here discuss this question in detail. We have already done so, and refer the reader to the TOWER for March 1886, pages 3 and 4. Suffice it here that we very briefly notice the two texts which seem to Dr. S. to be illogical and inconsistent, thus:--

We find the Scriptures everywhere teaching that God has a plan or fixed arrangement for human redemption and recovery from sin and death, according to which he is working; and that all his purposes in that plan shall be accomplished in his own due time. In that plan he arranged that our Lord Jesus was to be the great and chief divine agent in the work of redemption and recovery. In that predetermined plan he had provided, also, that a few, a "little flock," should be chosen or selected from among the many of the redeemed world, to be the bride, joint-heirs, under-priests and co-workers with Christ Jesus, their Lord and Chief-priest, in the execution of God's great plan of blessing all the families of the earth by bringing all men to a full knowledge of God (`1 Tim. 2:4-6`) and restoring to mental and physical perfection (`Acts 3:19-21-23`) all who, when they know the Lord fully, shall delight to serve and obey him.

This "little flock" God had not only predetermined should be selected from among redeemed men, but he had also predetermined that only such should be of that select band as should in a trial develop a spirit of loyalty and full consecration to him; in other words, they must each be "copies of his Son," their Redeemer. (`Rom. 8:29`.) The trial or testing time of this "little flock" has been during this Gospel age. These are not only being tried to prove their worthiness of everlasting life, but also to prove whether they shall, by very full, hearty, prompt and faithful obedience to the very spirit of God's will, manifest the likeness of Christ Jesus and be accounted worthy to be of the little flock, his select (elect or chosen) joint-heirs in the coming kingdom.

It is for this that they must "strive," "run," "seek," "fight," "lay hold,"

and "work," for to "make your calling and election sure:" "So run that ye may obtain" the prize: "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling [careful lest you should fail of this great favor of God to which you have been called]; for it is God that worketh among you both to will and to work his good pleasure." In other words,--Highly esteem the high calling to the great honor set before you in your call to joint-heirship with Christ in his Millennial kingdom. Slight it not; esteem it not lightly. Remember that the call is of God, that it is his exceeding great and precious promises that have worked and are working in you to will to do God's will and become copies of the great Redeemer; and remember, too, that the same promises are still the power of God, and will enable you, not only to will, but also to do, what would be pleasing to God.

The great mistake made by so many, on the relationship of work and salvation, is this: they see properly, though very indistinctly, that the work of redemption, the giving of the ransom, is entirely a work of Christ, our Lord, in which we can have no share, but which we must accept and appropriate by faith alone. There is no room at all in that redemptive work for our works to come in. We must accept it as a gratuity in full, or not at all, as the poet truly expresses it:

"In my hand no price I bring:

Simply to thy cross I cling."

This work of Christ cancels the original condemnation, to everlasting destruction, which had passed upon all through the disobedience of Adam, our father and representative. It entitles every man to a fresh trial--an individual trial--and offers life everlasting to each one who (after accepting of Christ's finished work) shall by his will and his works prove his willingness to be obedient to God. Here faith has its part, in which works cannot share,--in accepting of Christ's work; then the works of the redeemed, justified ones, come in and join hands with faith to make use of the benefits provided freely by the grace of God in Christ.

The trial of the world in general waits until the trial of the church, which is much more severe, is complete. Then the chosen, the elect, the bride with her Lord, shall judge and bless all the families of earth.

Thus seen, the selection of the church means the very reverse of a curse upon the great remainder of mankind. Though

the close of the selection, when the last one of the predetermined number has been tried and approved, will reprobate or cut off the remainder of mankind from all hope of sharing with Christ in the honors of his great restitution work of blessing the masses, it is far from the ordinary idea of reprobation. An illustration of this reprobation is found in politics. When the full number of members of Congress or Parliament, fixed by law, has been selected or elected, the remainder of the people are reprobates thereto. But are they injured thereby? No, they are blessed; for the selection of the few is for the benefit and not for the injury of the many. And much more so God's selection of the Parliament and ministry of the Millennial Kingdom, under and as co-workers with Christ Jesus the King of kings--they are elected for the expressed purpose of blessing all the families of earth.--`Eph. 2:5-10`; `Gal. 3:16,29`.

THE "DIVINE DECREES" THE BACK-BONE.

The Rev. Dr. Shedd, Professor of Systematic Theology in the Union Theological Seminary--Presbyterian--when interviewed by a reporter of the Tribune, expressed himself freely against a revision of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith. He evidently sees that a revision means a general reform or the complete breaking up of the denomination. He fears this and opposes all reform of thought and expression. We give a part of the interview:--

Reporter.--"If they cannot agree to everything contained in the Book, would you favor a 'loose subscription,' signing with mental reservation?"

Dr. Schedd.--"I would choose the lesser evil and go for revision first. Some propose 'loose subscription' as a remedy for the ills complained of; that is, leave the standards as they are, and when candidates of lax or unsettled views present themselves for licensure or ordination, let them reserve certain parts which they cannot agree to sign. This is demoralizing and kills all simplicity and godly sincerity. Better a thousand times for a denomination to alter its creeds than to allow its ministry to 'palter with words in a double meaning;' than to permit an Arian subscription to the Nicene symbol, an Arminian subscription to the Westminster Confession, a Calvinist subscription to the Articles of Wesley, a Restorationist subscription to the doctrine of endless punishment."

Rep.--"Dr. Schaff says that he subscribed liberally to the Westminster Standards when he became a professor in the Union Seminary, after consulting with two prominent members of the faculty."

Dr. S.--"I noticed that statement and I failed to understand it, for according to the charter which governs the Board of Directors, no such thing as 'loose subscription' is known. I have been a professor in this seminary for twenty-six years, and once in every five years, the Board of Directors, who themselves subscribe to the Confession, have summoned me before them and, in accordance with the constitution, have required me to affirm, 'in the presence of God and of the directors of the Seminary,' that I 'solemnly and sincerely receive and adopt the Westminster Confession of Faith as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures."

WHAT WILL THE END BE?

Rep.--"If the question of revision carries in the Presbyteries, what will the end be?"

Dr. S.--"No living man can tell. And that is one of the points which I make against the whole matter. I am more interested in the abstract question of a revision than in the details of the problem. Revision is inexpedient, because there is no end of the process. It is like the letting out of water. The doctrine of the Divine Decrees is the particular one selected by the Presbytery whose request has brought the subject of revision before the General Assembly. But this doctrine runs entirely through the Westminster documents, so that if changes were made merely in chapter iii. of the Confession, this chapter would be wholly out of harmony with the remainder. Effectual calling, regeneration, perseverance of the saints, are all linked in with the Divine Decrees. The most cursory perusal will show that a revision of the Confession on this one subject would amount to an entire recasting of the creed."

Rep.--"The advocates of revision think their conservative brethren are needlessly alarmed."

Dr. S.--"It seems to me that they are not counting the cost of their advocating a revision. In representing the Confession to be positively erroneous on two very important points, Dr. Van Dyke, for example, is proving too much. He is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. He is virtually telling the opponents of Calvinism that they are correct in their aspersions on the Westminster symbol; in their assertion that it is a hard and repellant system."

"THEY GNAW THEIR TONGUES"

[CONTRADICT EACH OTHER].

Rev. Mr. Williamson, of Cleveland, favors a revision of the Confession and is quoted in the Cleveland Leader thus:--

"We may not get a system of doctrine that dovetails together with perfect accuracy, but what is better, we get more perfectly into the heart of Christ and his teaching. Doctrinal system is not ignored or underestimated, but in order to the completeness of its logic it must not be allowed statements and syllogisms which are not in harmony with the general tenor of the Scriptures. The only document of the past to which we are willing to be shackled is the Bible.

"No sweeping changes seem to be thought of by any. Although its forms of statement in many instances are not those of the present day, they are not thought to be of such a nature as to make necessary any retouching. Not so, however, in several instances, particularly chapter third, on God's Eternal Decrees, and chapter ten, section third, on Elect Infants. Some of the opponents of revision show how wonderfully logical they are, and how admirably phrased, so as to suit supralapsarian and sublapsarian, and that any change would tend to narrowness rather then breadth of statement. I have read their arguments, and been much impressed by them, and then I have re-read chapter third, and in spite of their arguments my moral sense has been no less shocked than when in my boyhood days I first read the Confession. Indeed, I find my soul recoiling from these statements with increasing rather than diminishing force. I read of the distinction between preterition and reprobation which is here so nicely allowed for, but I find my mind still almost fiercely rebelling against the

dogmatic statements I here find. I find also, on comparing notes with those who, like myself, know little and care less about the theological subtleties, that the idea of God which this chapter presents is utterly abhorrent to them. And I cannot help feeling that there is something in their experience of moral revulsion that is as worthy of being taken into account as the logic of the systematic theologian. If, as some of us believe, we have

GONE BEYOND THE WRITTEN WORD

in order to the completeness of our system, the quicker we get back there the better. It is proposed to insert in this chapter third something concerning the love of God which will, and specially as inserted here, relieve the hardness of the Confession, and do what many believe it now fails to do as it ought--put God before the world more as the New Testament reveals him. But we are told this is altogether unnecessary; that this truth is by no means lost sight of, and to prove it a number of clauses are gathered together from different portions of the Confession expressive of this truth. Inasmuch as they have been picked out and put together we shall have to confess that they are there, but we should never have surmised it, from the simple reading of the Confession. This truth, it strikes me, is of enough importance to be put where we can find it without searching for it. It ought to stand forth so plainly that no one could help seeing it. I am glad if there are any upon whom the Confession already makes this impression. There are a good many of us upon whom it does not.

…