Translations of the Westminster Confession of Faith.—Dr. Warfield, in the second of his interesting and learned articles on the Westminster Assembly and its Work, in the recent issues of the Princeton Theological Review, thus refers to the various translations of the Confession:—”It has been issued in something like two hundred editions in Great Britain and in about one hundred more in America. It was rendered into German as early as 1648 (reprinted, somewhat modified, in Böckel’s Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-reformirten Kirche, 1847); and into Latin in 1656 (often reprinted, e.g., Niemeyer’s Collectio Confessionum, appendix, 1840, and Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 1878); and into Gaelic in 1725 (often reprinted). More recently it has been translated into Hindustani (1842), Urdu (1848), German (1858), Siamese (1873), Portuguese (1876), Spanish (1880 and again 1896-97), Japanese (1880), Chinese (1881), Arabic (1883), Gujarati (1888), French (1891), as well as into Benga, Persian, and Korean (as yet in manuscript). It thus exists to-day in some seventeen languages, and is professed by perhaps a more numerous body than any other Protestant creed.”
Dr. Warfield’s Estimate of the Shorter Catechism.—In the article already referred to Dr. Warfield writes:—”No other Catechism can be compared with it in its concise, nervous, terse exactitude of definition, or in its severely logical elaboration; and it gains these admirable qualities at no expense to its freshness or fervour, though perhaps it can scarcely be spoken of as marked by child-like simplicity. Although set forth as ‘milk for babes,’ and designed to stand by the side of the ‘Larger Catechism’ as an ‘easie and short’ manual of religion ‘for new beginners,’ it is nevertheless governed by the principle (as one of its authors—Seaman—phrased it) ‘that the greatest care should be taken to frame the answer not according to the model of the knowledge the child hath, but according to that the child ought to have.'” This is interesting, coming as it does from the learned Professor of Dogmatic Theology at Princeton, who, along with Dr. Kuyper, of Holland, may be regarded as one of the two most distinguished exponents of Calvinism in modern times.
How the Lord’s Day is kept in Dunedin, New Zealand.—The following extract from a letter which appeared in the Northern Ensign speaking of Sabbath desecration in Dunedin, New Zealand, it is to be feared finds a counterpart in many of the British dependencies to which the youth of the British Isles are flocking. It is sad enough reading, and, in mentioning want of Bible teaching in the schools as one of the causes of this state of matters, the writer appears to us to point with marked precision to a perennial source of this evil:—
“In Dunedin,” says this writer, “we are a great church-going
people, yet there is a vast amount of Sabbath desecration. Young men play football, others go rowing and sailing on the harbour waters, others play cricket, tennis, cards, two up, bicycling, motor-ing, gardening, carpentering, etc. In short, there is no end to the various methods of Sabbath desecration. It is true that all this is not done at all times in the public gaze, but oftentimes it is. A week or two ago three Chinamen were hauled before the Court for digging in their gardens in a county district in view of church-goers. Yet hundreds of our own people do the same, and work in a quiet way, and nothing is heard about it. So far as a large proportion of the young people are concerned, I am pretty safe in stating that respect for the Sabbath is a minus quantity in their conduct. Indeed, this may be said of their attitude towards religion generally. What is the cause, and what explanation? The echo of public opinion answers—City life, mixed population, no Bible in schools or secular education, loss of, indeed, absence of parental control, easy acquirement of a little money, and disbelief in the great truths of religion.”
Resignation of Principal Dods.—Dr. Dods has tendered his resignation as Principal of the New College and Professor of New Testament Language, Literature and Theology. For some time back Dr. Dods has been in failing health, and some time ago he placed his resignation in the hands of the College Committee, but on their recommendation he reconsidered his decision and remained at his post, but evidently the state of his health demands freedom from administrative and professorial duties. His resignation is received with the deepest regret by the United Free Church, but we cannot join in this expression of regret. Dr. Dods’ appointment to the Chair was the beginning of long years of sorrow to many a devoted believer in the infallibility of God’s Word. His students, especially those who were of the newer way of thinking, admired him greatly, but there was a proud imperiousness about the man and a certain unfeeling rashness in his public utterances that, apart altogether from his heterodox views, awakened a spirit of hostility against him. Only a year or so ago he attacked the Highland ministers of his own Church, and charged them with being the cause of the disaster that had befallen the United Free Church in the Highlands through their laziness. It is not our business to come forward in the defence of the United Free Church ministers, they certainly have enough to answer for, but it is only justice to say that an unprejudiced view of the ecclesiastical wreck in the Highlands will lay a large share at the door of Dods and those who with him promulgated the new views in regard to the Bible.
An Atheist Warned.—Calvin has related the following striking story in connection with his own experience:—”While we were supping in a certain inn, and speaking of the hope of the heavenly life, a profane despiser of God, happening to be present,
treated our discourse with derision, and now and then mockingly exclaimed, “The heaven of heavens is the Lord’s.” Instantly afterwards he was seized with dreadful pain, and began to vociferate, ‘O God! O God!’ and having a powerful voice he filled the whole apartment with his cries. Then I, who had felt indignant at his conduct, proceeded, in my own way, to tell him warmly that now at least he perceived that they who mocked God were not permitted to escape with impunity. One of the guests, a pious and honest man, yet alive, but withal of a witty, humorous turn, employed the occasion thus: ‘Do you invoke God? Have you forgotten your philosophy? Why do you not permit Him to remain at ease in His own heaven?’ And as often as the one bawled out ‘O God,’ the other, mocking him, retorted, ‘Where is now thy “heaven of heavens is the Lord’s?”‘ At that time his pain was mitigated; nevertheless, the remainder of his life was spent according to his former wickedness.”