C. 63. Ciod iad sochairean sònruichte na h-eaglais fhaicsinneich?
F. Tha an t-sochair so aig an Eaglais fhaicsinneich, gu bheil i fuidh chûram agus riaghladh sònruichte Dhé, gu bheil i air a dìon agus air a coimhead, anns gach uile linn, a dh’ aindeoin cathachadh a h-uile naimhdean ‘n a h-agh-aidh: Agus gu bheil i mealtuinn co-chomunn nan naomh, meadhona gnàthaichte na slàinte, tairgse nan gràs le Criosd, d’ a buill uile, ann am ministrealachd an t-soisgeil, a’ togail fianuis gu ‘b bi gach neach a chreideas ann-san, air a thèarnadh, agus nach druid e mach neach air bith a thig d’ a ionnsuidh.
C. 64. Ciod i ‘n Eaglais neo-fhaicsinneach?
F. ‘S i ‘n Eaglais neo-fhaicsinneach, àireamh nan daoiné taghta, bha, a tha, no bhitheas, air an cruinneachadh ‘n an aon fuidh Chriosd an ceann.
C. 65. Ciod iad na sochairean àraid, a tha buill na h-Eaglais neo-fhaicsinneich, a’ mealtuinn trid Chriosd?
F. Tha buill na h-Eaglais neo-fhaicsinneich, a mealtuinn, trid Chriosd, aonadh agus co-chomunn ris, ann an gràs agus ann an glòir.
C. 66. Ciod e ‘n t-aonadh sin ri Criosd a tha aig na daoinibh taghta?
F. An t-aonadh ud a tha aig na daoinibh taghta ri Criosd, ‘s e obair gràsa Dé e, leis am bheil iad, gu spioradail, agus gu dlomhair, gidheadh gu fior agus gu neo-sgarail, air an aonadh ri Criosd, mar an ceann agus am fear-pòsda, agus tha so air a dhèanamh, ‘n an gairm éifeachdach.
C. 67. Ciod i a’ ghairm éifeachdach?
F. Is i a’ ghairm éifeachdach, obair gràis agus neirt uile-chumhachdaich Dhé, leis am bheil e (o ghràdh saor agus sònruichte d’ a dhaoibh taghta, agus cha ‘n ann o ni air bith annta-san, gu a bhrosnachadh chuige), anns an àn thaitneach, ‘g an cuireadh agus ‘g an tarruing, gu losa Criosd le ‘fhocal agus le a Spiorad; gu slàinteil a’ soillseachadh an inntinn, ag ath-nuadhachadh, agus gu cumhachdach a’ socruachadh an toil; air chòr ‘s ged tha iad annta féin marbh ann am peacadh, gu bheil iad trid so, air an dèanamh deònach agus comasach air a’ ghairm sin a fhreagairt gu saor, agus gu gabhail ris a’ ghràs a ta air a thairgseadh agus air a cho-pàirteachadh ann, agus a’ dhlùthghabbail chua.
C. 68. An iad na daoiné taght’ a mhàin a tha air an gairm gu h-éifeachdach?
F. Tha na daoiné taghta uile, agus iadsan a mhàin, air an gairm gu h-éifeachdach, ged fheud daoin’ eile bhi, agus
gur minic a tha iad, air an gairm o ‘n leth mach, le ministrealachd an fhoicil; agus oibreachadh coitchionn an Spioraid, a bhi aca; ach cha ‘n ‘eil iad am feasd a’ teachd a dh’ionnsuidh Iosa Criosd, air bhi dhoibh air am fàgail, gu ceartbhreitheach ‘n an neo-chreidimh, air son an dichuimhn thoileil, agus an dìmeas air a’ ghràs a ta air a thaigseadh dhoibh.
C. 69. Ciod an co-chomunn ann an gràs a tha aig buill na h-eaglais neo-fhaicsinneich, ri Criosd?
F. ‘S e ‘n co-chomunn ann an gràs a th’ aig buill na h-Eaglais neo-fhaicsinneich ri Criosd, gu bheil iad a’ co-pàirteachadh do éifeachd ‘Eadar-mheadhonaireachd fein ‘n am fireanachadh, ‘nan uchdmhacachd, ‘n an naombachadh, agus ge b’ e air bith ni eile a ta foillseachadh anns a’ bheatha so, an aonadh ris.
C. 70. Ciod e fireanachadh?
F. Fireanachadh is e gniomh saor-ghràsa Dé do pheacaich e, anns am bheil e a’ maitheadh an uile pheacaiddh, a’ meas agus a’ gabhail r’ am pearsaibh mar fhireanaibh, ‘n an fhianuis, cha ‘n ann air son aon ni a tha air oibreachadh annta, no air a dhèanamh leo, ach a mhàin air son ùmhlachd iomlann agus làn-diolaiddh Chriosd, air an cur as an leth le Dia, agus air an gabhail le creidimh a mhàin.
C. 71. Cionnus a tha fireanachadh ‘n a ghnìomh saor ghràsa Dé?
F. Ged thug Criosd le ‘ùmhlachd agus le ‘bhàs, dioladh iomlan, agus da rìreadh, do cheartas Dé, as leth na muinntir sin a ta air am fireanachadh, gidheadh, a mheud ‘s gu bheil Dia a’ gabhail diolaiddh o Urras, a dh’ fheudadh e iarruidh orra-san, agus gu ‘n d’ ullaich e féin an t-Urras so, eadhon aon Mhac féin, a’ cur ‘fhireantachd-san as an leth, agus gun e ag iarruidh aon ni orra, chum am fireanachaidh ach creidimh, ni mar an ceudna ‘s e a thiodh-lac, uime sin, tha ‘m fireanachadh dhoibh-san o shaor-ghràs.
C. 72. Ciod e an creidimh a tha fireanachadh?
F. An creidimh a ta fireanachadh, is gràs slàinteil e, air ‘oibreachadh ann an cridhe a’ pheacaich le Spiorad, agus le focal Dé, leis am bheil am peacach, air dha bhi air ‘fhàgail ris do thaobh a pheacaiddh agus a thruaighe féin, agus do thaobh an neo-chomais a ta ann féin, agus anns na h-uile chreutairibh eile, air a theasaiginn as an staid chailte sin, cha ‘n e mhàin a’ toirt creideis, do fhirinn geallaidh an t-soisgeil, ach a’ gabhail agus a’ socruachadh air Criosd agus air ‘fhireantachd air an taisbeanadh ann, chum maitheanais peacaiddh, agus a’ gabhail r’ a phearsa, agus ‘g a mheas mar phearsa fireanta am fianuis Dhe, chum slàinte.
C. 73. Cionnus a tha creidimh a’ fireanachadh a’ pheacaich am fianuis Dhé?
F. Tha creidimh a’ fireanachadh a’ pheacaich an làthair Dhé, cha ‘n ann air son nan gràsa sin eile, tha do ghnàth ‘n a cho-chuideachd, no na deadh-oibre a ta ‘n an toradh air, no mar gu ‘m biodh gràs a’ chreidhimh, no gniomh air bith dheth, air a chur as a leth mar fhireantachd dha; ach a mhàin mar tha creidimh ‘n a mheadhon leis am bheil e gabhail ri Criosd, agus ‘fhireantachd-san, agus ‘g an cur ris.
C. 74. Ciod e Uchd-mhacachadh?
F. Uchd-mhacachadh, is gniomh e do shaor-ghràsa Dé, ‘n a aon Mhac Iosa Criosd, agus air a shonsan, leis am bheil iadsan uile a ta air am fireanachadh air an gabhail a steach an àireamh a chloinne, agus ‘ainme-san air a chur orra, agus Spiorad a Mhic air a thabhairt doibh, agus iad fuidh a churam agus a fhrithealadh Athaireil gach uile shaorsa agus shochairre chloinne Dé air am buileachadh orra, air an dèanamh ‘n an oighreachan air na geallannaibh uile, agus nan co-oighreachan maillle ri Criosd ann an glòir.
C. 75. Ciod e naomhachadh?
F. Naomhachadh, is obair saor-ghràsa Dé e, leis am bheil iadsan a thaghadh le Dia roimh thoiseach an t-saoghail, chum a bhi naomh, anns a’ bheatha so, trid oibreachadh cumhachadh a Spioraid, a tha eur bàis agus aiseirigh Chriosd riutha, air an ath-nuadhachadh anns an duine gu h-iomlan do réir iomhaigh Dhé, air bhi do shìol an aithreachais chum beatha, agus gach uile ghràs slàinteil eile, air a chur ‘n an cridhibh, agus na gràsan sin air am brosnuchadh, air am meudachadh, agus air an neart-achadh, air chor ‘s gu bheil iad ni ‘s mò agus ni ‘s mò a’ bàsachadh do pheacadh, agus ag éirigh gu nuadhachd beatha.
C. 76. Ciod e aithreachas chum beatha?
F. Aithreachas a chum beatha is gràs slàinteil e, air ‘oibreachadh ann an cridhe a’ pheacaich le Spiorad, agus Focal Dé, leis am bheil e o shealladh agus o mhothachadh, cha ‘n e mhàin do chunnart, a’ pheacaidh, ach mar an ceudna do shalchar agus do uamharrachd a’ pheacaidh, agus air dha tròcair Dhé ann an Criosd dhoibh-san a ta ‘n an aithreachain, a bhreithnachadh, fo dhoilghios air son a’ pheacaidhean, agus a’ toirt fuath dhoibh, air chor as gu bheil e tionndadh uatha uile, gu Dia, a’ cur roimhe agus a’ dèanamh dicheall do ghnàth a bhi gluasad maillle ris ann an uile shligibh na nuadhùmhlachd.
C. 77. Ciod iad na nithe anns am bheil eadar-dhealachadh eadar fireanachadh agus naomhachadh?
F. Ged nach feudar fireanachadh agus naomhachadh bhi air an sgaradh idir o chéile, gidheadh tha eadar dhealachadh eatorra ann a’-mheud ‘s gu bheil ann an fireanachadh, Dia a’ meas dhuinne fireantachd Chriosd; ann an naomhachadh tha a Spiorad a’ cur gràis annainn, agus ‘g ar dèanamh comasach bhi ‘g a chur an gnìomh; ann am fùreantachd, tha ‘m peacadh air a mhaitheadh; ann an naomhachadh, tha ‘m peacadh air a cheannsachadh; tha fireanachadh a’ saoradh nan creidmheach uile, o fheirg dhìoghaltaich Dhé, agus sin gu h-iomlan, anns a’ bheatha so, air chor ‘s nach tuit iad gu bràth fo bhinn-dìtidh; ach ann an naomhachadh, cha ‘n ionann e anns na h-uile dhaoineibh naomha, cha mhò tha e iomlan ann an neach air bith ‘s a’ bheatha so, ach tha e a’ fàs suas a chum foirre-achd.
C. 78. Ciod e o’m bheil neo-iomlanachd naomhachaidh anns na creidmhich a’ teachd?
F. Tha neo-iomlanachd naomhachaidh anns na creidmhich a’ teachd, o fhuigheall a’ pheacaidh, a tha fantuinn anns gach ball diubh, agus o shlormhiannachadh na feòla an aghaidh an Spioraid leis am bheil iad air an sàruchadh, agus le buairidhibh agus iad a’ tuiteam ann an iomadh peacadh, agus air am bacadh ‘n an uile sheirbhis spioradail, agus an oibre a ‘s fearr, neo-iomlan agus truaillidh am fianuis Dhé.
C. 79. Nach feud flor-chreidmhich tuiteam o staid nan gràs, do thaobh an neo-iomlanachd féin agus na h-iomadh buairdhean agus peacaidhean a ta breith orra?
F. Do bhrigh gràidh neo-chaochlaideich Dhé, agus do bhrigh ‘òrduigh agus a cho-cheangail féin, a chum buan-mhaireannachd a thabhairt doibh, agus do bhrigh an aonaidh neo-sgarail ri Chriosd, a tha a’ ghnàth ag eadar-ghuidheadh air an son, agus Spiorad agus sìol Dhé a’ còmhnachadh annta, cha ‘n fheud flor-chreidmhich tuiteam gu h-iomlan, no fòs gu criochnach, o staid nan gràs; ach tha iad air an coimhead le cumhachd Dhé, trid creidimh chum slàinte.
C. 80. Am feud flor-chreidmhich a bhi gu neo-niùcarachadh dearbhta, gu bheil iad ann an staid nan gràs, agus gu ‘m buanaich iad ann a chum slàinte?
F. Feudaidh iadsan a ta gu fior a’ creidsinn ann an Chriosd, agus a tha dèanamh dicheadh air gluasad ann an uile dheadh choguis ‘n a lathair, as eugmhais foillseachadh neo-ghnàthaichte air bith, tre chreidimh a shuidhicheadh
air firinn geallana Dhé, agus trid an Spioraid ‘g an déanamh comasach air aithneachadh annta féin nan gràsa sind’ am bheil geallana na beatha air an déanamh, agus atogail fianuis le ‘n Spioradaibh gur iad clann Dhé iad; a bhi gu neo-mhearachdach dearbhta, gu bheil iad ann an staid nan gràs, agus gu ‘m buanaich iad ann, a chum slàinte.
C. 81. Am bheil na fior-chreidmhich uile, aig gach uair, dearbhta, gu bheil iad ‘s a’ cheart am ann an staid nan gràs, agus gu ‘m bi iad air an sàbhaladh?
F. Do bhrigh nach ann do cheart nàdur a’ chreidimh, dearbh-bheachd air gràs agus slàinte, feudaidh fior-chreidmhich feitheamh fada, mu ‘n ruig iad air, agus an déigh dhoibh ruigheachd air, feudaidh e bhi air a lagachadh aca, agus stad bhi dol air, trid iomadh gnè trioblaid, pheacaidean, bhuairidhean, agus thréigsinne: gidheadh cha ‘n ‘eil iad idir air am fàgail, gun a leithid do chòmhnadh, agus do làthaireachd Spioraid Dhé, ‘s a ni an coimhead o thuiteam ann am mi-dhòchas.
C. 82. Ciod an co-chomunn glòire a ta aig buill na heaglais neo-fhaicsinneich ri Criosd?
F. Tha ‘n co-chomunn glòire a ta aig buill na h-eaglais neo-fhaicsinneich ri Criosd, anns a’ bheatha so, agus air ball an déigh a’ bhàis, agus fadheoidh air a dhèanamh iomlan anns an aiseirgh, agus aig là a’ bhreitheanais.
C. Ciod an co-chomunn glòire ri Criosd, a tha buill na h-eaglais neo-fhaicsinneich a’ mealtuinn anns a’ bheatha so?
F. Tha ceud thoradh na glòire, maille ri Criosd, air a cho-pàirteachadh ri buill na h-eaglais neo-fhaicsinneich, ‘s a’ bheatha so, mar a tha iad ‘n am buill dhasan, an Ceann; agus mar sin annsan tha còir ac’ air a’ ghloir sin a tha esan a’ làn-shealbhachadh; agus mar chomhara daighnichte air sin, tha mothachadh aca do ghràdh Dhé, tha siochaint coguis aca, aibheas anns an Spiorad Naomh, agus dòchas glòire: mar air an làimh eile, do na h-aingidh, tha mothachadh air fèarg dhìoghaltaich Dhé, uamhas coguis, agus dùil uamhasach ri breitheanas, aca-sa ‘n an tòrsachadh air am piantaibh a’ dh’ fhuilingeas iad an déigh am bàis.
C. 84. Am faigh na h-uile dhaoine am bàs?
F. Air do ‘n bhàs bhi air a bhagradh, mar luigheachd a’ pheacaidh, tha e air ‘òrduchadh do na h-uile dhaoinebh an uair am bàs fhaghail, air son gu ‘n do pheacaich iad uile.
The Trouble at Princeton Theological Seminary.
THIS world-renowned theological seminary which has as its teachers some of the most distinguished defenders of the Reformed faith, has the eyes of the Presbyterian world turned to it owing to certain decisions made by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States in 1926 and 1927. The Seminary is an endowed institution, and the General Assembly exercises its right to veto the appointment of a professor made by the Directors. Dr J. Gresham Machen, a renowned defender of the Reformed faith, was appointed Professor of Apologetics and Christian Ethics, but when the appointment came before the Assembly of 1926 for its ratification owing to strong modernistic influence, the Assembly did not ratify it, but appointed a Committee “to make a sympathetic study of conditions affecting the welfare of Princeton Seminary, and to co-operate responsively with Seminary leaders in striving to harmonize differences, and to report to the next General Assembly.” The real cause of the trouble is thus stated by Dr Samuel G. Craig, one of the Directors of Princeton Theological Seminary, and editor of “The Presbyterian”:—”The central cause of the trouble at Princeton,” says Dr Craig, “we are persuaded, is the attempt of President Stevenson to carry out an administrative policy opposed to the purpose of the Seminary as set forth in its Plan and exemplified in its history. And that, despite the fact that not even the Board of Directors, and still less the President of the Seminary, has any right to have a policy for the institution other than that set forth in the Plan under which the Seminary operates, any more than any Board of Directors has any right to carry on its business contrary to its charters and by-laws. Now the Plan explicitly states that the design of the Seminary ‘is to form men for the gospel ministry, who shall truly believe, and cordially love, and therefore endeavour to propagate and defend, in its genuineness, simplicity, and fulness, that system of religious belief and practice set forth in the Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Plan of Government and Discipline of the Presbyterian Church; and thus to perpetuate and extend the influence of true evangelical piety, and gospel order.’ This statement of the purpose of the Seminary in the judgment of the
large majority of the Board of Directors and Faculty commits the institution not only to the system of doctrine set forth in the Confession of Faith, but to the defence of that system against those who oppose it, whether without or within the Church. And inasmuch as they hold that there is opposition to this system within the Presbyterian Church, they cannot but maintain that the realization of President Stevenson’s expressed ambition to make Princeton the Seminary of the whole Church as it—the Church—exists to-day would necessarily involve a playing fast and loose with the obligation imposed upon them by the Plan.” Dr Craig, while admitting that the issue at Princeton is administrative, is careful to stress that it is something more. There is a difference in the field of doctrine—not that he charges any of the Directors with being unorthodox, but he points out that those who are personally orthodox differ in the attitude they assume towards the unorthodox. He quotes a statement by one belonging to the majority group which sets forth the attitude of the two parties:—‘The minority believe in peace and work; the majority believe in controversy in defence of the truth and work. If the faith is to be promulgated for man’s salvation, it must be maintained, expounded, and defended.” Dr Craig, in answer to the question—“What is the major issue at Princeton?” answers it thus—“It has two phases—(1) The right of the Board of Directors under the Plan of the Seminary to direct the policy of the institution, and (2) the right of the Board of Directors to maintain, and the Faculty [i.e., the professors] to teach and defend, the historic doctrinal position of the Seminary under the Constitution of the Church. Other issues are involved, but these, if one mistakes not, are the main and determining ones.” The move to have the Board of Directors and the Board of Trustees merged into one Board of Control is, in Dr Craig’s opinion, an attempt to get a majority to support Dr Stevenson’s policy, as the majority of the Board of Trustees are favourable to his policy. The Board of Trustees, says Dr Craig, consists of men elected because of their supposed ability as trust officers, and not because of any qualifications they may possess to direct the training of young men for the ministry. Besides they “are not required to subscribe the Plan of the Seminary or to the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, not even, in fact, to be Presbyterians at all.” President Stevenson, in Dr Craig’s opinion, asked for the Committee of Investigation because he realised that the majority of
the Directors in their undoubted right would remove him from his position as he sought to carry out a policy to which they were strongly opposed.
In regard to Dr Machen, Dr Craig says:—”The real reason why the confirmation of Dr Machen was opposed was the fact that he was and is such a cogent expounder and defender of the Seminary’s policies and doctrinal positions as held by the large majority of the Board of Directors.” The report of the Committee of Investigation fills 200 pages, and its references to Dr Machen are markedly hostile, and in saying this it is scarcely necessary to add that the Committee recommend that the Assembly do not ratify the appointment of Dr Machen to the Chair of Apologetics.
When the report of the Special Committee appointed by the Assembly of 1926 to investigate Princeton Seminary came up at the Assembly its recommendations were altered and a new Committee consisting of more members was appointed with instructions to confer with the Board of Trustees and Board of Directors with the view of establishing one board of control for the Seminary. Pending the re-organisation the Assembly did not confirm the appointment of Prof. Machen and Prof. Oswald T. Allis. This is an adroit move on the part of the modernistic section in the General Assembly, as these two professors are out and out opponents of modernistic teaching alike in Old Testament criticism and theology. Dr Craig, commenting on the Assembly’s action, says:—”We do not conceal from ourselves or others the fact that the fundamental issue involved in the Princeton matter is the question whether or no the Presbyterian Church is to become an ‘inclusive’ Church in the sense that so-called Fundamentalists and so-called Modernists shall have equal rights in its ministry and eldership. Dr Herbert Booth Smith, who opened the debate for the Committee’s report, openly maintained that Princeton Seminary should be the Seminary of the whole Church as it exists to-day, which, being interpreted, means that all shades of doctrinal opinion as they exist in the Presbyterian Church to-day should be represented in the Princeton Faculty.” This move is clearly shown in the notice of resolution given by Dr Thompson for next Assembly, which aims at abrogating the Plan of Princeton Theological Seminary. “The serving of this notice by Dr Thompson,” says Dr Craig, “makes it clear that an effort will be made at the Assembly of 1928 to scrap the Plan under which Princeton Seminary has operated
so successfully for 115 years. If this effort be successful, and a new Plan is put in operation that has been shaped in harmony with the report presented to the last Assembly, we cherish no delusions as to what will be the outcome. It will mean that the Assembly of 1928 will mark the passing of Princeton Seminary as it has been and the substitution therefor of a virtually new institution—an institution that will have but little in common with the old institution except the name.” May that day never come; for, if it does come, the fair name of Princeton as a seminary long noted for its exposition and defence of the Reformed faith as set forth in the Westminster Standards is gone. There can be no doubt there is a determined effort on the part of the Modernist section in the Presbyterian Church to get some of their own way of thinking on the teaching staff of Princeton Seminary, but our prayer is that the Lord may defeat them.
Mrs D. Maclellan, Upper Diabaig.
ALTHOUGH there are two years since Mrs Maclellan died, perhaps it is not too late to give a brief summary of her pilgrimage. Chirsty, as she was familiarly called, was born at Diabaig, and was brought up in religious atmosphere. Although that is a great privilege, old Adam’s scales must be pierced before the publican’s cry is heard. We are not able to state the time when she was brought under the power of the truth, but we heard from herself that the following verse was applied by the Spirit of Truth to release her bonds:—”But God can supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Jesus Christ.” When the banner was kept flying in 1893 for the Faith once delivered unto the saints she had no hesitation in casting in her lot with those that stood for the truth. She suffered more persecution for being a Free Presbyterian than any one we knew about here. To begin with, she was many a Sabbath not allowed to go and hear the Word preached, but latterly she had many years’ freedom. She was very liberal to the cause. A few minutes before she died she asked that the last chapter of Revelation be read to her. After it was read she spoke the following words:—”The key of the Lord opening the door,” and passed away at a ripe old age. “Mark the perfect man and behold the upright, for the end of that man is peace.”—A. C.
The Irish Presbyterian Heresy Case.
THIS case, which awakened considerable interest in the Presbyterian Church of Ireland, came up as an Appeal from the Belfast Presbytery to the General Assembly. Prof. Davey, of the Assembly’s College, had published certain books and made certain statements to his students which were said to contain statements inconsistent with the doctrine which recognises God’s Word to be infallible. Fault was also found with him as to his statements on the Trinity, imputation, justification, and the true Diety of the Son of God. The Rev. James Hunter, Belfast, who has taken a very prominent part in bringing this case before the Church Courts, was very ably supported by elders who made excellent speeches in the Assembly. We have carefully read the speeches on both sides, as reported in the “Belfast Witness,” and while admitting the ability of Prof. Davey’s defence and the extraordinary skill he manifested in making out a good case for himself, we cannot help, with such evidence as was presented in the speeches, coming to the conclusion that many of Prof. Davey’s statements found fault with were anything but in accordance with the full recognition of the infallibility of the Word of God and the doctrines taught in the Westminster Confession on the points in question. The whole tone of his speech in the Assembly seemed to indicate that he was quite certain he had the Court behind him. Prof. Davey’s efforts to turn his accusers into heretics was an adroit move, but in our opinion it was quite unjustifiable from the evidence on which it was founded. The ability of Prof. Davey in his own defence was fully recognised by his accusers, and we have no doubt largely influenced the Assembly to absolve him of the charges by a vote of 707 to 82. Mr S. G. Montgomery, an elder from Bangor, in an excellent speech, made reference to Prof. Davey’s skill in his own defence, though one of his accusers. “I freely acknowledge,” he said, “that Prof. Davey has made a wonderful defence. His pleas of justification are so manipulated that he actually makes himself out the orthodox man, the upholder of the doctrines of the standards of our Presbyterian Church, the innocent one, and we, his accusers, are the unorthodox, and guilty of heresy. I said to a friend the other day, there is not a K.C., or Q.C., or
M.P., from the great Dan O’Connell to Sir Edward Carson, K.C., who could hold a candle to Prof. Davey. But what after all is it? Just a great, clever, elaborate, and intricate piece of human reasoning for which he gives us no Scripture whatever. I would rather have one clear statement from the Word of God than ten thousand pages from man’s production.” These words are fitly spoken and accurately express our mind after reading Prof. Davey’s defence. The defence evidently weighed with the fathers and brethren in the vote they gave, but what about the Professor’s statements in his books on which the charges were founded? On this point we thoroughly agree with “The Christian” when it says:—”In the words of the newspapers, ‘The Professor has been vindicated!’ Such a statement, however, will not satisfy the discerning mind. The original charges were on the Professor’s teaching; the ‘vindication’ was based upon his apologetic explanations. When addressing his students and the public, he dealt with profound issues in terms that were Rationalistic and had a destructive tendency. When addressing the Assembly, in extenuation, he invested his ordered instruction, things written and said, with a note that was well-meaning and more or less constructive. Why the disparity between his work and his defence? This is a question asked by such as sympathise with the Bible Standards League, by whom the charges were preferred. In the result, it would appear as if, like other ecclesiastical organisations, the Presbyterian Church of Ireland has two voices, for 707 votes were cast for the Professor and 82 against. The very fact that, in his statement before the Assembly, the Professor alleged that he had been ‘accused of Unitarianism, Pantheism, Modernism, and Romanism,’ shows that he cannot have been particularly precise in defining his relation to the Church of which he is a responsible member and officer.”
Another disquieting feature at the Assembly was the overture to change the Formula. The reason alleged for the change was to give relief to the “tender” consciences of young men intending entrance to the ministry of the Church. We, in Scotland, have been long familiar with the tremendous anxiety manifested for “tender consciences” that are drifting away from the truth, and know too well where the policy that is so sensitive about these “tender consciences” ultimately leads to that our worst suspicions are aroused even
though it be proclaimed as loudly as possible that the change does not alter anything. The fact that it is made for the so-called “tender consciences” of young men who cannot accept what their fathers accepted as in accordance with God’s Word is suspicious.