The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1879-08-13
TOPICS OF THE DAY.


The Rev. DR.. B. NJ. Smith has a valu-
able article in the Southern Presbyterian
Remelo for July on 1.-The Brethren of the
Lord, in which he maintains, and We
think successfully, that the brethren Of
the Lord were the children of Joseph and
Mary our Lords mother; not the chill
dren of Joseph by former wife nor the
children of Mary the wife of Cleopas,
adopted by Joseph on the death of their
father; nor of Joseph by Levirate mar
riage with the widow of his brother The
bearing of this is that the last three the
cries have exerted large influence in the
interests of asceticism, and in developing
the dogma Of the perpetual virginity of
Mary. This doctrine of the perpetual
virginity led to the doctrine of the i'm
maculate conception, now an article of
faith in the Roman Church, and is init
mately associated with the growth of Ma
riolatry in that communion. The discus
sion is therefore one of no little import
DR.. Dabney has timely and able
review of Canon Farrar's Eternal
Hope" and the Death of Death, by an
Orthodox Layman. He speaks contempt
uously Of the former work as being "fool-
ish, uncandid, and mischievous," and we
will add he prores it. Of the second work
he says, while regarding the argument
as inconclusive, we must concede to the
writer pious and reverent spirit. In
every respect save the erroneous logic, in
true eloquence, temper, and vigor of
thought, he stands in favorable contrast
with his clerical comrade of Westminster
Abbey" The reviewer finds an evident
affinity between the RestPrationist scheme
and semi-Pelagianism.
DR.. Adger has very temperate and
forcible review Of the subject Of Calvin
and Servetus." He shows very plainly
that the burning of Servetus was the act
of the Reformed Churches of Switzerland
the cantons of Schaffhausen, Berne, Zurich,
and Basle-to whom the matter was refer
red by the Municipal Council Of Geneva.
The answers received from these cantons
were unanimous, Servetus must die. "
He died according to the custom of the
times. Calvin entertained precisely the
same views on this subject that Melanc
thon did. Melancthon warmly compli
mented Geneva and Calvin for what they
did. Twenty years earlier" says M.
Saisset, who is very hostile to Calvin.
" Gcolampadius, Capito, zwingle, Bucer,
all had like views" Servetus was very
learned man, but a miserable creature in
his opinions and his morals.
The Rev. DR.. James A. Waddell has
an article on Contrary Choice" which
displays wonderful acuteness. Dr. Wad-
dell is born metaphysician, and his style
is singularly pure and transparent. At
the same time, we do not agree with the
conclusion he has reached. He destroys
the freedom Of the will, when he proves
that it was impossible p. 548,) for Adam,
with a peccable nature, to have resisted
the Devil. Then he was not responsible.
There is but one way of dealing with this
subject and that is to accept the Ne
cessitarian view that every event Gin the
mental as well as the physical world)
must have cause; and at the same time
to maintain that on the testimony Of con-
seriousness we know the will to be free
Both are Observation-Disclosures
demanding acceptance. If we reject one
we dethrone God; if we reject the other,
we dethrone conscience. Dr. Waddell
would insist that he maintains mans free
dom. We do not think so. But his
article is very fine one.
DR.. Adger gives us in another article a
clear and compendious account of the
Proceedings of the General Assembly at
Louisville.
The flying notices of Recent Publica-
tions" at the close, are simply wonderful.
We regard the maintenance of this Re