The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1884-10-15
For the Central Presbyterian.
Novelties.

"a
article over the signature of Stupid, 4"
much to the point, and so needed, 1 would
recommend that you republish it occa-
sionally. We are suffering heavily from
the practice condemned in that article
tinkering with our machinery instead of
working it. Ever since the writer en-
tered the ministry, the time of Presby-
teries and higher courts has been taken
up with discussions about division of
Synod, revision of the Book, Diaconate,
Eldership, Fraternal Relations, etc., to
the exclusion and neglect of matters of
practical Importance. Not only is the
work of the Church hindered in this way :;
but an unsettled feeling is developed,
which is great element of weakness.
No wonder we are falling behind in prac-
teal results.
The controversy now waging over the
teachings of the Perkins Professor in Co.
lumbia Seminary is another illustration
of the evil referred to. You are making
noble fight in the interest of truth, and
the rank and file of the Church are with
you. No interest of the Church or the
Seminary could suffer by stopping such
teachings; they will suffer seriously if
they are allowed to be continued. Will
IF. Woodrow continue to teach his hv-
potheSiS (Which is all he claims it to be)
at the risk of such injury? Truth should
be held though the heavens fall; and to
be martyr for truth is crown of glory
put what shall be said of one who dis
rupts Church for an hypothesis
In my humble judgment, there is some
thing of profanity or sacrilege rather in
all these speculations. The Lord could
have told Moses just how mans body
was formed in all its details, if He had
wished us to know. He does tell us that
He formed man of the dust of the
ground" This is all He thought best
tor us to know, and all He intended we
should k,,oaQ. More than this belongs
to those "secret things" not revealed,
with which we have nothing to do. The
Perkins chair was intended to teach the
relation 6etaOee1a Scripture and Science
The Professor seems to have entered the
field of science himself and set up a the
DRY or hypothesis of his own. The
Church has clear right to defend the
truth against the attacks of false sci
ence but the Church has no right to go
into speculations herself. Her position
must be only defensive, combining herself
closely to thus saith the Lord" The
moment she leaves this ground she falls.
Has the Perkins Professor any right or
any call to teach an hypothesis of his
own on this subject? Why attempt to
be wise above what is written2 Why
try by reasoning or induction to get light
which God has not given? Is the Bible
not sufficient as it is? The Church 8
commission is, Preach the gospel; save
souls. Is this fulfilling that duty or
helping to do so? Imagine the apostles
celebrating and wrangling over such a
question? Are souls less precious, or the
Devil less active, that we can stop now to
speculate about it2 If any Christian has
a theory on this subject, let him keep it
to himself the Church does not need it;
the world does not need it. it is foolish,
childish, and sacrilegious to press such
things.
There is deep feeling in the minds OF
Christians that it is time stop were put
to such disturbances Of the Church 6
peace. Better some man should be
wounded than the cause of Christ
An honored minister of the Synod OF
Virginia, writes My heart sometimes
almost fails me when think of the con.
dition Of the country and the Church,
and especially our poor little Southern
Church, now wasting its strength in dis
cussing how man was formed, instead oil
how man is to be saved" The action oil
the Church courts having control in this
matter is awaited with deep interest.
julius.