The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-12-21

the inspiration Of His spirit.
All this gives some idea of Gail Hamil-
tons theology, as presented Sunday after
Sunday to her Bible class of distinguished
women and men in Washington, and now
published for public perusal. But she
/ touches on many topics. She sets the doc
| trlne of election as taught by st. Paul
| against the doctrine OF election us taught
| by. the Presbyterian standards and the
| Congregational creeds, and claims that
| Paul's words and doctrines have been Jug
| gled IN the interests of theologians and
| schools of belief Prcsbyterianism comes
| In for full share of the authors sarcasm
and scorn. Among other things she says:
1t is surely most curious twist of theo-
| logical candor and ingenuity which makes
| Paul preach the opposite of his humane
| and liberal thought. He has passed
| through a looking glass world, He taught
that God would confinc himself to the
| Jews, but was Father of the Gentiles also;
and men have bejuggled it into Il wicked
/ doctrine that God would save or damn His
| creatures as He pleased. Paul taught that
| Tod would save as many as He wished TO
| save, and we render it that He will damn
| SIS many as He wishes to damn Paul
! preached that God would not pass by or
reprobate the Gentiles, and we Gentiles
| turn upon Him and say that He shall.
God says: Il will have mercy on whom /
| Will have mercy Even when | say unto
the wicked, Thou shalt die if he turn
IRON his sin he shall surely liyei He shall
Thou must stand by Thy word, and Thy
| word shall be what / say it Is. When /
| think that Thou predestinest men to ever
/ lasting death they are unchangeably de-
/ signed and their number cannot be in
| creased or diminished.
!
| Gail Hamilton is still allied with the lib
| eral wing of the Congregationalists and,
| therefore, naturally enough, contributes In
| her Hveliest vein her share of argument
| and comment TO the Andoyer discussion.
| She sides with the president and profess
| sors of the theological seminary, and says
| that for them to give up their seminary
would be to give up the inspiration of the
| fathers TO the limitations of the sons; to
relinquish light TO darkness; breadth to
| narrowness; heavens flash of radiance to
earth's brooding obscurity. In another
| chapter she furnishes am argument for
| Congregationalism, showing chiefly the
| difference between that denomination
| and those of the older and more
ritualistic churches. Possibly some
of the views presented may
| arouse the violent dissent of some of the
| gational brethren, but, then. the Congrega-
| tional creed, such as it is, although simple,
| is elastic permitting of various radically
| opposing interpretations, and Gail Hamii-
| ton is simply revelling in the right to de-
| scribe Congregationalism as it appears to
| her. Her definition of the form of Congre-
| gational church government can cause no
| discussion, for it is entirely clear and ac-
1 S1a IN vol
| when she says that Congregationalism sis
modelled upon the Southern idea of con-
| federacy rather than upon the Northern
| idea of nation"
| In chapter entitled Inspiration" the
| author takes shy at Dr. Clark. who de-
| picts an imaginary man houndering help
| lessly in the mire until finally his feet hit
| upon the firm ground of Gods promise
| and he stands on that and is safe. The
"rationalistic craze" however, seizes him,
| and he begins to widen his foundations by
| driving in such human piles as reason"
"ethical consciousness, ''the moral fitness
| of things" "God mirrored and limited in
| human conception" etc, until he rests
| partly on divine and partly on human
| foundation. The vast outlay of pile-work
| sinks completely and the man finds no
| solidity or rest until he rebuilds "his faith
upon a child-like trust in every word of
| God,' his fixed belief being Forever, O
| Lord, Thy work is settled in heaven"
| Gail Hamilton thinks that these words of
| DR.. Clark 'tickle the ear and never touch
| the brain" In the course of her reply she
| says
What is the ''word of God ?" The Bible?
| In another city sits another doctor of the
same law, equally had in reputation, and
1 at his feet are gathered a group question
/ ing him as to the proper attitude of a
| Christion toward the theater, to whom
/ thus answers he: "Our conscience tells
us not to go, lest at the very least we vio-
! late the command to abstain from all APP
! pearance of evil" Instantly then DR..
| Clark's rock-base begins to totter and we
| find ourselves Hat i'll the primeyal mud,
| for the revised version says there is no
such command; bids only to avoid every
| species of evil, which not only gives us no
| enlightenment on the question whether
the theater is evil, but forces US to ask
| whether "eVery word of Godn means every
| word of King James translation or every
| word of the revised version. Until that is
decided, and because it's to be decided, and,
| therefore, after it is decided, our faith rests
partly on q divine and partly on human
| foundation. Forever, without doubt, the
word of the Lord is settled in heaven, but
| it is SO far from being settled on earth that
| all the churches and creeds and sects of
! Christendom have come into court for the
| purpose of settling it. When the word of
| God is settled on earth, earth will be earth
no longer, but the Holy City-the New
! Jerusalem.
She adds that while holy men of old,
| moved by the Holy Ghost, spake, they
| spoke in what to US is an unknown tongue,
and that fifty millions of the American
| people have TO depend upon some man to
| tell what the letters are-what the words
mean. Practically, therefore, the nine
tenth century has no revelation, unless it
has one partly on human foundation
| namely, the translators, all purely hu-
man and not inspired Acquainted
as we are" she says, with Harvard and
Yale and Oxford and Heidelberg, it must
be admitted that the human part of the
structure of Christian faith is little I'M
| steady. not 10 say rickety. = Even
| if God inspired Matthew to write 'Baptizo,
He cannot have inspired one man TO de-
| eide that it means always to go under the
water, and another man that it means al
ways, or only, TO have a little water sprin-
kled on the forehead" Therefore she holds
| that we must use our reason to ascertain
which and what it means, and conse-
| quently we must have one pile of reason to
| rest on in spite of DIR. Clark. If every
| word of the Bible is the word OF God, she
| declares that some of the translators must
be fighting against God. The various in
terpretations, past and present, of the
Scriptures are touched upon TO show how
4 "a I = - \