The record-union., 1891-05-30


1t is this, that if the principle that man
may voluntarily take upon himself the
most solemn and distinct engagements
and then repudiate them by process of
reading into them meaning precisely
the opposite of that which they were in
tended to convey, and always have con-
Feyed-lf, we say, such principle were
to be carried into common life and the
ordinary transactions of business be-
tween man and man, contracts of all
kinds would become impossible, the
foundations of trust would be broken up,
and long backward step towards bar
barism and social confusion would be
the result"
Of the action of the Episcopal Church
IN the MacQueary case, the Unitarian Re
0ieW says: ''As long as it has so-called
Articles of Religion and as long as it
has theological creeds repeated in its Serv-
ice, just so long it has a duty to truth
and honesty, as well as to charity. It's
duty Is TO enforce the plain meaning of
those articles and creeds as an orthodoxy
upon its laity and clergy, to receive none
who do not declare their sincere belief in
these formulas, and to expel all it's mem
bers, lay or clerical, who have come to
disbelieve them. There is no middle way
between an orthodoxy belief as basis of
a church and an orthodoxy of conduct.
Each orthodoxy of belief, however far it
go and wherever it stop short, may plead
strong arguments for itself. So may the
pure and simple orthodoxy of conduct.
But confounding Of the two is good
neither for reason nor for morality. Any
event, then, which serves to make clear
this issue, is suspicious of a better day for
sound religion.
''1n the case of the Rev. Howard Mac
Queary, the sympathies of liberal Chris
tians must be with him. so far as he is a
lylr. ffn1t e.IIf n Pint hox- L.
no sympathy with his former desire to
remain in the Episcopal Church and
teach that Jesus was born as other men
are born, and that He appeared to his dis
ciples after his death in spirit only.
1.-The question thus raised whether
clergyman so believing can remain in the
Episcopal Church while the articles are
unaltered, has been decided in the neg
alive by a vote of three to two. We be-
lieve that it has been decided properly;
that the right place for man holding
Mr.. MacQueary's views is outside of the
Episcopal Church, not inside of it, and
that the cause. of truth is served by the
decision of the tribunal and the depart
ure of Mr.. MacQueary into another fold,
where he will be free to speak as he be-
ieves. Welcoming him, as the articles
stand, we should have advised him to re-
main, were the sixth article of religion
the entire doctrinal basis of the Episcopal
Church. That church may some time
come to such a position. But, until it
does, intellectual honesty demands that
the remaining articles be allowed their
plain meaning, and that men who dis
believe that plain meaning should preach
religion elsewhere than in body i'm
posing these articles"
!. The Rev. DR.. T. W. Chambers writes in
the Christian IntelligeRce,' (Ref'dl on "a
New Critical Analysis of the Epistle to
the Romans, by E. d. McRealsham :"
I'm the introduction the author states
the assumptions which lie at the founda-
ton of all scientific criticism on the
Bible. Now when the Epistle to the
Romans is examined under the light of
these principles, it is found to be COM
posite work written by at least four an
thors. These authors, known as @ l, q
2, j G and G are all Christians, but pre-
sent different phases Of Christian thought.
G portrays Christianity as an ethical
institution, spiritualiZed Judaism. Sal
walton, according to him, is gained by
obedience to the law; and he says nothing
about faith as its condition. In G 2, on
the contrary, though nothing is said about
faith in Jesus, salvation is emphatically
represented as a Divine gift, one that is
appropriated by faith in God. In J c the
prominent thought is justification
through faith in Christ, and especially in
Him as a vicarious sacrifice. In G ] the
chief stress is laid on the necessity of
spiritual union between the Christian
and Christ. The writer proceeds to par
Gel out the Epistle among these four, re-
moving difficulty whenever one occurs
by suggesting the action OF a Redactor
who brought the whole into its present
apparent unity. The doctrinal argument
on the subject is thus shown to be COM
plete and conclusive. The four sets of
views demonstrate that four different au-
thorS were concerned.
Another chapter sets forth the Lingu-
istic Argument. Some parts have the
name Jesus Christ, others have Christ
Jesus, while in still others the name
Jesus scarcely occurs at all. And the dis
tinction as to these names comedies with
the distinction in doctrinal tone. Besides,
complete collation. Of the words used
confirms the theory of divers authorship.
If this analysis be compared with that
made by Professor Harper of Gen. j., II,
there will be found to be a much greater
and more significant diversity than that
from which the critics argue difference
of authorship in Genesis. This is shown
by many detailed statements which can
not be copied here. The author, compar-
ing his argument with that of the higher
criticism in respect to the Pentateuch,
justly insists that his is more thoroughly
grounded than theirs. 1t does not require
so much minute chopping up of the text,
nor is it necessary so often to bring in the
Redactor.
Next comes the historical argument.
This theory aids in solving some prob
lens that have never yet been settled,
as, for example, whether the epistle was
written to church of Jewish or GENTLE
Christians, there being strong arguments
on both sides. But on the view of COM
posite authorship the question loses all
its Importance. The same is true of the
inquiries why Paul addressed his most
elaborate epistles to the Romans whom
he had never seen, when and where he
wrote it, how it is to be reconciled with
the statements in the Book of Acts, etc.
If Paul never wrote the letter, these
questions need no answer. That by far
the greater part of the epistle is not
Pauline has been made clear.
Such is very condensed statement Of
the positions taken in this excellent piece
of workmanship, but our account fails to
convey the full force and spirit of Mr..
'McRealshann's' tract. We have called
Romans Dissected' jeu desplit, which
it certainly is, executed with just the APP
pearance of seriousness that was re-
quired, and extremely entertaining to all
who have any acquaintance with the de-