The record-union., 1898-08-14
IN RELIGIONS REALM.
EXPRESSIONS FROM VARIOUS
RELIGIOUS NEWSPAPERS.
The Religious Thought Of the Day
as Expressed in the Sec
tartan Press.

ana OlNOICG, lhC Shoi -
Standard" (P. Ed Of Philadelphia says:
Another weighty rule OF legal con-
struction is that no penal dlsaplilties
are to be arbitrarily read into the let
ter of any law; and the application OF
that rule 10 the present subject Is I'M
perative. Under the Jewish system, as
allowed by Moses, every man had
right 20 divorce his wife at his own dis
cretion, and when he had divorced ner'
no one questioned his right TO marry
another woman Among the Jews,
even in our Lords time, when monog-
amy was practically universal, the rlght
Of divorce carried with it the right of
remarria2e on the mans part; ana aIso'
most assuredly on the woman's part,
if the very language Of the Wrlting q
enforcement was that she should go
and be another mans Wl1e Oohae
ouently when our Lord admitted the
right Of divorce for the cause Oh 1orhi-
cation, that right necessarily carrieu
with it the right Of remarrlaSe' unless
our Lord Himself said something to the
contrary. Since He said nothlng 10 tiie
contrary, it is presumptuous TO read
into His language prompltloh u
marriage in the excepted case when
there is literally nothing 10 Suggest. =
is necessary to insist upon this point,
because 50 eminent an authority do
Bishop Doane writes as follows: Inc
exception implies that the husoa.lu
NAV marry if he has divorced his wife
for this cause. But, except by lInpiica-
tion. if does not permit him.
1t is an argument from inference
What is the objection to an argument
/ 8 inf
Besides. it is the rigorists themselves
who are striving to infer disability
which there is nothing whatever TO JUS
/ tify, and who are now endeaVoflhs "
induce the church to r~ad into our
| Lords words an implication Chat the
innocent party to just divorce is tor-
bidden to remarry) which our Loru
words neither contain nor imply
why not a Presbyterian congress?
This question has been asked before,
saws the New York Evangelist (Pres'),
! .b,,t as vet no answer has been given
For some years many have been feeling
that there should be in our church such
an opportunity for full and free discus
sion Of vital topics, and present ques-
tions as is afforded by what is known
las q church congress. The meetings
| of ecclesiastical bodies do not furnish
this opportunity, nor fill this place.
| Questions Of order and business largely
monopolize the time. The necessary
work of the church boards very prop
erly takes up large space. what IS
| wanted is a meeting for the discussion
| Of the great questions which confront
! the church. and which are really more
important than any matters of admin
istration. or of denominational politics.
In fact. il has been felt that even the
benevolent and missionary work OF the
/ church has been too much overlooked
| in the great variety of machinery ana
/ detail. The Missionary Congress IS an
outgrowth of this feeling. And II an
other opportunity is needed TO discuss
| the special and peculiar work or the
church, much more is there need for
wider opportunity of debate ana
thought Denominations supposed to
| be more conservative than our own nave
such gatherings, and find them proht-
| able. There can hardly be any argu-
ment against the plan, unless It De the
fear of some timid brother that some
thing NAV be said which shall cause
small shock to the thick -and-thln de-
| fender of the Westminster standards.
!
| christianity is not only better re-
| ligion than other faiths, it is also the
| only religion, in very unique sense,
saws the New York observer Pres.)
1T has no compeers, no successful II
walls. 1t must be referred TO not IN the
comparative, but in the superlatlve de-
gree. There are many faiths OF men;
| there is only one faith for man. The
Christian believer cannot afford to sur
render this conviction as to the unique
ness of Christianity, nor allow the ldea
| to go forth that the Christian faltn IS
| simply an alternative system OF pene1'
one among a number of possible cholces,
better way, but not the only way.
| While there are elements OF truth IN
the teachings of other systems, II sys-
| TENS they can be called, such as Bud
dhism and Mohammedanism no believer
in Jesus Christ can admit that the pro-
| fession of any such faith is an adequate
substitute for Christianity. And 70
patroniZe the devotees of such faiths, IN
a half complimentary way, exaltlns
them to seats in the religious councils
of the world, is an inconsistent and dan
eerous procedure for a Christian, whose
| Master came not 70 parley with opJec-
| TORS or to make terms with unbelief,
| but to demand an unconditional sur
render of the human heart and Will. The
claims of Christianity are absolute and
| insistent 1t can tolerate no rlValrles,
admit no competition. 1t enters no
parliaments to debate, but ascends
| throne to rule"
care we shut up to the alternatives
that either dependence upon God Is not
the characteristic quality Of religion or
that such being the fact, religion
stands hereby dishonored and condemn
ed?" asks the Christian Register"
Unitarian Of Boston. Yes, if depend
ence upon God means that we are not
| to depend upon ourselves for our pest
| things No, if God cannot make An
tonic Stradivari's violins without An
| tonic: if. as Luther said, He cannot get
along without strong men. No, If We
never depend so much on Him as When
we depend upon Him as He incarnates
Himself in our flesh and mind and will.
| There is a dependence upon God which
| is as debilitating as the dependence OF
| the domestic animal upon its master, or
| that of the lazy ants on their nara
working cousins or that Of the social
parasite upon the commonwealth. And
| this dependence has often carried itself
loftily. as something well pleasing unto
| God and deserving of all good mems
praise There is less of it to-day than
| formerly, and still our hymns and
prayers and sermons are infected with