The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1901-11-20
LIVELY SESSION
OF MINIS TIERS
Discussion Provoked by a Paper
on Modern Thought Concerning
the Gospel Delivered by Rev.
Or. King
DOES NOT BELIEVE IN
MILK-AND- WATER GOSPEL

SIH SNOSt
SpenSer B. MeeSer and Others
Take Up the Subject and Dis
CuSs it from a Standpoint at
Variance With DR.. Kings Views
The Ministerial League had a ses-
sion yesterday morning which would
| have been more lively if there had
been more time for general discussion.
1t was lively enough as 1t was, all
though the speaking was confined
| principally to three ministers, Rev.
DR.. George w. King of Trinity Church.
who read paper on Modern Thought
Concerning the Gospel; Rev. DR..
George F. Pentecost. who is now sup
plying the pulpit Of Union Church.
and Rev. DR.. Spenser B. Meeser.
| DR.. Kings paper dealt mainly with
the relation of evolution to the Cos
pels, including the higher criticism.
He also emphasized the duty, as he
thinks, of preaching a whole gospel,
/
marks on this subject bore along the
line which he discussed in his address
two weeks ago Sunday night on Uni
! versalism.
DR. King said that he believed in
evolution, but not in every theory of
the evolutionists. Higher criticism,
he thought, was useful principally as
stimulating study of the Bible.
DR.. Pentecost followed and spoke
L. -
agreeing with DIR. King.
He said that there are two kinds Of
evolution-one, the barrel organ kind
the other, the pipe organ. Some take
the world as a barrel organ which can
only play the same old tunes over and
over and are unable to play a new
tune. Others himself among the num-
Der, compare it to a pipe organ which
is capable of playing an infinite vari-
ETY. of tunes at the win of the organ
list, who is God.
DIR. Meeser objected to the inference
which he had drawn from DIR. Kings
paper, that the latter considered min
listers gave too much attention In the
pulpit to higher criticism and the like
subjects. He said that he had never
heard nor preached a sermon on the
higher criticism and that he believed
very few were preached. He said that
be did not believe DIR. King occupied
the position of an Elijah under the
juniper tree" and believed there were
still left the 1000 that had not yet
bent the knee to Baal."
The lateneA Of the hour cut short
the discussion which would doubtless
have ensued.
The meeting was called to order al
1915 by President A. c. Thompson
Rev. DR.. S. B. Meeser introduced Rev
DR.. George f. Pentecost
The president brought to the atten
ton of the meeting the fact that Their
is no place in the city where waywarC
boys and girls can be sent save t
the reformatory institution. He spok,
! in favor of a rescue home This com
mittee was appointed to consider the
, need of such a home and to report al
the next meeting: Rev. DR.. s. B. Nee
ser, chairman; Rev. V. r. TomlinsoH
Rev. DR.. A. C. Thompson Rev. DR.. G
, w. King.
DR.. Kings address followed, he said
in part:
1.-THE most modern thought in regard
! to the Gospel revolves around three
centres, evolution, the higher criticism
and the Interpretation of the Bible.
Evolution in relation to the Gospel
Is serious problem. / myself have
come to believe thoroughly in evolu-
| tibiis an iiOA bBpOoth " II al d la
of the origin of all things. The ques-
ton arises" How does that affect our
thinking on Gospel things?" It was at
first thought that the doctrine of the
ism would be affected by evolution
Instead it has been enhanced. We see
that there is no more place for chance
in the world now than under the form
| er ideas.
"Then this question has been present
ed If according to evolutionists man
has descended from the lower animals
is he immortal? The answer which
| seems to prevail now Is that we have
a larger ground for the doctrine Of
Immortality under evolution than ever
before
IF God spent milleniums to create
the soul of man it is good logic to be-
lieve that it does not perish with his
body" DR.. King then took up the re-
lation of the theory of evolution
to the Gospel as to contain
ing the word of God. Revealed
religion. he intimated. is harder to rec
oncile to evolution. On the problem of
Genesis and evolution he said: Il
cannot see. for my part, why it is not
consistent to hold that man has been
created by evolution and at the same
time, that there has been a fall OF
man. There was a time when man
! reached the point Of moral responsible
/ ity. 1t doent seem to me impossible
that this could have been the time of
the fall of man."
! In regard to higher criticism, he said:
II am of the opinion that il is going 10
I do a great deal Of good in one way,
because II calls attention 10 the Bible.
I But the doctrine of evolution is ap-
piled in a false. an extreme sense, to
/ higher criticism. An attempt Is made
to make out that the Bible is merely
I an Outgrowth of a purely natural and
human progress.
There is tendency to treat mira
! cles and all supernatural facts as
, merely phenomena of physical evolu-
/ ton. This is not my way Of thinking.
Along with this is the growth Of the
I rationalistic spirit IT is my honest
Z conviction that in the so-called con-
/ sentative higher criticism the rational
istic spirit is playing a more important
part than we imagine. There Is q ter
dency to bring things down to the
I level Of the material and to eliminate
the supernatural.
THE higher criticism is nearly all
internal 1t is comparing things Of the
same line, which is dangerous
rs the higher criticism to be regard
| ed as infallible in scholarship? Are
| all the rest Of us fools and ignora-
muses?" He quoted DR.. Bruce. who.
/ in his explanation Of Christianity from
the standpoint of the higher criticism
makes this concession. that John the
Baptist did not utter the words, BE
hold the Lamb Of God who taketh
away the sin Of the world"
Z DR. King said that II he believed this