The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1906-03-07
THE CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN.

stantial agreement to fundamental Christian
doctrine" and yet able only to agree actually as to
one Item and that only after sharp debate? Surely
the term Fundamental Faith" has become a IVA
rable quantity Fog" has gathered around If
Also has it not? We live in an age when the old
foundations seem being destroyed" and new
'nicetes of belief about which mankind will never
agree most suited to the modern world" are be-
ing substituted instead Mr.. Ramanathan Hindu
sage ana religious teacher, recently (if now)
lecturing in this accommodating land also tells us
of the Fundamental Faith" There is a funda-
mental identity of the religious systems the East
and the West" Hence christianity and Buddhism
nave much in common" Behold then, another SAM
pie of Fundamental Faith" Alas! What is "Irunda
mental Faith?' The Fundamental Faith" this is
OF to-day! What did DR.. w. H. Roberts, one of
the prime movers of the Federation Congress-
what did he say? When asked if Romanists SHOULD
be invited to participate, he replied that they were
not excluded by the terms of the conference! Sure
~ that is not the faith of his Justice Brew
err OF the United States Supreme Court another of
the chief promoters of the Congress, is quoted as
saying THE man who cannot work with Edward
Everett Hale and Cardinal Gibbons has no clear
conception of the goodness of God! If all cannot
ADMIT the divinity of Christ yet all followers of
HIS leadership! CWhat jumbling and confounding
of ideas that last expression isD But surely such
conclusions are not drawn from his creedI
If in substantial agreement as to fundamental
Christian doctrine" why should not that Fedora
ton Congress define their faith? If christian doc
trlhe is fundamental" why should they not plant
themselves on that Foundation ?" Whv shouId
they proceed to build a house without a "founda-
ton% And permanent building at that! Did
they really believe they Gin substantial agree
ment! Or did they really believe that christian
ooctrlne is fundamentals" Why not define it then!
Does not every man in building his house mako
sure of his foundations" first most of all? Has
not the church always heretofore done so? Did
not the first Federation" movement viz: the
evangelical Alliance" of forty or fifty years ago.
do so? Why so Indifferent about their .fundanoen
tals' if Christian doctrine indeed their "funda-
mentals? 2"
Alas If vote upon Single item, and that
item De such one as whether there be not Dr.
vine Saviour; if such issue provoke sharp de-
bate in congress of evangelical churches" who
can be blamed in fearing that their Fundamental
Faith has lost its vital power?
An but some one says you do not under
stand They there, for doctrine but for
work."
Nay but do understand" If they were there
for work." they must first have "beiefs, ,. COON
victfons" All truth is in order to godlness Cor
righteousness" to the Federation phrase).
all 'Faith' is genuine, works." and that, too by
the most powerful of the hearts affections; viz:
by love! How is it, that this congress- represen-
tat1ve of a score So of Evangelical churches"
gathered for work" yet studiously smothers the
mightiest stimulus to work that is known! And
that Is, Faith living Faith "The creedIess crea-
ture is never found the face of the political
earth. Everybody believes in creeds when it comes
TO politics. to national affairs, international affairs
financial questions, economic questions and all
questions except those of religion. But in the big
new YORK conference men made motion after mo-
ton and offered amendment after amendment and
always to take away all standing ground, and to
leave the federation in the And yet this fed
Grafton was proposing to go on such a campaign
as no political party dreamed Of a campaign
against the sin of the world" Northern paper)
Is not the fear wel-founded? Fundamental
Faith has lost it's vital power in the churches
represented by that congress.
This fear is only too well fortified by many. MANY