Does "Union "Mean Creed Revision from a New Standpoint?

The question before you is, first and foremost, a question of Creed. The popular cry of Union is purely a secondary affair, and in the form that Union is now before you, it is little better than an ecclesiastical manoeuvre to commit the Church to Creed revision in the hands of Dr Gibb. Now, the fact has to be borne in mind that the differences of standpoint within page 54 the Churches are greater than the differences between the historical Creeds of the respective Churches Has not "modern criticism won its battle," as Dr George Adam Smith declares, "and is not all that remains to fix the amount of the indemnity?" It is not Union, much less evangelical Union, that is in the air; it is payment that is demanded of the first instalment of the indemnity to modern rationalistic criticism of the Scriptures. To be sure, not for the first time has rationalistic criticism haughtily demanded from the inspired Scriptures its indemnity; but it has never been paid, and never will, save, like Kruger's indemnity, for moral and intellectual damages, out of the damaged morals and intellect of those making the claim. Why should we allow ourselves to be deceived or self-deceived in this matter? "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?"—agreed, first and foremost, as to their presuppositions? If our standpoint and persuppositions are the same, our conclusions will be the same, and we will "walk together." It our presuppositions are different, what is the use of entering or negotiations that can only precipitate strife? Are you brethren, or are you not, going to adopt the evolutionary presupposition that reduces those Old Testament Scriptures, which our Saviour spoke of as true history, to a bundle of fables and "pious" frauds—i.e., frauds about God? Are you to adopt the evolutionary speculation about man which makes him more sinned against than a sinner? Are you, on a side issue, to precipitiate strife on these subjects that strike at the very head of the Christian faith—I mean the Christian faith of your fathers? With these antagonistic radical presuppositions, how can it be for you a question of Union? For Union can never be between the evolutionary presupposition and the creative presupposition of your fathers. The only question is when, and where, and in what Church the cleavage is to come Shall we precipitate it here and now? When that cleavage comes, you will have the Smiths on one side and the George Mathesons on the other; some unfortunates, no doubt, will be found in the middle, getting the fire from both sides, in half way houses of temporary and uncertain rest. The evolutionary presupposition now being applied to the origin of the Scriptures and the origin of man is a presupposition native to the human heart, and, in various forms, is as old as the hills, In so far as it is received in its consequences, it is bringing theological and spiritual paralysis on some of the best blood of the Church—for, having no Gospel, it simply can't be "preached." Regarding this theory, Dr George Matheson, whose name is revered throughout Saxondom as a spiritual seer and scholar of the first rank, says: "My theological sympathies are in favour of breadth, but not of negation. I am as broad as broad can be, but a broad positive. I have no sympathy with the negative movement of Robertson Smith The Bible is real history, not myth. The critical movement has done a great deal of harm. I have no sympathy with the Higher Criticism. I wrote a book to show that evolution if page 55 true, is quite compatible with orthodoxy, but I have since come to the conclusion that evolution is not true. I have no more fear of it than I ever had, but I am quite convinced that in say, 1923, it will be an exploded heresy." And yet it is really in the interests of this evolutionary speculation on the origin of man and of Scripture that, under cover of evangelical union, the indemnity is now demanded. "And consequently"—in the words of one the ring of whose voice you will recognise—" we are told we ought to give up part of our old-fashioned theology to save the rest. We are in a carriage on the steppes of Russia. The horses are being driven furiously, but the wolves are close upon us. There they are! Can you not see their eyes of fire? The danger is pressing. What must we do? It is proposed to throw out a child or two. By the time they have eaten the baby we shall have made a little headway; but should they again overtake us, what then? Why, brave man, Throw Out Your Wife. 'All that a man hath will he give for his life '; give up nearly every truth in the hope of saving one. Throw out inspiration, and let the critics devour it. Throw out election and all the old Calvinism; here will be a dainty feast for the wolves, and the gentlemen who give us the sage advice will be glad to see the doctrines of grace torn limb from limb. Throw out natural depravity, eternal punisment, and the efficacy of prayer. We have lightened the carriage wonderfully. Now for another drop. Sacrifice the Great Sacrifice! Have done with the Atonement! Brethren, this advice is villainous, and murderous; we will escape these wolves with everything, or we will be lost with everything. It will be the 'truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.' We will never attempt to save half the truth by casting any part of it away. The sage advice which has been given us involves treason to God, and disappointment to ourselves. We will stand by all or none. We will have a whole Bible or no Bible. We are told that if we give up something the adversaries will also give up something; but we care not what they will do, for we are not the least afraid of them. They are not the imperial conquerers they think themselves. The truth of God we will retain As the Truth of God, and we shall not retain it because the philosophic mind consents to our doing so. God being with us, we shall not cease from this glorying, but will hold the whole of revealed truth, even to the end." These ringing words of perhaps the greatest preacher of the Gospel since the Apostle of the Gentiles are as true as when before his death C. H. Spurgeon uttered them. And that being so, we will now ask, with Palgrave, "Can time undo what once was true?" The question then before the Church is not the merely abstract question of evangelical Union; neither is it, as Dr Erwin would make out, merely such questions as the breadth of the intention of Atonement, though he himself preaches every Sunday when he preaches regeneration by the will of the Spirit of God, a "limited" "application" of it (John i, 13). The ques- page 56 tion now is, whether there is Atonement, or need of Atonement at all. It is not a qustion of a long Creed or a short one, broad or narrow, thick or thin, but a question of the Church's attitude to her whole faith; whether her System of doctrine is true or false.