"CIVIS" AND THE "BUIK OF DISCIPLINE."

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15183, 30 June 1911, Page 8

"CIVIS" AND THE "BUIK OF DISCIPLINE."

TO THE EDITOR. " In vain ivo call old notions fudge, And bend our conscience lo our dealing. The 'ie.i Commandments will not budge. And stealing will continue stealing. 1, —Lowell. SmThe story is told that a traveller in the Far West of America, having reached a primitive accommodation-house, asked for " quail on toast" wnon an elaborate biii of mic was put into Ins hands. Hie landlord- immediately wiuppeu out a revolver, plated it at the traveler's ear, and grimly and commaniiingty muu, " You'll lake liaoli!" J. um reminded ot this story by mo extraordinary "notes" on history served up by " Uvis '• in Ins congenial uu>k of writing down Jolji.i Caivm and PrcsbyteriaiKsm and in writing up our aieohoi-iiriiikiiig cua-i-oms ami iiqiur monopoly. 1 expocietl when i began my criticism 01 Dr fcaiinonu's aeploratue panipniet (a pumpntet euiogiasd, of vwirja, uy " Civis') tnat I wouid be honoured oy a aines of sneering " notes " ti'om his pen. 'iiie "iiabit ot sneering," Lavator uiys, " macks tl'.e ogotitt, or uic loot, or ilie kflave, or all imve." In a very arresting way " Civis ' displays tnese traits of ciiaritcter in ins two notes 011 my lira article in your issue ol May id —noios so silly and to untrue as to carry tneir own reituaticn. liut 011 Alay '£1 Ins silvers went out into a region that evoked my letter paoliiJied 111 your issue of .lurie 1, 111 whien i said, " Any story, ,uo matter now lalse, that bosmirencs the Fathers ot tlto Presbyterian Cnurch and baliltka the work oi that Church to-day, conies as grist to tile mill of ' Uivis.' His way of old of speaking ot the chief Presbyterian Court 01 Otago was as follows:—'"1 its ,Synod id dead, its existence was short and scandalous. Nobody remembers having sieli such a Synod before, and there is a general dosite i-uat we may never look upon its like again, etc. • This it> alter tne sty.e ol tlie Dead Bird and ,not up to the Bulletin. About two years ago tue late genial and broad-mindea minister oi the first Cliurch made a protest jn tlie Dunedin Presbytery against tne unfair and insulting pen ot your contributor." 'iliis very Irani: statement cahed forth two notes from your auearing contributor in your issue of June 3, in which lie continues to calumniate Calvin, but to save his face in Otago, ,so largely Presbyterian, he pens the following tissue oi misrepresentations:—

"Next among the Fathers of the Presbyterian Church 1 do not reckon John Calvin. How should i, when in the " First Buik of Discipline ' it is written that the said Fathers took not their example from any Church in the world—no, not from Geneva? Let P.P.M, overhaul his Catechism, and when found make a note of it."

Such is history according to ' Civis," but it i 6 not history—it is " hash," history hashed and tortured so us not to contain oven a scintilla. o£ truth. Noticc tho purpose for whieJi " (Jivia " quotes the "Buik of Discipline.'' "Calvin'' and "Geneva" in this connection are synonyms to "Civis." Tile Scottish Reformers, lia says, in their "liuik of Discipline" threw overboard Catvm as n gtiuie; therefore, Calvin was not a Presbyterian Church Father, and accordingly " Civis" is not besmirching Presbyt.emmsm when ho blackens the character and defames tho memory of John Calvin! Notice, also, tho conceit of very superior knowledge that marks Uio foregoing statement. " Civis," in a condescending way, invites mo to examine the " Buikfor this quotation wbieh crushes Calvin, and when i find it I am to make a "note" of it. 1 have done as "Civis "■ invited mc. I have examined the " liuilc " and I have not found the " quotation," but I'have found out "Civis," and in tho interest of literary manners and morals, I have now to call attention to tho truly shocking nature of his literary methods. (1) in the lirst place there is in the foregoing extract an unlovely disclosure of literary hypocrisy. "Civis" makes a false profession of knowledge about the Buik of Discipline" and its contents. So brazen and bold wero his pretensions of accurate knowledge of the ''IJuik" and its conk-nls that lio challenges mc to check his " quotation" anl bo instructed by it! Now, all this turns out to !>o an actual falsehood! He had not tho "Buik" and tho alleged quotation from the " Buik" never .had a place in the " Buik." ' There is something altogether immoral in this false parable of scholarship; and chteide the ethics of liquordom such literary methods aro sternly prohibited. (2) In the .second place, as oi:o sin tinrepenled of usually loads to another, so "Civis" goes on to give several contradictory statements about who really used the words in which be says the Scottish Reformers repudiated Calvin as a guide in Church Polity. Ho says in your last Saturday's issue that the Encyclopedia Britannica in an artielo on "Presbyterianism," written by an " Inspector of Schools," " would bear the construction" of aflirming that the repudiation of Calvin quoted was part of the " Buik of Discipline"; but he asks us lo beli-ovo that the " Inspector's" English is eo very peculiar as to "hoar the construction " also of making no such affirmation! Who is responsible for this corkscrew method of setting for a simple- historic fact? Is the "School Inspector" at fa.ult. or "Civis?" lint the story of the twisting and turning of "Civis" docs not end here. Ho admits he is bankrupt in knowledge as regards where this quotation which bo introduced into tho " Buik "isto bo found. Ho is com T pellcd now to admit that it is no part of tho " Buik." He might leave tho matter there; but no. He is satisfied that, some one soniowhorc, or some people about, 1561 in Scotland throw Calvin overboard as .an ecclesiastical guide; and so he again falls * , - She didn't belong to-the "Smart Set," But slio turned night into day. And smoked, while others were sleeping, Cigarettes, I'm sorry to say. She tried some Woods' Great Peppermint Cure. Her asthma to forget. And now she's a hrand " New Woman," And an ardent Suffragette!"

back on tho " Britannica." In your last iffitio ho tells us that according the "School Insp-ector" tho "author" (singular) of tlra Built" nmdo the repudiation, white in several of your previous issues ho had informed us that tho sanio authority said it was the " authors" (plural) of tho "Fljilc" that flouted Calvin. Now, if "Civis" is to bo trusted the "School Inspector" makes contradictory statements in the first place about who said tie words which, according to "Civis," were a repudiation of Calvin, and in the second place about whew tho words are to bo found. Tho article in the '' Britnnnica " must be a marvellously elastic piece of writing to enable "Civis" to twist it about as ho pleases. A " School Inspector" shcfjld bo able to writs English clearly, but it does not follow that lie is a specialist in ocelasiastical history. Tho genuine ninth edition of the " Britannic# " had an hor.cst piece of writing on Calvin by Professor Lindsay Alexander, D.D.; but, there is a mongrel edition of tho "Britannica" issued by tho London Times, boomed into fame a few years ago by hundreds of writers of passing notes, and it is quite possible that in tin's edition tho authority on tho history and polily of tho Presbyterian Church is a •'School Inspector." I am not, however, inclined to blamo tho " Inspector." I am satisfied that "Civis," is the guilty party who makes "hash" of tho Inspector's English and tho Inspoctnr's history. (3) In tho third place "Civis" is a veritable "Sorbonian bog" of ignorance (to use his favourite expression—though the Kgyptiai bog thai bore that name was filled up long ago) with regard to the nature and origin of the " Bulk of Discipline. He calls it more than once a catechism." He might as well call tho Bill.of Rights of 1689 tho by-laws of a municipality. It bears no more' rcsoniblanc to a catechism than does Hooker's "Ecclesiastical Polity" to Keblo's Hymns. Then j'° about the " author" of tho Luil:' or tho "authors" of the " Buik," as though one man or half a dozen of men were responsible for the book*. He might as Weil sav that tho individual views of tho lawyer or lawyers that draft the bills that go beforo our Parliament have tjie foroo of Jaw and form part of the bills < that become law. The "Buik of Discipline," as wo now have it, is not the same as it was when it was <lraftcd by its so-called "author" or "authors." Randolph, the English Ambassador in Edinburgh in January, 1560-61, in writing to Lord Cecil on tho says it was brought before. tho " Convention of Estates" and "six whole days were spent in examination and reasoning thereon, tho matter well debated, divers well satisfied, and in the end approved by common consent (see "The Reformation in Seatlam.!,' by Hay Fleming, p. 252). 'J'lw ""•(ft ws thus alicrwl a-nd added to and the " Buik thus approval was adopted by (he General Assembly. The obiter dicta of one or more of tile draftsmen of Ini! "Buik'* is no iiMre pait. cf the "Buik" than the sayings of Sir Joseph Ward are part of die British Constitution.

(4) TIIO crowning folly of "Civis," liowevcr, is to be seen in his taking the words which Ik used as a "quotation" from the '•Bink of 'Discipline" as the Scottish Reformers' repudiation of Calvin as a guide. He is in a "Stygian fen" of darkiiers" as regards who u««l the words and where they are to bo found. I know who u«'d the wards, and whej'-o they ara to l>u fount!; but I a:n not going to tell your ill-iiKonnc-d contributor. I know, and lie now siys lie knows that they aro not in the "Buik." The words were not used by the "author" of the "Buik" nor by the "authors" of the "Buik," but by one of the draftsmen of tho book who held Calvin in high esteem; and while 110 cordially accepted tho ttachings of Calvin on Church polity as set forth 111 his "Institutes " lie <lid not accept tho imperfect realisation of that polity as shown in the Church at Geneva—an imperfect realisation that- was a source of distrc-ss to Calvin all through his life. Anyone that has tiie faintest knowledge of Presbyterian history knows this. It is a commonplace even in Bible class textbooks. For example, Macpherson, in his Handbook on Prcsbyterianism, on page 58 snvs: " Writing to Myconius, Calvin says: ' Now wo have a Court of Presbyters, and a form of discipline of such a kind as the weakness of tho times allow.' The consistory, or eldership, lor example at Genera, was to a large extent a subcommittee of the city council and not a kirk session in the ordinary sense, and it was this defect that led oije of tho great scholars of Scotland to say—and to eay it not in repudiation of Calvin's teaching, but in loyalty to his teaching, because it was Scriptural-'Wo take our example not from any kirk in tho world— no not from Geneva.'" And having got to Geneva I come to tlie shocking slanders on John Calvin by "Civis"; but as this letter is already too long I hold over, with your permission, my exposure of these calumnies. I would only say here that his calumnies aro so shocking that if uttered about the living tlioy would likely land "Civis" in gaol for criminal libel. Meanwhile the question of the ethical code that guides "Civis" is still before your readers. Does the foregoing exposure furnish any evidence that lie sympathises with the "calumniator of Calvin and fcesniirchcr of Presbytorianisin who said, " Satisfy yourself that your causo is good and then 'lie like a trooper.' " ?—I am, etc., A PIiESBYTEEIAX MINISTER.