310
THE KING’S BUSINESS Lord’s Return Seen in History and in Scripture as Premillenial and Imminent.” It is written by Jesse Forest Silver, a Free Methodist minister, the introduction being written by Bishop Wilson; T- Hogue. The. book goes at length into the history of the doctrine and of the various bodies of believers that have held the doctrine. It proves Premillenialism to have been the almost universal faith of the church until^ the rise of Roman Catholicism. It shows the mightiest me? ln, ehurch in evangelism, foreign missionary enterprise, philanthropy and other lines of Christian activity to have been Premillenarians. We are sorry for the man who could use such methods in controversy as those employed by the writer of the article in The California Christian Advocate, but we are giad that the article was written because it will awaken a good many Methodists and others to examine for themselves and find out what the history of Premil-' lenahsm has really been and they will discover that it is a glorious history. A Reply Which is Simply an Evasion M R. GELESNOFF has attempted to reply to our editorial in the February number on his shocking blasphemy. In this reply he says, “He (i. e. . Dr. Torrey) represents us as saying that ‘God is the author of sin.’ yve have said nothing of the kind.” If any oner will read the editorial in ques tion they will find that we did not represent Mr. Gelesnoff “as saying that ‘God is the author of sm’,” i. e. as using those words. We gave the exact words that Mr. Gelesnoff did use and the context and showed conclusively from the con text that this was Mr. Gelesnoff’s meaning. Mr. Gelesnoff misrepresents us by his use of quotation marks as saying that he had used these very words, which we did not. But we did show by quoting exactly what he did say, and by comparing what he said in different parts of his article, that his words involved a plain declaration that God is the author of sin. O f course we avoided entirely quotation marks in thus putting in other words what Mr. Gelesnoff taught We only used quotation marks when we quoted him exactly' but Mr. Gelesnoff has put in the quotation marks in this other statement where we did not, in order that he might find a loophole to creep out of. Even in his attempted reply to our editorial, he does not come out frankly and say that he does not believe that God -is the author of sin, but goes on to argue in a way that involves the same teaching again. Mr. Gelesnoff’s statements were per fectly plain; we gave them verbatim. They taught rank and appalling blas phemy. _ We do not need to go over the matter again, for it is sufficiently treated in the February number. J ■Mr. Gelesnoff, in his reply, takes umbrage at the implication in our former editorial that he came to Chicago irom Rochester and from the tailor’s bench We did not say that he did, but in speaking o f our early acquaintance with him and how he appeared to us as a humble seeker after truth, we used these words He came to us, if we remember correctly, from Rochester and from his tailor s bench. As the connection showed, this was not intended as anv reflection ^whatever upon Mr. Gelesnoff but was spoken In praise of him as he was when he came to us. Mr-. Gelesnoff,; in his attempted reply, seems to suggest that we had some sinister motive in mentioning these supposed facts. P f y S ’ I went to Chicago neither from Rochester nor from the tailor’s ¡ ¡ B E I thWA ha^ IO° k. ed UP Mr- Gelesnoff’s papers and find that his statement is true, that he did not come to Chi ago from Rochester but from New York
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online