Newspaper Page Text
2 (650) THE
a net gain, the Catholics of New York have
suffered a loss ot more than 200,000 membeis,
taking only immigration into consideration. 1 am
not surprised therefore, that good American authorities,
both Protestant and Catholic number
the Roman Catholic losses as exceeding 20 millions
during the last 30 years. 1 do not believe
that their losses are so heavy, but 1 have the best
American Catholic Review, viz., the Catholic
World (surely a sound and conservative author.
ity) with me, in stating that in stead of growing,
the Roman Catholics are not holding their own
people. This same paper said five months ago,
"We cannot boast of any increase, since we do
not even retain our own mid since in New York
and Chicago, where we have the greatest number
nl' notlwilioo urn linvn nnf hnnn uliln Vnnlrl nt\
civic righteousness, either our followers in those
centers are not Catholics at all, or we must confess
that Catholic influence ir, ?. failure."
But what strikes me as the most convincing
proof of the tremendous failure of the Roman
Catholic Church in America, is the fact that
even today no bishop, nor archbishop, nor cardinal,
is either brave enough or frank enough
to explain fully to the Americans, the true and
real Roman Catholic doctrines concerning the
power of the Pope and his churches in connection
with civic functionaries, and offices of the
nation.
How many Catholics in America believe the
Pope has the power to depose presidents and
kings? IIow many American Catholics believe
that for a Catholic to vote for a Protestant
against a Catholic is to commit mortal sin ? How
many native Catholics believe it to be a mortal
sin to send their children to the public schools,
etc.?
But it maybe asked when will American Cath
olics become acquainted with the real doctrines
of the Church of Rome ? My response is that this
will happen very soon and that Catholics themselves
will make the disclosure.
There are here as everywhere, two partii >
among the Catholics?the liberal and the narrow.
Cntil ia.st year the narrow party could do nothing
here, because the American Catholic Church
was a missionary church. But now it has been
regularized. Prom this time forward the narrow
party will press on, demanding the fulfillment
of all claims and rights, since the Airier
can church has become a regular and canonical
.1 1- l- * t i ? -
-uurcu, wmcn stands on tne same footing as the
Church of Spain, 01* of Italy, etc. Already some
bishops have begun by forbidding, as a mortal
?in. to send children to the public schools, when
there are parochial schools at hand. The liberal
party will resent such attacks on American
9 ideals and institutions. Then a split will ftihnv.
In their quarrel they will expose their Church.
The result of sucli an exposure will be th complete
discrediting of the Roman Catholic Church
in America, even as it has happened in Spain and
France, where more than the propaganda of
unbelief, it was the liberal Catholic party who
rooted out the Roman Catholic influence as inr>nmnAtihlc
with nrpspnt pivili^n+inn on/t
gress.
In the meantime, let us not forget that we are
in America, the country of natural tolerance,
religious freedom and fair play. Let us avoid attacks
on Catholic people as such. On the contrary,
let us pray for them and be ready to embrace
them as brothers when they will come.
Above all as Protestants let us hold fast to the
Bible and proclaim everywhere its blessed
truth. J- c Barr?
Pastor Lafayette Church, New Orleans.
PRESBYTERIAN OF THE ,S <
THE REVISERS AND IMMERSION.
BY PROFESSOR ADDISON HOGUE.
in the Presbyterian of the South for June 21
there is a long article by Rev. Dr. Geo. L. Leyburn,
asking why it is that the American Revisers
"manifested whenever possible a strong,
and sometimes I think an unfair bias towards the
views and practices of iminersionists." Dr. Leyburn
says he does not know but at considerable
length undertakes to establish the charges. As 1
do not believe the charge is justifiable, I present
my reasons.
"I remark, then, in the first place," as the
preacners say, mat ur. n. seems to tmnx the
American Revision was made for Americans, to
suit American usages of thought; and he does
not think it "exactly fair" for those Revisers to
say "baptize in water," because the "average
American" is apt to have the idea of immersion
suggested to him; suppose the Revisers had been
able to make us all understand the N. T. Greek,
would "fairness" have required them to omit
the Greek word en (?in), to keep the average
American from misunderstanding? of course not.
Then, as we can't all understand the Greek, the
next best thing is to mirror the Greek as nearly
as possible, leaving the reader to settle the meaning
just as scholars have to do for the Greek. Dr.
L. docs not want a translation maHp in tVia intor
ests of the Baptists, and he is exactly right.
Neither do I want a translation made in the interests
of the Presbyterians, and I, too, am exactly
right. The only interests to be consulted are
those of God's revealed truth, as nearly as we
can understand and translate the original
tongues.
2. "I remark in the second place*' that with
all Dr. L.'s minute study of the way the Revisers
translated the Greek prepositions, he
makes no mention of a change they made in Matt.
3:16. The old version (A. V.) says that Jesus
went up out of the water. The R. V. says from
the water. Why? Because the Greek means
"from" and does not mean "out of:" that's all,
but it is all sufficient. "Out of" certainly inclines
more towards immersion than "from"
does, and yet the Revisers, in spite of their alleged
immersionist tendencies, made the change! 1
have never yet known a Presbyterian minister,
when finding fault with the R. V. in regard to
baptism, to notice this change in Matt. 3:16;
and like Dr. L. "I ask sadly," why is itf
3. In several places the Greek N. T. says "baptize
in water," where, as is well known, the "in"
may mean "with." But as it makes good sense
to say "baptize in water," the R. V. gives that
first, and then tells us that it may mean "with:"
and so the English reader is exactly where the
Greek scholar is. I once saw a minister of the
Southern Presbyterian church baptize a child in
water, but he did not immerse it by any manner
of means. I also once saw a Baptist brother baptize
a man in a pond of water, but as a part of
his head did not go under, he was soused down
again, in clear recognition of the fact that ban
tizing in water is not necessarily immersion.
"Dear readers" (doubly dear, if any have followed
me thus far), prepositions in all languages
develop a variety of meanings, and it is not always
possible to tell which one is correct. I went
to town for Grandma'' may meant to get her; or
to oblige her; or instead of her.
4. Any one who has used the R. V. must have
noticed how frequently it gives different ways in
which the Hebrew or Greek may be rendered, and
how often it tells in a foot-note what the literal
rendering would be?all of which involved an
. A. V
)UTH [ July 12, 1911
immense amount of the utmost care. But once in
a while the attention Hags, and the most conscientious
and exact student overlooks something.
This happens in the K. V. in Luke 11:3iJ, where
no foot-note tells us that "bathed himself"
would be literally "was baptized:" and this
omission Dr. L. considers "perhaps more serious"
than his previous points, and says "this
surely could not have been done accidentally or
ignorantly." Not " ignorantly," certainly, for
the Revisers knew their Greek. If it was not done
accidentally, I wonder why they refer us (and
l)r. L. admits that the references are their own)
to "Mk. 7:3f," where we read in the text
"bathe themselves," with a foot-note telling us
that "bathe" represents the Greek "baptize,"
'xl- xl- ' *
wiLii ine additional information that "some ancient
authorities read sprinkle themselvesWhy
should men with strong immersionist tendencies
tell this last fact to men with strong sprinkling
tendencies?
Again, as the Baptists, uniformly understand
that baptizo means immersion, the failure to tell
us in Luke 11.38 that "bathe themselves" translates
a form of baptizo can hardly be charged to
men biased in favor of the Baptists.
5. We come now to what Dr. L. regards as
"most serious of all." It concerns Romans 6:4,
where the R. V. (following the A. V.) says "we
were buried therefore with him through baptism
into death," instead of saying "through
this baptism into His death"?i. e., both versions
take no account of the fact that the Greek
has "the baptism" and "the death." Dr. L.'s
contention is (I hope I give it with absolute fairness)
(1) that "Almost from the beginning, as
all Irnmv this sixth of Romans has in the United
States been chiefly known and noted and quoted
as one of the important controversial passages in
debate between immersionists and anti-immersionists."
(2) that* the baptism here spoken of
has nothing to do with water baptism, but "that
mighty baptism is wrought by the Holy Spirit
directly upon or in the hearts of all the saved."
(3) that if the R. V. had translated the two articles
correctly, it would have lifted this verse
out of the controversial and have put it where it
rightfully belongs among the plain, positive
teachings of God's "Word, about which all evangelical
Christians would agree." Now then:
a. The statement that water baptism is not referred
to here, is amazing. It may be true. But
Calvin, Hodge, Shedd, and many others seem
to assume that Paul did mean the rite of water
baptism. I have not been able anywhere (with a
limited number of books, I admit) to find any
suggestion of Dr. L.'s exegesis.
b. The kind of baptism, whether by the outpouring
of the Spirit or by affusion of water or
immersion under water would in no way be indicated
by the translation or omission of the
two articles. "Through this baptism" would
still leave it a matter of debate what kind of
baptism Paul had in mind in thepreceding verse.
c. Of course the'scholars of all denominations
have always known about those two articles; and
between scholarly men the debate would be car
iu. n ?
IICU uii uver tue vxreeit ana not over any translation
as the final authority. And are our Baptist
friends who "almost from the beginning" have
been debating over this passage, going to cease
their debate and surrender their views simply
because a Greek passage with which they were
all along perfectly familiar, is improved in the
English translation? The Baptists are "evangelical
brethren;" and according to Dr. L. they
would agree with us (for of course Dr. L. does
.mm \ fiSKM