Newspaper Page Text
.weft*. „ -fcr-
SOUTH-WESTERN BAPTIST, Z THE CHRISTIAN HERALD,
of Alabama. ■ h?.» " of Tennessee.
ESTABLISHED lßil.
Table of Contents.
First Page.—Alabama Department: Limits
of Belief in Inspiration ; The Revised New
Testament and its Critics: The Religious
Press.
Second Page —Correspondence: Consecrated
Reputation; Fifty Years Ago; General
Meeting ; A Noble Action ; Revival Re
ports ; Monthly O'.ive Branch; Joltings
by the Way ; Missionary Department.
Third Page.—Children’s Corner: Bible Ex
51oratioiis; Enigmas; Correspondence;
he Sunday school: The Commandments
—Lesson lor September 4th.
Fourth Page.—Editorials: Not a Word; A
Timely Proposition; A R quest; Glimpses
and Hints ; Georgia Baptist News.
Fifth Page.—Secular Editorials: Religion
and Science; Literary Notes and Com
ments; Notes; Georgia News.
Sixth Page—The Household: Helps or
Hindrances—poetry; A Good Word for
Romping Girls; Fashion Notes; Obituas
ries.
Seventh Page.—The Farmer's Index; Turn
ing Over a New Leaf; Interest La«s and
Relief to Farmers; Prohibition of Fertili
zers.
Eighth Page.—Florida Department: Facts
and Figures ; Scottsville; Correspondence,
etc., etc.,
Alabama Department.
BV ha.mukl hkndkkson.
LIMITS OF BELIEF IN INSPIRA
TION.
A writer in the "Baptist Review" for
the second quarter of this year, in dis
cussing the topic, “what latitude of
belief is allowed by the doctrine of in
spiration,” puts forth sagtp' ver£ queg|
tionable sentiments. After quoting
the declaration of Prof. Patton that “it
is not good generalship, in the debate
with scepticism, to put forward “ie
argument for inspiration, and then
affirm that Christianity stands or falls
wi.'u L,” he a!<rs, <hAt ‘•iilsplra.tiOU is
not Christianity.” Butthen is there,
could there have been,any Christianity
without inspiration ? If Christianity
is not inspired, the Bible is a myth, a
fraud, a delusion. Precisely what the
author means, if he does not mean
that Christianity rests upon a higher
basis than inspiration, we cannot per
ceive. Again, after quoting Dr. Hodge
as saying, “If the Bible has no more
authority than is due to the writings
of pious men, then our faith is vain,
we are yet in our sins,” this writer
adds furthermore, “I cannot but re
gard these words as mischievously un
true.” That is to say, if a scholarly,
pious man, like Dr. Hodge, sees proper
to say that holy men of old, in addition
to their piety, “must have been moved
upon by the Holy Ghost” to write the
books their names bear, to give them
authority, it is “mischievously untrue!”
It is “mischievously untrue,” then, to
say that the Bible is the word of God!
It is “mischievously untrue” to affirm
that “all Scriptures is given by inspir
ation of God 1” It was “mischievously
untrue" for Paul to say, “My speech
and my preaching were not with the
enticing words of man’s wisdom, but
in the power and demonstration of the
Spirit, that your faith should not stand
in the wisdom of men but in the pow
er of God!” In a word, if a Baptist
hereafter shall undertake to utter the
very first article that appears on the
“formulary of faith” perhaps in
ninety-nine hundredths of the Baptist
churches of the world, that “the Old
and New Testaments are the word of
God, and the only rule of faith and
practice,” he would utter what, accord
ing to this writer,is “mischievously un
true!” And all this appears in a "Bap
tist Review," and if not written by a
Baptist, is endorsed by those who are
called Baptists! Or do we misunder
stand him?
True, this writer enters upon a kind
of quasi defence of. the inspiration of
the Bible, but he does so in such
guarded words as these—“lf any one
should say that any of the thirty-nine
books of the Old Testament is not in
spired, in some large and true sense'’
(italics are ours), “I answer, Jesus
Christ settles that question for us,” etc.
The implication, then, is that there is
another sense in which they are not
inspired. That is, the Bible is “partly
human and partly divine,” as Dr. Toy
avers.
Now. we have great respect for the
"Baptist Review," and cherish no wish
to impair its circulation ; but if this is
the kind of defence it brings to the in
spiration of the Scriptures, it had bet
ter be silent on that subject. If this
is the penalty Christianity must pay in
order to keep abreast of * advanced
thought,” and all the boasted achiev
ments of this much glorified “nine
teenth century,” we say, let thought
advance until it “evolves” man back
to his supposed honorable origin—the
monkey. We will none of it.
The class of writers to whom we
refer all boast that they have “no
theory of inspiration.” Well, as to
the matter of that, we have no theory,
other than that which the Bible itself
suggests; and we have read its pages
to little effect if this much is not true
—that whatever was originally written
by sacred penmen was inspired. If
errors have crept into translations, or
if in the process of transcribing the ori
ginal there are occasional inaccuracies,
or if here and there may be found in
terpolations, of course neither we, nor
any other man of average intelligence,
pretends to saddle these errors,inaccur
acies, or interpolations upon the inspir
ed, writers. Such defects ought to be
collated, and we hail with joy all the
efforts of wise and good men engaged
in this task. We are not of that num
ber who tremble for the faith every
time honest and able scholarship un
dertakes to eliminate our sacred wri
tings of such imperfections as human
nature imparts to every thing it
touches. But it is one thing to admit
that imperfect translations, inaccurate
transcriptions, and human interpola
tions may mar these living oracles,
and altogether a different thing to af
firm that men who wrote as “moved
upon by the Holy Ghost” were liable
to err as were other pious men. The
truth is, if the writers of the Old and
New Testament were not inspired,
they were a fraud,and our faith is vain
—if they were inspired, all that they
wrote as such possesses the authority
of the Triune God. We are indebted
to stenographers for many of the most
important speeches made by our states
men on great pccaaions. We tf¢
t.iese speeches as the veritable speeches
of these men, and they are so, for they
themselves have recognized them by
authorizing their publication. But in
a far higher and truer e ise were the
stenographers of the Holy Spirit in
mystic communion with the “powers
of the world to come,” when they spoke
and wrote “as the Spirit gave them
utterance,” than were ever these earth
ly stenographers in communion with
the minds of Clay, Webster, and Cal
houn, in giving to the press their pro
found thoughts. To lower the stan
dard of inspiration to meet the sup
posed demands of a semi-infidel phil
osophy is as unwise as it is impious,
and to make converts to Christianity by
such methods is no less degrading to
the cause of Christ than it is delusive
to them. To compromit the authority
and majesty of God’s eternal truth to
the demands of the wisdom of this
world, is to emasculate it of its power,
and multiply converts to Christianity
at the expense of piety. And what is
the form, without the power, of godli
ness, but bald hypocrisy? Such con
verts had better remain where they
are, until they are converted to some
thing worthy of the name of Chris
tianity.
If a political writer were to set him
self to the ostensible task of vindica
ting the transparent honesty and in
tegrity of Henry Clay from the asper
sion of political foes, and were to ad
mit, in the very outset, that he, Clay,,
bargained with John Quincy Adams
in 1826, to cast the vote of Kentucky
for him for President of the United
States, provided he (Adams) would
make him Secretary of State, such de
fence would provoke the honest indig
nation of every surviving friend Mr.
Clay has. When a religious writer
essays to defend the inspiration of the
Bible, and avers that for an author
to claim any higher authority tor its
utterances than is due the writings of
other pious men, is “mischievously un
true,” what is this but to betray the
cause he undertakes to defend?
He was cross and iretfut at home. He was
a terror to bis wife and children; still he was
a deacon and a “pillar” in the church. Yet
he was by no means wholly bad. On the
other hand, he was very good everywhere
except at home —home, of all the places in
the world, the very place which should be a
little heaven below. And worst of all, he
was typical, to a certain extent, of a great
many men, who, though not as bad as he,
nevertheless stand in great need of reform in
this particular.—Congregationalist.
There are some men (and women
too) who are more patient and forbear
ing with everybody than with the mem
bers of their own family. Public piety
and private vice sometimes go together.
In such cases the genuiness of the pub
lic piety is doubtful. Reader! Are you
kind, gentle, patient, forbearing, con
siderate, and amiable at home? If not,
your zeal as a church-member is not
satisfactory evidence that your calling
and election are sure.
ALANTA, GEORGIA, THURSDAY, AUGUST 25, 1881.
THE REVISED NEW TESTA
MENT AND ITS CRITICS.
Great enterprises, while they peyseas
the element of novelty, generally di
vide mankind into three classes
friends, enemies, and neutrals. The
friends of such movements are general
ly oversanguine of their importance
and results—their enemies are as gen
erally apt to undervalue them—while
the neutrals constitute that factor in
human affairs known as “the balance
of power.” So that when the smoke
of the contest rises, and the wiible
subject begins to assume its real meas
ure of importance, this great factor
comes in and settles the question. This,
we take it, will about be the history of
the New Version movement. The first
installment of that work has just been
published—the revised New Testament.
The Old Testament is yet in the hands
of the revisors, and will appear wl en
completed. Without indicating any
opinion as to the value of the work so
far as it has progressed, we deem i a
fitting occasion to say some things
w'hich may be of interest to our readers
things which we hope will tend to
repress hasty and prejudicial estimates
of a work, the magnitude of which
cannot be exaggerated, whether viewed
in the light of its necessity or its vast
results. Let us try and look at this
whole question with that ingenuous
candor which it ought to inspire.
That a necessity existed fora revision,
if not a new translation of the word cf
God, no sane man will deny who is no*
puiblind with prejudice. All living
languages change. Our own language
has undergone many changes since out
present version was made, some »<'
.hundred and seventy-five years
Some words" have oecome obsolete, -
while others have completely inverted
their meaning, thus either obscuring
the sense, or expressing the opposite
of what the Holy Ghost intended.
Illustrations to this effect will readily
occur to every intelligent reader. To
say, therefore, that such defects should
not be remedied, is simply to say that
darkness is preferable to light. It is
either to obscure the import, or impris
on a portion of the Bible, nay, extort
a meaning from it which it was not
intended to teach.
The only question for legitimate dis
cussion is, to whom this service shall
be committed. On this question, we
only say that the scholarship and in
tegrity of the parties to whom it has
been assigned is at least respectable,
and their work is entitled to a patient
and candid hearing. If it is ever done,
somebody must do it, and those who
do it, must be selected from some re
ligious denominations. And the only
feasible plan would be to represent at
least the most prominent denomina
tions on the board of revisors. This
would at least tend to neutralize any
sectarian bias which might tinge the
work of either. This,' we understand,
is what was aimed at by the authori
ties that were active in projecting the
movement. The auspices, therefore,
under which this work appears, ought
and will challenge the thoughtful and
ingenuous consideration of all right
minded men.
We notice that the somewhat noto
rious Dr. DeWitt Talmage, of New
York —notorious we mean as a sensa
tional preacher—has made quite a
furious onslaught upon the revised
New Testament just published. He
deigns the use of no serious argument
on the subject, but indulges in that
species of pothouse witticism, that
always seeks to ridicule what itconnot
answer. His whole discourse is a mere
tissue of the ad captandum vulgus
style of address, a play upon the prej
udices of his audiences. Why, if we
had been opposed toto coelo to the whole
undertaking, this style of attack would
lead us to pause and review our ground.
It is well for Dr. Talmage and his style
of men to understand that there are
men who can comprehend the differ
ence between argument and wit, be
tween fact and ridicule, and that the
work of great and good men, if ground
ed on correct principles, will rather be
promoted than retarded by such ribal
dry. We know a little fice-dog who
pretty regularly plants himself at the
railroad depot near by and barks most
furiously at the engine as it passes;
but the little fellow always has the dis
cretion to station himself outside of
the track. We would advise Dr. T.
and his type of critics not to stand on
the track when they bark. They
might get hurt.
Nor must it be forgotten that the
present revisors of the Scriptures have
peculiar advantage. Biblical criticism
is immeasurably in advance of what it
was when King James’ version was
made. One of the oldest and most
important manuscripts of the sacred
writings has been discovered even with
in this century. Never have we had so
many advantages to secure a faithful
rendition of the Bible as now. On the
presumption, therefore, that the men
who have this work in charge are
faithful to their trust, why should not
their work prove a public blessing?
Why should it not be treated with the
candor it deserves? Flippant criti
icisms, adroit inuendoes, vulgar appeals
to popular prejudice, and the like, will
only recoil upon those who resort to
thsm. Sensible men will conclude
that if this is all that can be said
against the new version, it may well
challenge their confidence. Ridicule
may do for some subjects, but on a
question of this magnitude, it is thrown
away, for it is nothing but the “paltry
buffoon mimic of reason,” a mere
“king’s fool.”
Not the least important result of
this movement is that it has given to
the leading of the Scriptures a general
interest such as no event within a
hundred years has done. Perhaps
there is not a railroad,or mail in Great
Britain or the United States, but that
is literally freighted with copies of the
new version, bearing them to every
village and hamlet of both countries.
Men and women everywhere are read
ing it with more interest than ever be
fore. It is an epoch in our history in
which it is literally true, that “men
run to and fro over the earth, and
.knowledge,” divine knowledge, “shall
increase.” And surely no harm can
loome of an event which create# such
universal interest in a book the knowl
edge of which makes men wise unto
salvation. No, Mr. Talmage ; our pres
ent version is itself the product of hu
man learning; is itself a revision of a
revision. It is not the “ark of the cov
enant,” and you may cry as loudly
as Baal’s prophets, and no fire will
come from the old version to consume
honest men engaged in correcting its
errors and increasing its light.
[lt is but fair to our confrere to say
that the foregoing article was written
by him before our article on the same
subject was printed, and that the
ageement between us is not the result
of any “comparing of notes,” but of
independent thinking each for himself.
—Ed. Index.
The Religious Press.
Anonymous Letters.—Here is what
the Sunday-School Times has to say on
this subject. We are not quite so
merciless as our contemporary, but for
the thousandth time we put our read
ers on notice that anonymous letters
receive no attention.
How difficult it is to get the idea into the
minds of our readers tliatan anonymous let
ter is noteven read oy us! If a letter is not
deemed worth signing by the man who wrote
it and knows its contents, it certainly isn't
woith reading by a man who doesn't know
wbat is in it. and is too busy to waste time
in trying to find out, with the risk of lear
ning that it is worthless. If the handwriting
of a letter received by us isn’t familiar, the
first thing looked for is tbe signal ure. When
that is lacking, away goes the letter into the
waste basket. It may be an impertinent
note finding fault with the editor. It may
be asking for an answer in the columns of
the paper to the question, “What must a
sinner do to be saved? ’ Whatever it is, its
substance doesn’t reach tbetditor's mind;
for the letter is destroyed unread. This fact
is now stated again, because of the recent in
crease in this apply for our waste-basket.
No Money in It.—Some time ago an item
appeared in several papers to this effect: A
clergyman presented to bis bishop a class of
forty persons for confirmation. When the
services had been concluded one of the war
dens of the parish approached the minister,
and said, "That was a fine class, a very fine
class, sir, but—there is no money in it."
If anybody chooses to question, whether
theincident actually occured, its verisimilit
ude, at least, will be admitted. And, though
it is related as having happened among our
Episco; a ian friends, it might with equal
probability have been told of Baptists, we
fear, or of any other denomination.
The court that is paid to wealth, is about
the most disfiguring spot upon the garment
of the church to day.
We know a somewhat prominent Baptist
revivalist who seems to estimate the results
of his meetings chiefly in dollars and cents.
He has impressed people among whom he
has labored with the belief that he would
rather bring into the church one Dives than
fifty Lazaruses. And is it not too commonly
true that there is more j >y on earth over one
rich sinner that repenteth tban over ninety
and nine “poor devils,” who need repentance
just as much, and whose souls are just as
precious in,the eyes of God? Baptist Courier
Some men are popular because they
are rich, and some are unpopular for
the same reason; but poverty and
wealth should make no distinctions in
the Church of Jesus Christ. The Bap-
tist revivalist spoken of by the Courier
is not a very uncommon character,
and he represents many who are not
revivalists. On a still lower plane than
this is the “great revivalist” who mea
sures the success of his labors by the
amount of money he succeeds in trans
ferring to his own pocket.
And here is a good thought from
the Richmond Christian Advocate:
It is set down, if not as heresy, at least as
impolitic tor preacher or church papers, to
admit that society is mending in general
character. With evidence on every hand
that the world is growing better, yet certain
people refuse to see it. or pretend to believe
that Satan is gainieg ground every day. “Is
not the church becoming just like the worhi?
You can't tell the difference ” It never seems
to have occured to such inquirers to consider
whether the world has not been gradually
lifted up to the platform ofChristiauity. The
leaven has insensibly wrought its influence
upon the mats.
Taking a broad view, regarding soc
iety as a whole, and including whole
generations, the world is gradually and
steadily improving. Thete are occa
sional drawbacks, but these are temp
orary in their effect. American society
is not as good as it was before the-war.
But in this is history repeating itself;
war is always demoralizing. But are
the churches now in as bad condition
as they would have been a hundred
years ago under the same circumstan
ces? We think not. The general ten
dency is now as it has always been,
onward and upward; and so it will
continue. The recuperation after each
disaster, such as the war just spoken
of, will be more and more rapid as time
advances. The church (taking its
whole history into the account) is not
getting nearer the world, but the world
is getting nearer tliechurch.The general
tone ol society, (barring the effect ol
transient causes) is better now than it
has ever been; and it is the Gospel of
Christ that has done the work. It saves
many with an everlasting salvation;
and it benefits millions whom it does
nat save.
Try to be patient, dear reader, while
you peruse the following extract from
the Lutheran Standard. Venly the
doctrine of infant baptism drives its
advocates to desperate extremes. But
the Standard has the floor:
The Scriptures teach not only that a per
son must be born again in order to enter ihe
kingdom of God, and that only he that be
heveih is born again, but a so that children
are capable of lhe new birth and lhai they
have the “faitn ol the operation in God," i e.
the faith which God works On a certain
occasion the disciples came to Jesus and in
quired ol Him who should be greati st in the
kingdom of God. 'ijesus called a liule child
unto Him and set him in the midst of them,
and said. Verily I say unto you, except ye
be Cun veiled and and become as li title child
ren, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of
heaven. Whosoever, therelore, shall humble
himteif as this little child, the same is great
est in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso
snail receive one such little child in my
name, receivetb me. But who.-o shall offend
one of these little ones which beleve in we,
it were belter that a mill stone were hanged
about his neck, and that he were drowned
in the depth of ihe sea.” Malt. 18, 2—6 Our
Lord was speaking of little children, which
is evident not only from the words designat
ing them,’but also from the fact that they
are presented as an example to grown per
sons, of whom it is said loat they must be
come like these little cbildien- Ol the little
ones it is then said that they believe on
Christ. One must deny the very words ot
Scripture, therefore, if he would deny that
little children can have laith.
So the ground assumed in defence of
infant baptism is that infants are be
lievers! To sustain this view, (which
the after-life of many of these infants
utteily contradicts,) the text is per
verted. The expression, “Whoso shall
offend one of these little ones,” is made
to refer to infants, whereas the words
following, “which believe in me,” and
also the preceding words, “Whosoever
shall humble himself as this little
child,” and also the words, “The same
is the greatest in the kingdom of hea
ven,” show that reference was had not
to children, but to those who are like
children. The doctrine of “infant faith”
is an old one, but the forcing of this
text to prove it, we must think is a
new exploit. The writer was evidently
in extremis:
God works faith, whether in the adult or
the inlant, and God’s ways and workings are
wonderful in either case. If a difference is
to be made, the woudtr is greater in ihe case
of the adult tban iu that ofthe infant; for
reason uses its powers in the former against
the work of the Holy Ghost, whilst in tl e
latter there is simply the resistance of our
natural sinfulness without the added malice
and obstinacy of developed vanity and sell
conceit. In noth cases tue mercy of God in
the salvation of the sinner passes all under
standing. In the case of adults the wonder
is bow any person is converted; in tbe case
of infants the wonder is how the soul knows
its Redeemer and believes. Adults may ob
stinately resist all the work of the Holy
Ghost; infants do not maliciously opp >s« the
Spirit's operation, and hence they at once
become recipients of tbe saving grace which
overcomes the natural resistance, and makes
VOL. 59—NO. 33.
children of God where there is no wilful op
position to God’s taving work
So the ground taken seems to be
that it is easitr for God to impart faith
to infants than to adults! Furthermore
that all infants are believers, for, says
the writer, “hence they at once become
recipients of the saving grace.” If in
deed they are thus regenerated and
made recipients of saving grace, many
of them, we may say most of them,
have a strange way of showing it when
they grow up, and long before they are
grown. The facts are as badly perver
ted as the text.
Finally says the Standard:
So we know from the Word of God that
little children are regenerated by baptism,
which means that they are made believere
in the Lord Jesus, whom they know and
trust as tbeirdt ar Savior, though there b«
many things about this wonderful work of
God which our poor reason has not fathom
ed, and can not comprehend.
The argument in the first place was
that children are to be baptized b cause
they believe, and this implies that they
are regenerated. The argument now
is that it is the baptism which regener
ates them. First they are baptized
because believe; secondly, they believe
because they are baptized!
But, says the writer, with becoming
modesty:
Our knowledge is very limited, our ignor
anoe is very great.
We should certainly not apply this
language to our respected brother of
the Standard in a general way, but so
far as relates to the matter in Band we
must think that his description of hint
self is just. Half his ability on the
eight side of this question would make
a triumphant argument against infant
baptism.
But the above «rtr*cts •tcaM
completely entangled and bew.lderx
a man of power ma/ become when he
attempts to defend wbat is not true.
England expelled William Penn from Ox
ford— put him in prison three times—once
in the Tower—took from him his charter—
iried him fortreason, and now holds his
dust so precious that she refuses the request
of the Stale of Pennsylvania to place it in
her own soil, as a grand accompaniment of
her two hundredth anniversary. Such it
human favor and the changing n'a'ure ofthe
estimate in which even the wisest and beat
of mankind are held.—Hartford Herald.
Really great men are seldom appre
ciated during their own times. Why
is this? Perhaps it is because such men
are always the objects of envy; and
“Who can stand before envy?” Prov. 27.
4. Moreover, men of this class are al
ways in advance of their own genera
tion, and are not understood. The men
most likely to be very popular are those
who are shade behind the advanced of
their time, for they have the majority
with them. The average man general
ly passes for about what he is worth.
But what difference does it make? God
is our judge, and will reward every
man according to his work.
A spculsr paper calls attention to the fact
that New Eogla d and the Western States,
so largely settled by New England people,
furnish so large a proportion of divorces as
compared with England and other parts of
the United States, and asks, “does education
have any band In this passion play?” We
think it will be found that spiritualism and
infidelity have more to do with the mattec ,
than education. Wherever these prevail,
divorces multiply.—Baptist Weekly.
Education doesnot makegood people
bad, but it makes bad people worse; or
at the very least, it arms them with
more power for evil. It is a great mis
take to suppose that it is an antidote
to bad morals. Yet we continually
hear the cry, “Oh educate, educate!
That is the only way to elevate the
people.” The Gospel of Christ is the
only thing that brings true elevation.
It is very certain that education, where
it is most widely diffused, has not pre
vented spiritualism, infidelity, and the
total breaking up of the family, God’s
writ of society, by frequent divorce. I*
one of the New*England States there is
one divorce to every nine marriages!
Utah is not so bad ; yet the people of
New England are the best educated
people in the world.
“An effort is now being made to endow *
John Brown Professorship in Storer Col-
Why not a Girard professorship of Chris
tian hthics, an Orsini professorship of Chris
tian Doctrine, and a Hartmann professorship
of Sacred Theology ? Why not.?—Christiac
at Work.
That will do! A John Brown pro
fessorship in an American College, and
in a Christian College! We suggest
that aGuiteau professorship of Political
Economy is next in order.
—The let s is often preferred to the great
er, — ne might say the nothing to the all,
—at the dictate of formal religionism. A
ritualistic rector of a new London church,
when a-ked to take a missionary collection,
replied, with an air of surprise, “Why, my
good fellow, I haven't got a complete set of
altar cloths yet 1”