Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

.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&cent 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”