Newspaper Page Text
2
©itv ynlpit
THE HEATHEN LOST, WITHOUT
THE GOSPEL.
Substance of a Discourse by Robert H. Harris,
Pastor First Baptist Church, Columbus, Ga.,
Delivered at the "Centennial Missionary
Meeting" of Mt. Zion Church, Muscogee
County, July 16.1892.
¥
WSIp
REV. ROBERT H. HARRIS.
It is strange that, with the open
Bible before us, there should be any
question, upon this subject. But,
that there is such a question, in the
minds of many excellent people, can
not be denied. Perhaps not a very
great many entertain a decided con
viction, in the negative; but a com
paratively large number of persons
are honestly in doubt—and, with
most of them, so far as affects their
practical conduct, doubt is tanta
mount to conviction.
Os people whose views are not af
firmative, there are two general
classes: Ist, Those who, in .the good
ness of their hearts, would fain hope
that, in some mysterious way, the
benighted multitudes of earth may
be saved, notwithstanding their ig
norance of the Bible plan of salva
tion; 2nd, Those who, in their mean
ness and stinginess of heart, are glad
to favor any doctrine that will ex
cuse them from the conscious duty
of contributing money to the Lord’s
work. Kind-heartedness, on the one
hand, and covetousness on the other,
are the totally dissimilar influences
■which produce precisely the
same result upon mental characters,
otherwise entirely unlike.
Some prejudiced—l. e., pre-judged
—in the negative, and others whose
minds are merely doubtful, are un
willing to hear this question discuss
ed, apparently lest their convictions
nifty be disturbed or their doubts re-1
moved; while others, still, already
know more upon this, or any other
subject, than any one under heaven
can tell them. So, among therm
they either absent themselves, alto
gether, on occasions like this, or at
tend with self-bliuded eyes and
stopped-up ears, determined not to
be moved.
It is said that when the Hon.
Benj. H. Hill, as a young attorney,
presented himself, for the first time,
before the Supreme Court of Geor
gia, he offered simply to submit his
brief, remarking, in effect, that no
argument on his part, could enlight
en that tribunal; whereupon, Chief
Justice Lumpkin replied, in sub
stance, that there is no judicial w is
dom so complete that it may not re
ceive a suggestion of value, from the
youngest attorney at the bar.
Thus, perhaps even 1 may be able
to suggest some truth to even the
most profoundly wise, who will con
descend to hear me. Ido not pre
sent myself as the assumed reposito
rv of all wisdom, nor as the fountain
of knowledge, nor as the only source
of information. I know no more on
this subject than any of you might
know, if you would study the Bible,
and, possibly, not as much as some
of you do know. But whether my
knowledge be scant or otherwise, it
w ill do us no harm to study this
question together. »
If the negative be true, and the
heathen are not lost w ithout the Gos
pel. then, the greatest calamity that
w e could inflict upon them would be
to send them the news of salvation
jn Christ. Wo are so unfortunate as
to have heard of Jesus! and, while
some of us will be saved in him,
most of us are destined to be lost,
because we have heard. Now, in
loving pity toward our benighted
fellow-men, let us conceal this fatal
news from them. And, to be consist
ent, let us do more. We love our
children and we are deeply concern
ed about the generations yet unborn.
Let us burn up all the Bibles, raze the
church buildings to the ground or
convert them into dance halls and the
atres,extirpate the preachers,bind our
selves by inviolable oaths to eternal
silence on this most dangerous sub
ject, and die with the fatal secret
locked up in our bosoms—that our
little children and generations yet to
come may enjoy equal blessings with
heathen murderers and cannibals,
ud all be saved! .
Any other course than this must
be illogical and cruel, if the advo
cates of the negative doctrine are
right in their position. Almost as
cruel as God lias been, in subjecting
his pure and innocent Son to an ig
nominious life and horrible death, to
insure the fiery torments of an eter
nal hell, to most of the miserable
wrethes who are so supremely un
fortunate as to hear of IIim!
But what care I, personally,
whether I can convince the preju
diced, or not? I have no ambition in
the premises, to serve, and am not in
the slightest degree concerned about
my success, on this occasion, as an
advocate of the affirmative doctrine.
But I am gravely concerned about
the consequence tb those who refuse
to be convinced by the declarations
of God. Private opinions upon the
subject are entirely immaterial. The
real question is: What saitß the
Loid? The Bible should be our only
guide. Its teachings must* be ac
cepted and its commandments obey
ed, whether we understand God’s
motives and purposes, or not.
In this view, let us consider the
last commandment of Christ: “Go
ye, therefore, and teach all nations,”
Matt, xxviii, 19; “Go ye into all the
world and preach the Gospel to ev
creature,” Mark xvi, 15. Why
“therefore”? Jesus had said: “All
.power is given to me in heaven and
in earth,” Matt, xxviii, 18—I have
breathed my spirit into you—l have
finished my work in my flesh, and I
am going home—but I have com
mitted the full accomplishment of
that work to you, pledging my di
vine power to sustain you—now,
“therefore,” do it. Why “go”? Be
cause his work was for the benefit of
the world—“ God so loved the
world,” Jno. iii, 16, and movement,
outward, from the initial centre, was
necessary, to “teach” “the world” of
mankind “the way” of life that had
been opened up for those who should
walk in it. “Go ye,” all ye who
have my spirit and my pledged pow
er, for ye are qualified, “and teach
all nations”—not merely those who
are contiguous to Judea, but “into all
the world,” as is more explicitly
stated by Mark. The latter evan
gelist also individualizes this teach
ing. The messengers of Jesus are
not merely to plant the banner of
the cross, upon every nation’s shore,
and the Gospel of the'
kingdom,” in every national capital
in l4 nll the world,” but they arc to
carry their message to each individ
ual as expressed in the language,
“every creature.”
What is the “gospel?” Good news.
The term is compounded of two
Anglo-Saxon words—“god,” good,
and “spell,” story or tidings. Hence,
the Scripture expression, “glad tid
ings of great joy.” What is the
best news to a drowning man? That
a rescuer is at hand. What is the
gladdest tidings to the’dying patient?
Os a physician who can and will
heal.
Os what, is the “good news,” that
the messengers of Jesus arc to carry
to “every creature”? Os salvation.
Why do 1 say so? “The gospel of
Christ is the power of God unto Sal
vation.” Rom. i, 16. And yet a
prominent “minister in this country
has recently declared from the pul
pit, that the gospel of Christ was a
very unimportant factor in the con
version of Cornelius! “The power of
God"—“ a small matter!” The last
are his own words.
“This “good news” is of salvation
to whom? To the lost. “The Son
of Man is come to save that which
was lost,” Matt xviii., 11. The Son
of man is come to seek and to save
that which was lost,” Luke xix, 10.
“To seek” means to hunt for. Ef
fort is necessary, both on the part of
Jesus, himself, and on the part of his
messengers. Those who “have his
spirit must “go” forth “into all the
nations of the world,” “seeking,” in
that spirit, for the individuals, whom
God bath “predestinated to be con
formed to the imago of his son,”
Rom. viii, 29. •
Who are lost? All men. “Death
passed upon all men, for that all
have sinned,” Rom, v, 12; the wages
of sin is death,” Rom. vi, 23; “wo
(Christians) were by nature the chil
dren of wrath, even as others,” (the
unregeernate, or heathens), Eph. ii,3.
The God of “foreknowledge and
forcordination,” the God of “predes
tination,” has declared that all men,
naturally, “are under the curse,” Gal.
iii, 10—that “by the offense of one,
judgment hath come upon all men,
to condemnation,” Rom. v, 18—and
that bis people, saved from the lost,
are “elect, ’ through sanctification of
the Spirit, unto obedience and sprink
ling of tire blood of Jesus Christ,” 1
Peter, i, 2.
Now who are the heathen? There
THE CHRISTIAN INDEX: THURSDAY, AUGUST 11. 1892.
are only three classes of animated
creatures known to us : 1. Angels ;
2, Men; 3, Beasts. Under the term
beasts, I inclride, for this occasion,
all creatures, from the highest brute,
to the lowest form of animal life.
Are the heathens angels? None will
assert it. Are they beasts? Blood
analysis will settle the question. The
red corpuscles in the human blood>
every scientific physician knows, are
different from those in the blood of
any other animal. The blood disks
in all animals of the canine family
are similar, and so, with the felines,
or members of the cat family, and
so, also, with all other genera, of the
lower orders; but none of these re
semble corresponding disks in human
blood—and the corpuscles are found
to be precisely alike, in all the races
of mankind. God “hath made of
one blood, all nations of fnen, for to
dwell on all the face of the earth,”
Acts, xvii., 26. Not that all are
white men—or all black men—or all
brown or red men—but that all are
men—homo, human. “All flesh is
not the same flush ; but there is one
kind of flesh of men. another flesteaf
beasts, another ctf fishes andMflfts
of birds,” I ( or., xv., 39J®!<»nniiral
isrn was proved upon cIMo
members of the Greely
by the presence, in their sfimßßfcliM,
of the striped tissue, which is pecu
liar to human muscle. The flesh
and blood of the heathens are found
to be of identically the same kind as
ours. The heathen, therefore, are
men.
If men, the heathen are lost, in
common with other men,-“for there
is no respect of persons, with God,”
Rom. ii., 11, and, therefore, Christ,
“came to seek and to save th6m,”
since “there is no difference,” Rom.
iii. 22.
The question rjow recurs, will any
men be saved? In the light of Scrip
ture, I answer, yes. Who? Let
the Scriptures answer : “He that be
lieveth and is baptized shall be
saved,” Mark, xvi., 16; “Whoso
ever shall call up&n the name of the
Lord, shall bo saved,” Rom., x., 13
—and everv intelligent person knows
that the word “Lord,” whenever ap
plied to the Deity, in the Scriptures,
either means Christ directly, or in
cludes the idea of Christ, with God
—; “For God gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in
Him should not perish, but have
'everlasting life,” Jno., iii., 16.
Another question now presents’it-'
self: Is there any means of salva
tion, outside of Christ, intimated in
the Bible? The Scriptures, them
selves are emphatic, in the negative :
“Neither is there salvation in any
other, for there is none other name
under heaven given among men,
whereby we must be saved,” Acts,
iv. 12—the language is most posi
tive, “must”; and “he that believeth
not shall be damned,” Mark, xvi,
16.
If there were any other means, the
sacrifice of Jesus Christ was unneces
sary: “For if righteousness come
by the law, (works), then Christ is
dead in vain,” Gal., ii., 21 “For by
grace are ye saved, through faith,
and that not of yourselves; it is the
gift of God, not of works,lest any man
should boast,” Eph., ii., 8-9. Salvation
is of God through the gift of grace,
by faith in Christ, also his gift, and
all this, men may “despise,” to their
own damnation. Rom., ii., 4-6. On
the other hand, if any, heathens or
others, can be saved by “honestly do
ing the best they know,” they will
“have whereof to boast,” and will
have a right to march up to heaven's
gates, flying the banner of “good
works” and demand admittance.
Then consider what a reflection
such a doctrine casts upon God’s
business capacity! I speak of Him,
most reverently. He declares that
He has exhausted heaven's treasury,
plucked the pricelesc jewel from His
own heart, and with “the Brightness
of Ilis own glory,” purchased human
salvation ; and yet millions of men
arc saved by their own efforts to “do
the best they can, with the lights be
fore them,” and buy their salvation
at a price infinitely cheaper than
God has paid! The Omniscient God
has actually been out-traded, by
some of His ignorant, finite creatures
and has spent His All, for what
might have been, by Him,and by
others is, bought at an infinitely low
er price! Such is the horrible absur
dity into which such a doctrine
leads.
“But,” asks one, “do not the Scrip
tures declares that ‘the heathen are
a law unto themselves’ and that‘they
shall be beaten with few stripe?’ ”?
Let us sec. “That servapt which
knew his lord’s will prepared not
himself, neither did according to his
will, shall be beaten with many
stripes. But he that knew not, and
did commit things worthy of stripes,
shall be beaten yvith few stripes,”
Luke, xii., 47-48. There appears,
here, to be “no so far as
the fact of punishment is concerned.
Neither is saved from punishment.
“For there is no respect of persons,
with God. For as many as have
sinned without law shall also perish
without law, and as many as have
sinned in the law shall be judged by
the law,” (now to skip the parenthe
sis for the present), “in the day
when God shall judge the secrets of
men, by Jesus Christ, according to
my gospel,” Rom., ii., 11, 12, 16.
Here, again, it is matifest that, 1 there
is no difference.” Those who have
not the law “perish,” whether the
stripes be “many” or “few,” and “the
secrets of (all) men are judged
(alike) byJesus Christ, according to
the gospel.” The heathen, then,
who arc “without the gospel” are not
justified by that fact. If, as in the
suppositional case, parenthetically
introduced by the apostle, “the Gen
tilcst —or heathen—wlxq have not the
law, (should) do, by nature, the
things contained in the law, they
Ku Id be) a law unto
ving the work of the
heir hearts” and being “accused
or excused by one another, ’’ accord
ingly. But such a case is impossible,
in the face of this language, by the
same inspired apostle: “Because the
carnal mind is enmity against God ;
for it is not subject to the law of
God, neither indeed can be,” Rom.,
viii., 7. Where, in all history, is
the record of a single man, who,
“by nature did the things contained
in the law?” I defy the world to
produce one example. The purest
heathen I ever heard of—Socrates—
died a suicide—a deliberate self
murderer!
Continued next week.
ASKED AND ANSWERED.
C. E. W. DOBBS, D. D.
I have always thought that Jesus
wrote nothing while on earth, or at
least that no writing of his was pre
served. Recently 1 saw what pur
ports to be a letter from Jesus to a
certain king. Do you know any
thing of this letter ? J. L. Yates.
The letter is unquestionably a for
gery. It is first mentioned by Euse
bius, who died abput A. D. 340. In
his Ecclesiastical History, Book 1,
chapter 13, he tells us that he found
fn the puHMMflKves of the Asiatic
‘•ity of the Syriac lan-|
guage, a correspondence ’alleged to
have occurred between the king Ab
garus and Jesus, and he gives the
epistle of each as he found them.
Abgarus writes asking Jesus to come
to his city and heal him of a certain
disease. In reply Jesus writes de
clining to come, but promising that
after lie “lias been received up” one
of his disciples shall lie sent to heal
him. The Edessa record goes on to
say that after the ascension of Jesus
“Thadeus, one of the seventy” went
to Edessa and preached, the king
and his people embracing the Gospel.
There is no reason to doubt that
Eusebius really found these apocry
phal epistles in the public archives
at Edessa. He has been accused of
forging the correspondence him
self, but this unworthy suspicion has
been refuted by the discovery and
publication of the original Syriac.
The forgery was done probably long
before his day, and the epistles were
supposed by him to be genuine. Hi s
critical insight, but not his honesty,
was at fault. The apocryphal char,
acter of the correspondence u no
longer a matter of dispute.
Can you tell me how many Cath
olics there are in America, and what
is theiprospect of their ruling this
country? Also do they believe that
any protestant can be saved ?
Alexander.
1. According to the official fig
ures furnished the United States cen
sus bureau by tlus Roman Catholic
prelates themselves, in 1890, there
were in the United States 10,221
organizations, 8765 church edifices,
1,469 halls, 6,259,045 communicants.
The census bulletin from which
these figures ai e taken, says: “As
the Roman Catholic Church always
gives in its published annual statis
tics the number of baptized members
or population instead of communi
cants, the census appointee in each
diocese was requested to comply
with the requirements of the census
schedules and furnish the number of
communicants, in order that the sta
tistics of all the denominations
might be uniform. According to in
formation received from bishops, it
is the custom for baptized persons to
make their first communion between
the ages of niuo and eleven years.
Baptized persons below the ago of
nine years are not included there
fore in tho census returns. Some
ecclesiastical authorities estimate
that members of this class constitute
aboqt fifteen per cent of the popula
tion of the church, which of course,
embraces both baptized members
and communicants.” That would
seem to show a total Catholic popu
lation of 7,353,000. The total pop
ulation of the United States' is
62.622,250. There is one Catholic
t A very eight and a half of the pop
ulation.
2. Our correspondent, in the
light of these figures, can answer his
second question as intelligently as
we can. It tn ay be said, however,
that the Catholics have not maintain
ed their strength in this country.
They should number at leapt nine or
ten millions, if they had kept all who
came to them by natural increase
and by foreign immigration. We
believe that they lose more than
they gain by converts from Protes
tantism in this country. There is
an influence in our free American
institutions and methods of thoughts
that is fatal to Romanism. We have
no fear of the future.
3. The Roman Catholic Church
teaches that all “baptized” persons
may be saved, and it does not con
fine baptism to its own pale. On
the contrary it regards all “baptisms,”
valid, no matter who administers the
“saerftment.” A high dignitary of
the Church, Cardinal Manning, de
clared that “non-Catholics may go to
heaven.” He wrote an elaborate
statement giving the position of his
Church on this question, in which he
said: “Wo believe that the Holy
Ghost breathes throughout the world,
and gathers into union with God
and to eternal life all those who
faithfully co-operate with His light
and grace. None are responsible
for dying inculpably out of the visi
ble Body of the Church. They on
ly are culpable who knowingly and
wilfully reject its divine voice when
sufficiently known to them.”
Another Catholic authority says
that protestants may be saved
through “good faith and invincible
ignorance/’ Good faith is explained
to mean that “faith which is perfect
ly sincere and which lives in holi
ness and good works.” Invincible
ignorance refers to all “who either
never knew of the Catholic Church,
or, having knbwn, are incapable
through prejudice or otherwise, of
coming to the knowedgo of the
truth.” The explanations would
seem to leave the bars down very
widely. And after all we know that
both Catholic and Protestant must
be saved by grace alone.
What did the apostle Paul mean
when he said “all things are lawful
for me.” . f. h. d.
He certainly did not mean what
your friend thinks. Paul was not
an antinomian; aad he did not*re-l
gard himself as absolved from all
law. It is scarcely to be believed
that any one claiming to be a believ
er in the Gospel could argue that “a
Christian cannot sin,” because Paul
used the expression you rofer to.
Dr. Gould, in the American Com
mentary, (on 1 Cor. 6 :12) says : “Os
course the statement 1 ‘all things are
lawful for me,’ is subject to the ob
vious limitation, that it applies to in
different things, those which do not
possess positive moral quality. Evi
dently, then, the application of this
principle to<he ■ matter of fornica
tion, is an unwarrantable use made
by parties in the Corinthian Church,
early Antinomianism.”
Dr. Phemptre, in Ellicott’s Com
mentary, writes a similar note: “It
is a maxim of Christian liberty
which does not refer to matters
which are absolutely wrong, and
that even in its application to iddif
ferent matters it must be limited and
guarded by other Christian princi
ples. The eating of meat sacrificed
to idols and the committing forni
cation, were two subjects of discus
sion closely connected with heathen
worship, and it may seem astonish
ing to us now that because St. Paul
‘had maintained the right of individ
ual liberty concerning the former,
he should perhaps have been quoted
as an authority for liberty regarding
the latter, yet it is a matter of fact
that such a mode of reasoning was
not uncommon. They were both
regarded as part and parcel of hea
then worship, and therefore, as it
were, to stand or fall together, as
being matters vital or indifferent.
(See Acts 15 :29 and Rev. 11:14,
as illustrations of the union of the
two for purposes respectively of
condemnation and of improper toler
ation.”)
Os course, on so delicate a subject,
one must write guardedly. Still the
foregoing extracts from eminent com
mentators will show how shameful a'
use was attempted to be made of the
apostle’s words. Paul argued that
in the Gospel dispensation we are
not under law, but under grace. He
taught that we. are not justified by
law but by faith. Yet he indignantly
repelled the false conclusion that his
doctrine encouraged sin. (See Rom.
6:1-2-15 and elsewhere.) A tine
illustration of the principle that
guided the apostle may be seen in 1
Cor. 9:21-22. The parenthetical
statement not without law
to God, but under law to- Christ) is
at once an explanation of his former
saying, and a condemnation of the
improper application of that saying.
He recognized the moral law of
Christ as being the reguant rule of
all living.
We thank Rev. Dr. D. Shaver for
his kind words in commendation of
the work done in nreuarincr this de-
partment of the Index. Also for
calling our attention to the fact that
in the “third revised and enlarged
edition” of the Schaff-Hezog Ency
clopedia, Sisera is not called “king.”
He is so called in the first edition,
the one in our library. It is gratify
ing to note this correction in a work
so very valuable. It is an evidence
that the revising editors are very
careful and painstaking. Sisera’s
name occurs only incidentally, being
found in the article concerning De
borah.
Are you sure that scriptural sacti
fication is progressive ? Is there not
a distinction to be made between
sanctification and holiness?
B. O. C.
The noun sanctification does not
occur in our translation of the Old
Testament, though the verb sanctify
is found quite frequently. Its pri
mary meaning is to set apart and
appropriate anything to a holy
use. Thus it is applied to the sev
enth day as the Sabbath. (Gen. 2:3;
Dcut. 5:12: Neh. .13:22) —to the first
born (Ex. 13:2) —to the mount (Ex.
19:23) —to the altar (Ex. 29:36), and
other things of w hich moral quality
cannot be predicated. To sanctify
the Lord was to regard him as holy.
It does not appear to be used in the
sense of producing subjective holi
ness. and is not applied to persons in
that sense, in either in the Old or
New Testament, though in the last,
it does seem to take on a higher
spiritual meaning. In such passages
as John 17:17; Acts 20;32; 1 Cor.
1:2; Eph. 5:26; 1 Thes. 5:23; 2 Tim.
2:21, surely something more than a
formal setting apart to Christ’s ser
vice is meant. Certainly there is a ref
erence to the inward purity of soul.
In the New Testament the noun
sanctification is the translation of the
'Greek word, hagiasmos, in 1 Cor.
1.30; 1 Thes. 4:3, 4; 2 Thes. 2:13;
1 Pet. 1:2. It is rendered “holiness”
in Rom. 6:19, 22; 1 Tim. 2:15; Heb.
12 14. It occurs in no other places,
though two words from the same
root are translated “holiness” in
Heb. 12:10; Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 7:1;
1 Thes. 3:13. In Acts. 8:12 and
Eph. 4:24, still other words are
found in the Greek—the first being
that usually rendered “godliness,”
which.term the Revised Version has
in that text. The Revised Version
everywhere renders hagiasmos by
“sanctification.” Careful ’study of
all the passages shows that while to
sanctify means primarily to devote,
or consecrate one to a holy service,
yet it also means to “make one holy
in character, and thus for a holy ser
vice.” Hence there is no-impropri
ety in speaking of sanctification as
progressive. The Christian is to be
ever “perfecting holiness in the fear of
■ God. When we are born
of God, but VS Wire ®nly “babes in J
Christ.” Then begins that growth
in grace and knowledge of Jesus,
whereby we gradually attain “unto a
full grown man, unto the measure of
the stuture of the fullness of Christ.”
(Eph. 4:13). We shall be “perfect
ed” only when in glory we see him,
with eye no longer dimmed by the
darkness of sin. (1 John 3:1-3).
Blessed sight! Blessed likeness!
B. O. C. urges 1 John 3:9, as im
plying the instantaneous sanctifica
tion of the regenerated. We must
read all scripture in its relations to
other scripture. John certainly did
not teach that any are sinless, or that
any have yet attained absolute per
fection. (See chapters 1 and 2).
We quote the American com
mentary: “Whosoever is born of
God. The perfect participle. It
might bo translated, ‘Every one who
has been born of God.’ Doth not
Commit. Does not do it (present
and continuous tense as the law of
his life, as the ideal tendency of his
being.
In the Revised Version I find an
important omission in 1 John 5 :7-8,
and no marginal note explaining the
omission.' Usually some allusion is
made. Why was it not done in this
case ? Allkx.
In the old version the passage
reads: “There are three that bear
record (in heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost; and
these three are one. And there are
three that bear witness in the earth,)
the spirit, and the water, and the
blood; and these three agree in one.”
The Revised Version omits the
word sin parenthesis, and the word
“record’’ is rendered “witness.”
When omissions are made it is gen
erally noted in the margin, as in
the Acts 8 :87, where it is said :
“Some ancient authorities insert,
wholly or in part, verse 37.” But
in the case of the words omitted in
John’s epistle, that could not be said,
because they are found in no Greek
manuscript of the New Testament
earlier than the sixteenth century!
“No determination of modern criti
cism,” says Dr. Sawteye, in Ameri
can Commentary, “is more certain
than the spurious character of this
part of the text. And it seems ut
terly foreign to the argument John
is evolving.” The case is so clearly
stated in Ellicott’s New Testament
Commeutary, thaUwe cannot do the
reader a better service than to quote:
“The words are wanting in all the
Greek Codices, including the Codex
JSinaiticus, and in all the ancient ver
sions, including the Latin, as late as
the eighth century. Since then they
are found in three variations. Had
they been known, they must have
been quoted in the controversies
about the Trinity ; but they aro not
cited by any Greek, or any of the ol
der Latin Fathers The
words probably crept into the text
gradually from Greek notes on the
passage Luther never
translated them; in his first commen
tary he pronounced them spurious.
. There is hardly a pas
sage in all literature more demon
strably spurious.”
In view of these facts the Revises
would have been false to God s holy
book if they had not omitted the
words in question. There is no
doubt they would have retained
them if there had been any evidence
that John penned them. We should
be grateful to the scholars who la
bored so prayerfully and reverently
to give us in the Revised Version
the New Testament in its purity, as
it came from the pens of the sacred
authors.
Please explain the 11th verse of
the 3rd chapter of Matthew: “I in
deed baptize you with water,” etc.
In
Student.
There are three points in this pass
age, concerning which “Student”
asks explanation:
1. The use of the preposition
“with.” True the text, even as ren
dered in the common version, furnish
es no real argument for affusion, yet
it is so used quite successfully. There
is a silly little Methodist book called
“Theophilus Walton,” in which the
changes are rung on the phrase
“baptize with water.” It is well,
therefore, to note the fact that all the
earlier English translations, except
the Genevan, had “in water.” Wi
clif (in 1380) had: “I wash you in
water * * * * he shall baptize
you in the Holy Ghost and fire.”
Tyndale (1534): “I baptize you in
water.” So Cranmer (1539), and
the Rhciins Roman Catholic, in 1582.
The first English version in which
we find “with water,” in this place,
is the Genevan, made by Scottish ex
iles who fled from the cruelty of
“Bloody Mary.” They were under
the influence of John Calvin, who
enunciated the principle that the form
of baptism should be regulated by
the church, in accordance with th®
climate. Scotland was a cold coun
try and sprinkling would be more
convenient! So this Presbyterian
version appeared in 1557 rendering
“with water.” King James’ men
followed this version (1611). The
Revised (Canterbury) Version has a
marginal note giving the alternative
“in. The majority of the revisers
voted at first.to put “in” in the text,
but on the final revision it failed for
want of a two-thirds vote. The
American revisers, a company of
thirteen scholars, of whom only one
was a Baptist, were more faithful
than their Ehglish brethren. In the
“list of readings and renderings pres
ferred by. tl>«» Amerioau , CoaaraitU>o,’|
in the “Classes of passages,” they say?
“IX. After ‘baptize’ let the margin
‘in’ and the text -‘with’ exchange
places.” This is a commendable ex
hibition of conscientious scholarship.
The Presbyterian Rev. Dr. Phil
ip Schaff, who was president of the
American Committee, translates
Lange, the commentator: “I baptize
you in water, immersing you in the
element of water. * * * He will en
tirely immerse you in the Holy
Spirit.”
2. The second inquiry is as to the
“baptism in the Holy Spirit.” It is
well to note that the phrase “bap.
tisni of the THoly Ghost,” so often
heard in the pulpit and elsewhere, is
unknown to the New Testament.
Even the scriptural expression “bap
tize in the Holy Spirit” occurs in
only three instances, viz. Matt. 3:11,
and parallel passages; Acts 1: 5, and
11: 16. The fact is suggestive In
view of the stress laid on the words
in common modern thought With
out going into an elaborate discus,
sion of the subject, it must be said
that this baptism in the Holy Spirit
is not regeneration. The only in*
stances in which it was received, so
far as the New Testament affords
examples, were on the day of Pent®,
cost, in the household of Cornelius,
and, perhaps in the cases of the con*
verts in Samaria and the twelve in
Ephesus. (See Acts 2: 1-4; 8: 17;
10: 44; 19: 6). In all these instances
there seems to have been an extraor
dinary inipartation of the Spirit, en
abling the recipients to manifest miG
aculous powers. Perhaps we should
say that this special “baptism” was
peculiar to the apostolic age, and
ceased with the age of inspiration
and miracles. Christians now hav4
the Holy Spirit as their indwelling
sanctifier and comforter, but that
blessed experience is not what the
New Testament means by baptism
in the Spirit. Commenting on Matt.
3: 11. Rev. Dr. E. H. Plumptre,
the distinguished Episcopalian, in
Ellicott, says: “As heard and un
derstood at the time, the baptism
with the Holy Ghost would imply
that the souls thus baptized would
be plunged, as it were, in that crea
tive and informing spirit.”
3. Baptized in tire. This has been
understood to refer to the everlast
ing fire of perdition—that Christ
would baptize some in the spirit and
some in hell-tire. But the interpre
tation, though strongly supported,
seems harsh. Rather “fire” is sim
ply appended as an image of the
spirits enlightening and, perhaps,
purifying work upon those receiving
the promised baptism.
Kfl UMt Cough Bjnjp. Good. UmM
i ini