ESTABLISHED 1844.
GREENSBORO, N. C., WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 1907.
VOLUME L1X, 'NUMBER 19.
All communications, whether for publica
tion or pertaining to matters of business,
should be sent to the Editor, J. O. Atkinson,
Elon College, N. C.
EDITORIAL COMMENT.
Wanderlust:—If not that then put it wood
landlust. Who has not felt it, does not feel
it now, this longing within, this heart hun
ger, this consuming lust to get among the
trees, become a part of the sweet, fragrant
forest? The odor of the fresh budding trees,
the wholesome and healthful green of branch
and bud and twig, the tender leaves shim
mering in the mellow sunshine, the joyous
blending of dogwood and maple, hickory and
honeysuckle into a varied color scheme of
gorgeous glory—these are only of the super
ficial charm that stir the heart and call the
weary to roam and to rest in, the redolent
wood. This Wonderlust, handed down to us
from Sexon sires and Briton breeding, calling
us now to field and forest, has brought us to
a goodly heritage and given us the best we
know and have of civic liberty and religious
freedom. For did you not know that our
Saxon forbears worshipped God in the woods’
declaring in their instinctive intelligence,
that Deity was too great and powerful and
mighty to dwell in a house made with hands ?
Tacitus tells us so. In the. broad and bound
less forest they assembled to worship God, to
court the vigor of far spreading oak, the
virile strength of sturdy hickory, and the
careless, dauntless freedom that budded and
blossomed there. Thence came the power
that later demolished walled cities, that
humbled to the dust and razed to the ground
mighty, but proud and pagan Rome.
Our later forbears felt it no less forceful
ly: both Cavalier and Puritan felt it. This
mighty American forest, millions on millions
of acres, called with deep, and ever deepen
ing intonation, to brave Cavalier and pious
Puritan across the sea, housed and cramped
and circumscribed there. The deep of our
woods, this Wonderlust, called to Cavalier
and wooed the noble Puritan. Before these
savage tribe, barbarous host and wild wil
derness slunk and fled away. The vine and
figtree took the place of thorn and thistle.
The mightiest Republic on earth sprang up
where oncd a wild wilderness was. Wander
lust did it.
Have you looked out on the woods, my
brother? There are beauty and charm and
strength and freedom there. Listen to the
trees and they will tell you a story of liberty
and teach you a lesson of love and of life.
How perfectly splendid, how simply gorgeous
the trees and the woods and the flowers are
now. This Wanderlust gnaws at our heart
and we long for a look at the forest, for
an 'hour, a day, a week under spreading oak
and marvelous maple. We were born that
way. It is the deep of Nature’s voice call
ing to the deep of man’s voice.
in 1
Standard Oil on Trial.—The Standard Oil
Company was indicted recently in a Federal
District Court at Chicago for accepting
freight rebates recently and in violation of
law. Like all that pertains to Standard Oil
this suit was on an enormous scale. The in
dictment covered 1,903 offences. The trial
lasted six weeks. There were three tons—
bit thousand pounds—of documents submit
ted to the jury. Of way bills, shipping or
ders, receipts and records there were more
than fifteen thousand put in evidence. The
jury—it only deliberated two hours—return
ed a verdict of guilty in 1,462 counts, the
penalty of which, if the minimum is given,
will be $1,462,000 fine, or if the maximum,
$30,000,000. An appeal was taken to the
U. S. Supreme Court. You cannot incar
cerate a Company; and the Standard has a
plenty cash with which to pay fines: so there
fore rebates will probably continue.
Colorado’s Preacher-Governor.—At the
election last fall Colorado elected a Metho
dist preacher as governor. The State was
tired of fraud and filth and foulness in high
places and decided to clean up. Buchtel is
no mere sentimentalist. He has a mind to
think and a heart to undertake. The peo
ple knew this and asked him to be chief
executive.
From reports this preacher-governor is
making good and carousing Colorado is wit
nessing scenes. Its last Legislature passed
a local option law that suited the governor’s
temperance sentiments. He according 1 y
made public announcement that ‘ ‘ the Colora
do local option law will be signed in tne nail
of the House of Representatives, Monday,
March 25, 1907, at 1:30 p. m. The people
are invited. All ministers, priests and rabbis
are invited to assemble in the governor’s
room at 1:15.” The people came; “Amer
ica” was sung; a Stftipture lesson was read;
a message of cheer and hope was read by
the speaker of the House; another message
of cheer and hope was read by the lieuten
ant governor; prayer was offered; the bill
signed; the assembled multitude sang that
splendid hymn of W. Roscoe, ‘ ‘ Great God,
beneath whose piercing eye;” and, best of
all, the governor prayed and pronounced
the benediction.
Some may say that is a queer mixing of
religion and politics. Let it be so. A whole
commonwealth may go to such depths, jrst
as frequently individuals do, that a minister
needs to be called in and the ministrations
of religion required. Religion in politics is
not bad. It is politics in religion that works
ruin. We could all wish that the politics
of our day were more religious. And to that
better day the sweeping tide of time is bear
ing us.
A Good Bargain.—So far as dollars go
Uncle Sam drove a good bargain when he
purchased the territory of Alaska for the
sum of $7,200,000. From that rigorous and
frozen region our Government has already
received in revenue taxes $11,000,000; in
gold over $100,000,000; in furs $80,000,000;
and in fish $96,000,000. Alaska is now found
to possess the richest copper veins in the
world. Some thought when Alaska was pur
chased our Government had only bought an
iceberg and paid an enormous sum for per
petual snow. All lands have some advan
tage and the bountiful hand of Providence
poured out some riches in every country.
HIGHER CRITICISM AND CHRISTIAN
PRINCIPLES.
Carlyle Summerbell, D. D.
Two of the live topics of the day are high
er criticism, and its adopted child, the
“New Theology.” England is stirred over
these as never before. Campbell’s book
recently published, was at once bought by
the thousands, and papers, secular as well
as religious, gave ^pace^- to discussions pro
and con. Theology is an interesting subject,
although the discussions concerning theol
ogy are sometimes as dry as dust. But a
man who says he is not interested in theol
ogy, is not informed, or not religious, or
not normal. For the subject of the Deity
is surely large enough, important enough,
and practical enough for all.
A few 'years ago I published a little pam
phlet on Higher and Lower Criticism, which
was kindly spoken of by such men, as Wm.
Hayes Ward, editor The Independent; Rev.
D. E. Millard, Rev. D. A. Long,, the late
Prof. W. A. Bell, Rev. Dr. M. W. Baker, and
Rev. Dr. S. A. Eliot. In this, I gave three
definitions of Higher Criticism, from as
many different schools of thought as follows:
Higher criticism is the destructive forces
of scholarship whose greatest delight is to
annihilate the Bible and repudiate religion.
Higher criticism is the “summum bonum,”
the whole truth of God, to which this age
has just arrived by means of careful study
of the wisest men and greatest modern
scholars;
Higher criticism is the scientific study con
cerning the authors of Biblical books; why,
when, and under what conditions these books
vere written.
To illustrate that these, first two defini
tions are not overdrawn, allow me to quote
from two sources. The well known litera
teur, the late Rev. John White Chadwick,
says in his book, The Man Jesus, ‘‘The doc
trine of the New Testament’s miraculous
inspiration is no longer a doctrine that can
be entertained by any person who is at the
same time honest, thoughtful, and intelli
gent.Omit the honesty, the intel
ligence, or the thoughtfulness, and the say
ing thus mutilated will not hold good. Tak
en in its entirety its force cannot be broken.
Show me an intelligent man who entertains
this doctrine, and the chances are ten to one
that he lacks either thoughfulness or hon
esty. ’ ’
The well known Christian preacher of In
diana, the Rev. John T. Phillips writing in
the Herald of Gospel Liberty of May 2, 1907,
says, “I do wish that the brethren of the
higher criticism faith would let up or shut
up, and stop wrecking hope, faith and Christ.
We already have a poisoned morbid socie
ty, and more sceptics, infidels, thieves, rob
bers, liars, hypocrites, licentious people and
murderers than the church can convert, or
our crowded penitentiaries or hell can ac
commodate. Gentlemen, for God’s sake, stop
increasing the crowd!”
I believe that the man with common sense
judgment will see at once that there is a
possibility of these two brethren having
been just the least bit excited and therefore
liable to exaggerate. And to the common
sense man I appeal. It is neither the schol
ar nor the demagogue who will settle this
oncoming struggle. It is the sense of the
common people.
Our fathers of the Reformation in meeting
the dogma of an infallible church with that
of an infallible book, caused an emphasis to
be placed on the scriptures, that almost de
stroyed all common sense apprehension of
how the Bible came to exist. For we must
acknowledge when we give any thought and
sincere, unprejudiced study to the subject
that the Church made the Bible. Prof. E.
C. Moore says, “It was one hundred and
fifty years after Jesus’ death before writings
concerning him were clearly apprehended as
new Scriptures, and fully took that place.”
Protestants vehemently deny an infallible
church, but if the early church people choose
certain books and rejected others that com
pose the Bible, and the Bible is infallible,
does not the church become also infallible
in judgment, at least concerning the sacred
literature ?
Now the higher criticism endeavors to ap
ply the historico-critical method, and to use
common sense to discover the truth.
And I claim that thise is the exact spirit of
the principles of the Christian church when
we affirm, that individual interpretation of
the scriptures is the right and duty of all.
Why should we then object to the higher
criticism ? It is the practical application
of pur own principles, but our eyes are hol
den that we cannot see it, for the gifts of
God are often refused. Why should we in
sist that Shakespeare be studied* scientifi
cally, or Mythology, and fear for the Bible
to be studied the same way? Is there not a
slight lack of faith? Any free investigation
is impossible if you demand a certain result
of the investigator. Such is the stand of
the opponents of higher criticism to a large
extent. They do not believe in individual
investigation of so called essentials: they
tell us that certian scriptures, certain dog
mas and doctrines are established. But
who has this authority? Has it been dele
gated to any man or set of men?
Professor Otto Pfleiderer of Berlin, is one
of the greatest authorities on the philosophy
of religion. He pubglished in 1905, a book,
Christian Origins, which he offers to the
world as the nature product of more than
forty years of earnest study. In the preface
to this book he says,
“Science is ever progressing and, natural
ly, the state of knowledge here presented
will be but a step in the onward march. In
what direction? With certainty, nothing can
be foretold, but judging by all past experi
ence, and by many a sign of the present, it
may well be supposed that the progress of
knowledge will not be toward the old tradi
:¥i. ■ - - - -
tion, but rather to a greater departure from
it.”
“When we hear 'Return to Tradition’ re
commended to us today, that means nothing
else than return to the fundamental Catho
lic principle that dogma must rule history;
for the tradition concerning the New Testa
ment is the child of the old church-dogma,
and the motive for such a return, is in its
turn dogmatic, namely, the wish to employ
the post-apostolic writings as the witness for
the apostolic period and to substitute for a
gradual becoming a completed thing, exist
ent from the beginning, mysterious in origin
and incommensurable in authority.”
Since science is ever progressing, the au
thor who smashes a theory of a higher critic,
and shows something better, is to be congrat
ulated by all sincere higher critics. Lots of
?razy theories, and foolish notions have been
promulgated as higher criticism, but the
method of higher criticism has come to stay,
and it is the method of to-day and tomorrow,
and it has already destroyed the mechani
?al inspiration of the Bible, which can never
again shackle man’s free thought as former
ly*
One of the amusing things in the present
discussion, is that a well known radical like
Prof. Harnack of Germany, is claimed by
the conservatives to have practically joined
their forces.
In the Herald of Gospel Liberty of May 2d
1907 am editorial note endorses a quotation
from the Methodist Recorder, from Prof.
Wright of Oberlin^ who makes a confusing
statement about Harnack’s being compelled
to surrender, etc. After hearing one of
Wright’s lectures, a friend told Mr. J. A.
Savage of Medfield, Mass., that Harnack
had been compelled to change his position,
etc., etc., Mr. Savage wrote to the learned
savant and received this letter:
“Berlin,, Feb. 23, 1907.
Honored Sir: In America, as I hear, the
most foolish judgments are frequently cir
culated about me and my theological point of
view. Whence they come I know not. It
is even said that I am no longer professor
of theology, that I have changed my point
of view, etc. All these things are untruths,
with regard to your question let me say
that as formerly I hold the Fourth Gospel
to be no work of the Apostle John.
Respectfully yours,1’ 5
Brethren, let us have the truth. It may
not be my opinion, it may not be yours, but
what of that? Surely we are all more inter
ested in the truth, than we ar# concerned for
the notions of our brethren who lived a long
while ago, and who were influenced by the
strong traditions and superstitions of their
times. The everlasting truth of God, is con
tained in earthen vessels. Happy is he who
not only learns, but lives, the 'eternal princi
ples of the Kingdom of God!
“By the light burning heretics Christ’s bleed
ing feet, I track,
Toiling up new calvaries ever with the cross
that turns not back
And these mounts of anguish number how
each generation learned,
Since the first stood God conquored with his
face to heaven up turned.’1
zSwansea Centers, Mass. *
SELF-LIFTING NOT YET POSSIBLE.
No man can get higher than himself by de
pending upon himself alone.,And the man has
not yet lived who is or who ever could be in
this world, satisfied with himself at his best.
Yet some still preach the gospel of “ethi
cal culture," and urge that we offer to the
“other half," in city and neighborhood set
tlement work, the opportunity simply to do
their best, helping them to be clean and
thrifty, but rigorously keeping from them
any suggestion of religion or of a Christ
who is a Saviour. Such effort is like at
tempting to lift ourselves by our bootstraps.
The art of self-lifting has not yet been dis
covered. Men'want Someone who will life
them out of themselves. Christ is the only
one who enables men to do better than their
best.'—S. S. Times.