The Chr1
IN ESSENTIALS—UNITY, IN NON-ESSENTIALS—LIBERTY, IN ALL THINGS—CHARITY.
ESTABLISHED 1844.
GREENSEORO, N. 0., WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1907.
VOLUME LIX. NUMBER 48.
T
r
All communications, whether for publica
tion or pertaining to matters o» business,
should be sent to the Editor, J. 0. Atkinson,
Elon College; N. C.
EDITORIAL COMMENT.
Profanity, Morality, Psychology.
) There is not a divine law laid down in the
Bible which is not justified by every logical
and psychological law known to man. Fact
is the word law as written by Moses was
fundamental, and every discovery of phil
osophy and science since that day has only
exemplified and established those basic prin
ciples for man’s good government pro
claimed bv that matchless and marvelous
law giver.
When it was written, “Thou shall not
swear,” a word was then spoken, yea even
the best and final word, for language, human
speech, and moral utterance.
Dr. Lounsbury, the noted Yale Unisersity
Professor of English discusses in a recent
magazine article, Profanity and Swearing,
in which this declaration is made: “To a
very great extent the practice of swearing is
specially characteristic of a rude and im
perfect civilization. WTith the advance of cul
ture profanity declines. It declines not sc
much because men become peculiarly sensi
tive to its viciousness, but they do to its in
effectiveness. ” Profanity will decrease, does
decrease, as culture and civilization advance
The man who swears admits, psychologi
cally, his ineffectualness, his mental weak
ness and inability to express himself clearly
forcefully and effectually, Profanity is al
ways an admitted weakness.
In Due Course.
Good is a tree of many branches. Its limbs
reach in many directions and its fruits aw
sc ttered far and wide.
When Queen Victoria of England died it
1901 the press proclaimed that the good and
pious sovereign of English royalty had been
gathered to her fathers and England would
not see her kind again in many a reign. She
was “the good mother Queen” and not onlj
her empire but the world were better for hei
having lived in it. It would have been remark
able indeed had not such a life produced its
telling effeet upon those about her. It was
not believed that Edward would prove wor
thy of his most noble mother and predecessor
Yet Lord Rosebery in an eloquent and patri
otic address recently said that the Englisl
people had in the present king a sovereign
who had rendered enormous service to his
country and, indeed, to the cause of peacs
all over the world; and thus, in due course
Edward the Pacificator had followed Victo
ria the good.
This good is manifold and finds expressior
in various and sundry forms and fashions
The good Queen’s life had not been in vair
had it only found expression in one who has
done so much to allay war and promote peacs
as has King Edward VII.
Holiness and The Stage—
An attempt is being made to dramatize
Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress and put it or
the stage. Who knows but that we shall nexl
here of. an attempt to stage the Sermon on
the Mount or dramatize the Lord’s Prayer
For in very truth the latter would be little
more difficult, if any, than the former.
There ar&some things too large and powerful
and momentous to be put to play. Pilgrim’s
Progress/ is one of them. Froude was not ex
aggerating when he described Bunyan’s mas
ter piece as illustrating ‘ * the effort of. a sin
gle soul after holiness. ’ ’
Now holiness is as much out of place on
the stage as pearls are in a pigsty. An ed
itorial writer in the New York Sun gets at
the matter in saying of Pilgrim’s Progress,
“Quaint, simple, racy, imaginative allegorj
that it is, ever more it is the first great En
glish novel and also one of the most authen
tic tracts in religious literature, and this at
tempt to put it upon the stage chiefly sug
gests the lack of taste and the poverty of
creative imagination in the men who make
and manage our plays. ’ ’
This is of course an attempt to make the
stage moral and the theater religious. The
outcome is illegitimate and the offspring a
mongrel tribe.
*A DESTRUCTIVE CRITIC OF 2907.
(To the Reader of 1907.
Dear Brother: Although interested in the
able writings of the higher critics of 1907,
especially in their assumption of having dis
covered something valuable, as if the ‘‘his
torical method” were new in studying the
Bible, I confess I became somewhat drowsy
under their monotonous efforts to make the
sacred writings seem to abound in misstate
ments. But 1 gradually absorbed their
genius and spirit, and seemed to become a
destructive critic, though calling myself a
higher critic.
While in this state of mind, sleepy though
I was, I seemed to live rapidly through the
centuries, century after century, until 1
found myself moving among scholars who
dated their letters with the numerals, 2, 9, 0,
7.
On seeming to be roused from a semi-con
sciousness, and supposing that, a thousand
years had passed from the time I fell asleep
under the dreary chanting about the mistakes
of the Bible, I seemed to be walking among
the fancied alcoves of my library, no|v in
creased by the additions of a thousand Jears,
and coming across the following correspond
ence I give you the letters, believing twt it
may .be interesting to the reader to observe
how the reasoning of the future destrujtive
critic (writing in 2907 of our times im the
spirit in which the destructive critic of j.907
writes of Bible times) will make the condi
tions of our generation to appear.
If we of the year 1907 know something of
the conclusions of the learned gentlemans of
2907 to be false, whose letters 1 now revgal,
or if his modes of reasoning are absurd, of if
he lays stress on insufficient data in his logic,
or, especially, if he is ludicrously givenilto
•denying the statements of eye-witnesses sto
the facts which we of our time know tMM
true, these faults must not be attributed ;t®
me; for 1 copy the letters and. publishthtm
exactly as 1 found them a thousand years
before they were written.
J. J. Summerbell.)
Dayton, Ohio.
SIXTEENTH LETTER.
Kinkade, New Zealand, 29, 2, 290aS.
My Dear Grandson,
Your letter, inquiring concerning condi
tions in Egypt, Judea and Babylon 3,500
years ago or more, was received; and at first
I was disposed to give none of my valuable
time to it: for I only agreed, in the begin
ning, to, describe the conditions of Europe
and America in 1907, a thousand years ago.
I felt this way, partly because you seem to
have special respect to the prophecy of Jer
emiah (46:28): “Fear not thou, 0 Jacob
my servant, saith the Lord; for I am with
thee: for I will make a full end of all the
nations’ whither I have driven thee, but I
will not make a full end of thee; but I will
correct thee with judgment,” &e.
You say this prophecy is so peculiar in its
nature, so descriptive of the (then) future
history of the Jews, and so accurate as to
the fate of the nations and governments
whither the Jews were carried away captive,
, that the reasonable explanation of the passage
is, to give full credit to the claim of Jere
miah; that “the Lord” said it. Who else
could look thousands of years into the fu
ture, and say what nations would survive,
and what nations would perish, and have the
prediction fulfilled, as now we know it has
been? You say that the Jews were persecut
ed and dowmtrodden in all lands, and many
efforts were made to exterminate them. Gov
erments were against them, social influences
were against them, business prejudices were
against them, and absolutely all worldly
forces. And yet a “full end” was not made
of them, although the nations that afflicted
them perished. You say that this shows
that it must have been the Lord that told
Jeremiah, for no human being could have
made such a wonderful and peculiar predic
tion, with any hope of its being fulfilled.
And then you become still more exasperat
ing, and ask me to explain the prophecy of
Jeremiah (50:12-13) against Babylon: “ Be
hold,she shall be the hindermost of the na
tions, a wilderness, a dry land, and a desert.
Because of the wrath of the Lord it shall
not be inhabited, but it shall be wholly de
solate,” &c.
You say that Babylon was then one of the
strongest nations and greatest cities of the
world (when the prophecy was made), but
that now that country is “a desert,” ‘ ’a dry
land,” much of it even sandy, and “deso
late,” as the prophet said it would become.
You tell me that scientific men are digging
in the mounds of the desert, in the country
somewhere in which Babylon is supposed to
have stood, and they form theories against
the theories of each other as to the definite
site of that great city; so uncertain is it
where Babylon actually stood, which was
then the greatest city of the world, and situ
ated in the most fertile country in the world
when Jeremiah wrote his prophecy.
I regret exceedingly that you wrote such a
letter. It shows that you have, lingering in
your heart, some of that prevailing supersti
tion, that worshipful tendency, that religious
element of human nature, which attributes
mysterious, rare, or remarkable occurrences
to divine egency. Unless that can be rooted
out of humanity (but I fear it cannot be,
because all races and ages have it), we will
never come under the dominion of “pure
reason. ’ ’ I advise you, my grandson, to
abandon all superstitions.
With the great Dr. Lyman Abbott, who liv
ed one thousand years ago, I believe in the
“Immanence of oGd,” that he resides every
where (having no special home anywhere).
But I am susperstitions enough to believe
that he meddles with the affairs of men or
nations. He made the great machine, the
universe, perfect in the beginning (“very
good,” as one said), and never, since that
time has done anything. He puts no oil on
the pivots* he adds no fuel to the fire, he
'Sttppliea «»-wwfceg-to~tji» b«il«p, h» fmuntsfafts
no raw material to the machinery. He is jurtk
Immanent. He is a great Bondman, an in
finite Slave to his own past. He cannot
stir, for he is so great that he might dis
arrange the machinery. He cannot express
lis views, for that would be making a revela
cion. It would reveal his will. He cannqt
tell what he intends to do, for that would
e making prophecy. Besides, he does not
ntenod to do anything. He is just Imman
3lit. The machine creaks; but he does not
tuin to look. There is suffering; but he can
not alleviate it: for that would be a miracle.
The machine grinds on crushing the hearts
>f men, baffling high hopes, fouling sweet
waters, tearing heavenly aspirations to
pieces; just an everlasting, infinite grind:
and God sits there, immanent. He does not
stir, he does not look, he does not speak.
The dog may hear his master’s voice, even
in the graphophone; but my Immanent God
cannot make his child hear, though the
child cries to him insolemn prayer. The
human king may reward his faithful officer
by some visible token of his approval; but
my Immanent (higher critic’s) God cannot
express his appreciation of service at any
time when such appreciation would be help
ful. The human father may warn his son;
but my God cannot, though he is gloriously
Immanent (with a capital letter). The
schoolmaster may instruct His pupil; but the
God I worship cannot impart any special
lesson to the ignorant children that come
into this world without any will of their own;
and, at first, without intelligence and exper
ience. My Immanent God sits quietly by while
the tremendous forces he set at work in the
beginning (which was also the end of his
activity) torture and grind these children
because of the mistakes they make. The hen
may run to the call of her chick; but my
God cannot move toward the weak. The
human mother, in the darkness of the night,
can hear the cry of her frightened child, and
hurrying to its couch she can soothe it again
to sleep; but my Immanent God sits by the
bedside immovable and unfeeling. He cannot
pity, or be angry, or love: for such emotions
might make him move. Even the judge in a
human court, an embodiment of cold law
and abstract justice, can modify a sentence,
or sometimes suspend it; having a heart sus
ceptible to influences of mercy. But my Im
manent God is deaf to the cry of a penitent
sinner; he is blind to the undeserved suffer
ings of a noble Christian. He is like the
?°ds spoken of by one of the two Isaiahs
(whom we higher critics discovered); having
eyes these gods see not; having ears, they hear
not; neither speak they through their throats.
(It was impudent for Isaiah thus to describe
the Immanent od Gof of the higher critic. His
purpose was not to make those gods glori
ous). My God is glorious, just because he
is Immanent. He has not spoken, or looked,
or moved, since the beginning. The poor,
tried, tempted human soul groping in deep
spiritual darkness, and seeking some lamp
for his feet and some light for his path, must
go on with staggering steps toward the prec
ipice of ruin, because my Immanent God has
inspired no prophet to impart to his fellow
men a body of commandments; even as ma
ny as “ten.” That would be inspiration;
that would be a miracle. My Immanent God
knows the hearts and souls of his creatures
throughout the ages bewildered and misled
by fascinating temptation, then crushed and
ground by the logical and natural effects of
sin; and he stretches forth no hand to save
them: for that would be a miracle, however
he might do it. But my higher critic’s God
is too great to work a miracle: he is glorious
in being Immanent.
I trust, my grandson, you now understand
that all the signs in creation you see of care
and tenderness and providence are not to be
interpreted as bearing on the subject of rev
elation or prophecy. The universe is only a
big machine; it has no heart to it.
But Jeremiah! Oh, yes: I forgot to ex
plain Jeremiah.
Well, I would gladly assert that his pre
dictions were written after the events fore
told; but that would hardly work, since Hte
%d with judgments ’ thousands years
after the prediction. And I will explain the
prophecy in this way:—Jeremiah must have
been a wonderfully intellectual and wise
person, to see so far into the future. I do
not admit that God told him that predic
tion about the Jews and the nations whither
they were carried, nor anything about Bab
ylon. But Jeremiah himself had such
great mental powers that he saw through
thousands of years the operation of causes
and their natural effects; that was all. It
was Jeremiah; not the Lord. But still I
think Jeremiah foolish and stupid enough
(since no one doubts his honesty) to be de
ceived into thinking that the Lord told him
things: but the Lord does not tell anybody
anything.
If the Lord had given anybody knowledge
>f the future, he would have made me a
prophet; but he has not done that! For the
last time I went to the post-office, I did not
take my wireless along (intending to walk
both ways), thinking it would not rail# but
I got drenched to the skin. Therefore I do
not think he has given anybody any reliable
knowledge of the future.
Your affectionate grandfather,
Higher Critic.
BUSINESS AND PIETY.
There is no necessary connection between de
votion to business and forgetfulness of God.
Attention to secular affairs will not make a
man irreligious if his heart is where it ought
to be. But if one’s religion is only a Weneer,
these secularities will soon tear it oft. They
will soon reveal whether the religion is genu
ine or a mere pretense. One may be self-de
ceived as to the sincerity of one’s profession
but if one’s piety will stand the test of mod'
ern business methods and activities it is a
strong argument in favor of its genuineness.
It is hard to go through the vexations
which are so closely associated with the in
dustrial life of today without having the keen
edge of religion dulled. The man of\business
should be a man of prayer. Samson may have
to grind corn; but he can grind and gain
strength, and though his eyes be sightless,
he can lift them toward heaven and throw his
strength against the pillars of evil and make
them crumble.—United Presbyterian.