The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1873-05-10
Why Did He Not Stick To His Text

DuII D lcCtuIeS, uelIVeleU III ouI Hluo.'
have called forth. Last week we noticed
an article in The Whig headed "Stick to
the text" Surprising it to be the result of
careful Bible reading, and good orthodox
Interpretation of Scripture, we began its
perusal with pleasure, expecting sound
scriptural defense of Mr.. Burr's theory.
We must confess, after reading the article,
that there is scarcely a tenable position
taken in it; that false premises and wrong
conclusions make up almost the entire let
ter. The writer first proceeds to show that
notwithstanding the remote antiquity at
which Moses wrote the four books, and the
mystery involving the subject, these books
must be implicitly relied on. We quite
agree with him here. We take exception,
however, to his statement that the first
the world knew of the writings Of Moses,
was after Ptolemy Philadelphus had the
scriptures translated into Greek. So far
from being unknown, the Hebrew Scrip
lures were, to educated men, we'll known
and duly appreciated; and for this reason
Ptolemy had them translated and placed in
his select library, knowing that their repu-
tation among learned men would bring
them readers Ancient authorities may be
cited which contain traditions of the crea-
ton derived from the Hebrew Scriptures.
The writer has called the Bible on the
stand as witness, but before its evidence
is given in, he attempts to impeach the
testimony of the word; in other words he
wishes to prove that the text of the Bible
has been so corrupted since the original
was written that its testimony is Of no
account, or at least, must be received with
the utmost caution. How inconsistent to
impeach the testimony of the witness on
whom he relies for proof. Our friend is
here dashed to pieces upon the same rock,
on which-like Bible attacks (far more
potent than his feeble effort, have split.
Let US follow him. He quotes from John,
1st Epistle, End Chapter, list verse, there
is no end Chapter, 2nd Epistle, as he says
"There are many anti Christs in the
world, from which, he says, eve may
infer these were corrupters of the WORD" y
Now, we may infer nothing of the kind,
for the most learned Interpreters of the
word in all ages have agreed that anti
Christ, here means, one who represented
himself to be Christ, or great adversary
of Christ, and not at all corrupter of the
text of the word The whole context will
admit of no other Interpretation. Con-
suit Mat. "a, ). Next he alludes to the
time when "the religion of Christ passed
into the hands Of Romish or Pagan priests"
"Was there says he, "no fear of cor
ruption hereo" Let US consult facts. If
the Scriptures were corrupted wholesale by
these Pagan priests, would it not appear
miraculous if all should have corrupted
them alike, and that the copies after COM
ing out of their hands were found 10 agree
with each other entirely, and with our
Bible at the same time? Certainly it
would. Yet we have from the best author
tiles now extant, English, American and
German, (see Hodge, Schaff, Kennicot,
DeRossi, Mill, Wetstein, Mathai, Cries
| back, &c, y that the Bible has never been
corrupted in any important particular, or
passage; and that all the old Hebrew man
uscripts now possessed, agree with each
other, and with our Bible to such an extent
that the idea of any serious change is
absurd. But this would-be friend of
science, mo true friend of it ever attempt
ed to impeach the authority of scripture, }
next attacks the character of the Apostle
Paul, and giving a false Interpretation to
the words of Paul, 81 am all things &c
says, "if Paul was not too pure, these
priests certainly were not" The writer
must be lacking in Scripture knowledge,
| or hard driven for an argument, or he
u -ouid not make such charge. Now the
,vr, ~. il he has proved anything, has
,,roved TOO much; for if the Bible has been
so terribly corrupted, how do we know
that nnu of ii is to be relied on? The
writer has b. ought himself into an
awkward dilemma. He must own that the
Bible is to be implicit " relied on, 4. e. true,
or it is untrue. Now il he says it is true,
why try to prove untrue W hat he admits to
be trueo If it is untrue, wat deiudsd
beings our learned men must be, and what
silly people he must imagine the rea Hers OF
The Wig to be, if they are to believe an
Interpretation founded on scripture which
is not to be relied on. How our friend will
extricate himself from this dilemma is
| more than we can tell. Let us attend next
to his Interpretation. Quoting Gen. /, 26,
he has the pronoun /" them" referring to
Adams creation especially emphasized,
! because he wishes to prove that, because
this plural is used, many were created,
and created before Adams creation. II
we turn to Chapter 5, end verse, we find
the same language used of Adam and Eve
after the fall. If it means "many" in
one case, it must in the other; but we know
that but two are referred to in Chapter 3
Here the writer has made a blunder; but
this blunder is all due to the greater one
that he makes in his next observation, fol-
He Soes oh W say ioo'ihS nun thaptei
end, "and there was not a man to till the
ground, &C." and "God formed man, &c.
in other words the writer would assert that
Chapter end tells of creation of man.
different from that in Chapter 1st. Now
here the writer reveals most lamentablt
ignorance of the Bible, for the most learn
ed Bible scholars of America and Europe
and all authorities on the subject, agre,
that the first Chapter of Genesis is gen
eral account of that display of omnpoten
power and wisdom, called the creation
wherein by few mastery strokes of til,
inspired pen, Moses drew Il complete pic
ture of the formation of all things, includ