The Van Buren press., 1877-07-17
EDITOR VAN buren, Press

an article entitled "Miller and Blauvelt,"
in which some grounds. were taken that
apper to me to be entirely untenable.
The article itself is q short review of the |
suspension of DR.. Blauvelt from the min
stry in the Reformed Church and com
ments thereon. The writer (and l shall
in this way refer to the author OF the
article says that the heresy of DR.. B.
consisted in denying the inspiration Of
certain books of the Old Testament and
in violating some rules or church ordi
nances." ellis punishment was suspen-
sion from the ministry and a denuncia-
ton that he had betrayed the cause of
Christ to His enemies" SO the Syn
cd pronounced DR.. b. a traitor to the
Christian Religion and an enemy of
Christ because he did not continue to be-
lieve that the Standards of the Reform.
ed Church agree with the word of God,
and that hostility to them is hostility to
the truth as it is in Jesus
Upon this the writer remarks, we
do not know what books of the Old Tes-
lament he insists are not inspired, but
we do know that he is not alone in the
belief that some OF the present collection
are not to be deemed inspired. Prior
to the translation we now have, many
other books now omitted formed part
of the Christian Bible"
do not know what books of the Old
Testament the writer alludes to, but |
have carefully consulted Dr. Smiths BIZ
bic Dictionary, a widely circulated work,
and DR.. Hitchcock "Analytical Bible"
also widely kdown, and find that the
authenticity of the present books of the
Old Testament was generally received
by the Jews in the time of Ezra, some
hundreds of years before Christ, and the
authenticity of the present books of the
New Testament was affirmed by the
third council of Carthage A. d. 397. 1t
is true that among the avowed enemies
of Christianity there may be found men
who doubt not only the authenticity Of
one or two books, but of all, but | am
not aware that there exists any wide
spread doubt of the authenticity of any
book in our present version. 1t is true
also that good many (more than hun
dred) histories, gospels and epistles pur-
porting to be inspired have been written,
but their spuriousness was generally re-
ceivcd prorto the date last mentioned
SO that for a period Of more than four
teen hundred years the present version
in all its books has been regarded by
Christians generally as dvinely inspired!
Whether indeed it was better to de-
nounce DR.. B. AS traitor to the Chris
tan religion (and | am not defending
the Reformed Church except in this,
that she has exercised a right given to
church, or to let his suspension, together
with the grounds Of it, be a sufficient
charge do not pretend to say, but such
additional denuncation. if made, should
be without wrath or malice.
Paul says Git -3-lo&lD GA man
that is a hereto after the first and second
admonition, reject, knowing that he that
is much is subverted and sinneth, being
condemned Of himself"
1t is manifest then that such a grave
charge as horesy may be correctly made.
Establish this charge, and Protestant
Churches would only apply it to the
fundamental doctrines, and the right and
duty of a church, first, to admonish for
the purpose OF retaining, and then to
reject such members, is as plain as cords
can make it.
The writer further says, "but that
church and no other church organization
can safely set up its dogmas as the only
true ones or pronounce them absolutely
true at all" "In certain essential doc
trines, we believe all denominations of
Christians agree"
The writer does not mean, presume,
that each different church claims that its
organization and rules of order are abso-
lutely given by divine wisdom as the
law of Moses were, in point of fact he
knows, l think, that the most do not
it must be then that he means that it is
these essential" doctrines that they
hold in common that they declare are
absolutely" and unqualifdly true; 9TH
erwise he would only be setting up a
man of straw to knock down. Protes-
tant denominations regard the Bible as
an infallible rule ofiaith and conduct q alb
solutely" true.
Believing this, then, have they no
right to pronounce infallibly, absolutely
true those common essential doctrines
plainly Expressed or as plainly inferred 2
Surely the negative of the question
would not be logical conclusion The
language of Scripture in these common
essential points is too plain to be mis-