, 1879-06-01

ways, aud is proud of the memories common to
all of us whatever our faith may be. He does
not go abroad for models OF sanctity. He likes
the Euglish type OF Catholic. better than anyI
other. Hc loves that "dear mother tongue =" OF
which be is q master. The Professionalism Of
England cannot obliterate IN his eyes her vir-
tues and basis of solid worth; and in the middle
of q denuuciation OF THE holowness OF English
society he bears testimony to the elements OF
goodness and truth therein. A country to which
his admiration often turns can scarcely be IN
the bad way in which, speaking as theoloCian,
he represents it.
IS REJ TEE B1BLE.7
DR.. LoRlMER's LAST SERMON CRITICISED. :
To ths Editor Of The Tribune.
CHICAGO, May 30.-Col. Ingersoll has stirred
up many Of the clergy Of this&city to new dis
cussion of the value Of the Bible and Of its
"eyidcnces." This is good thing, even though
many foolish things be said on both sides, or
rather, on all the many SIDES qf!'the discussion.
Unbclicf Of current views hasits difficulties, as
we'll as the belief OF them; but VIC that hear and
read: are entitled to ask Of both Colonel and
clergy fairness of statement and good logic.
One great trouble is that certain assumptions
are made-not definitely stated, but quietly and
perhaps unconsciously made-whl:h have I'M
portant bearing upon the arguments; but an
QDUCutuk uluf 1u4A AAV HAoi2 9tA eAN<eAS ~ -
sermon or lecture by showing that the assump-
ton is false. Dealing with Col. 1ngersoll, l.
should deny that he gives fair Interpretation
of the passages he quoted; that is, be does not
give such meaning as literary man Or scho9ar
would give who should be utterly Indifferent to
the religious or theological bearings OF the
meaning. Col. 1ngersoll may answer TINT he
takes the orthodox interpretations. l answer,
all the worse for him; what fairness Is there In
his taking famous and possibly valuable
book, giving certain clique OF men whom be
deems narrow-minded and prcjudiced the sole
Interpretation OF it, and then ridiculng the book
and all that esteem ltf j..
As to the clergy. We cannot expect fairness
from them as class They are In an unfor-
tunate position, for which pity them. When
the Ker. Dr.. Goodwin spends his Sunday even
ings in a course Of lectures to tell - Why Be-
lieyc the Bible" skates fast over thin ice, de-
molishcs triaing objection with great triumph
shakes It's mangled relics before his audi ence,
and tells us it is all very plain, We know that he
doesn't ssbelicvc the Bible" because he has ever
examined its evidences with any possibility OF 4
doubt skirmishing around anywhere near him,
but because hls parents 1angns BIN ST. can
como to that position which is necessary 1or
fair and candid examination without q greater
struggle with prcposscsslons ann pre1uo!ces
than most men show themselves capabie OF. Anu
the Rev. Augustus Blauvelt, in articles In Serto-
z1er some three or four years ago, showed us
that the clergy have neither the position, nor
the learning, nor the logical power to deal With
the questions that now confront them 1nger-
soil says he wants to set them free; bnt they
have not yet themselves wished to De Tree, mu@1
less to strike a blow for freedom.
Now. DR.. Lorimer, IN sermon, OF which q
pretty full sketch is given in Monday TRIBUNE,
talks to us Of the & Difficulties of unbelicf,"
and says "we have fallen upon times when It Is Is
fashionable to reject the Word Of the Lord" Il
this is the net result of free Gospel
in a free land, and Of the kind 81
preaching and representation Of that Gospel
that We have had hitherto, isn't 1t
time to change the style} WI not more rea. T.
is worth trying. Prof. Swing, DR.. Thomas, Mr.
Peeke. all Of them Of the orthodox clergy, are
trfing it, with good results. don't "9nue1
that 8 preacher who eau suppose that the Etcl-
nal God makes it matter of importance that q
| believer shall be ducked under water in Joining
| the church, though the convert should never
| take q bath again,-I don't wonder that man
looking through SO small q chink as that SHOULD
| be concerned about the acceptance o1 the WORD
| OF the Lord.
But what does be mean by the Word Of the
Lorda Bis answer is, 1.-The Bible" All! the
| Reverend Doctor says the Bible IS not reao u
these days By the skeptics: find the church
members nsw very BSesssoa OF t. for the s
and ali Christians. Take the Bible
in IN hand and examine all the passage:
in which the phrase Word Of the Lord oc
curs-uineteen times If my Concordance is right
n New. w. Examine, also, the parallel phrase
!. Word OF Cod" which is FIVE times in the Ole
| Testament and forty times in the New. In no"
| many Of these places does it mean books II
| how many of them can we even venture 10 sa!
| that it may or can mean book! Possibly, in !:
| Jew instances; probably, in not one! II there i
single instance in which candor may seem t.
REQUIRE that reference to book DC allowed, IL i
in Mark vii, 49, where the Jewish law 1s referret
to; Jet it seems to me that the splllt ol Tue la
| rather than the book Of the law IS meant, ever
there. As Christian-for claim that name
| in iii company-I protest against the biasphem]
of calling any book, or any collection OF books
| u the Word OF God" when the Bible Itself al
most always uses that term Tor the 1nsplr2tlol
of God, for what theologlans style the Ho!,
Shirt: or else for the word that is set forth IL
| tie first chapter OF John, that word that flight
eth every mau that comeIh into the world.
DR., Lorimer docs not use language according tt
| his own standard and, contrary to all reason
assnmes. knowing that his unrenectiye hearer
would agree with him, that this Protestant col
lection Of sxty-sx books, to which Catholics adt
nine more and some fragments, Is the word Q
God. But the true Word OF God Is too great
words and bound to any book or books; AM
men are only beginning TO read little OF It vet
This assumption of Dr.. Lorimeris not warrante
bY the Bible itself, nor BY reason; yet he COOL
takes text from Jeremiah, asslghes falls
meaning to it, and then applies it to suit bis COZ
| clusions.
Another assumption that he makes is in wha
be saws about Jesus and his estimate of tn
Book. He says that Jesus acknowledges tn
inspiration of the Scriptures.' Now, it is rer
noteworthy that Jesus does no such thing. Il
never uses uses anything like it with refcrenc
to any Of the Old Testament books; and thos
Of the Now were, OF course, not then writer
Jesus frequently quotes from the Old Tests
mant, in all about sixty times; the nutnb:r {
references seems greater in reading the fou
GOSPELS, because Of the repctitions. But Mar
ascribes TO Jesus but one citation which is nc
already in Matthew; Luke, seven not !
Matthew; John gives eleven, not one Of Whic
is given previously.
Now, il we analyze these quotations ne fin
that Jesus cites the Mosaic law several times
disannrove it rs insufficient and erroneous, or
| say that Moses allowed this because Of Il
hardness of heart Of the people. We find th'
he cites the passage about loving God and tt
neiohbor, and some rules Of pratical life, to a
nroye them. He constantly discredited the le