, 1879-06-01
THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE: SUNDAY JUNE
passage which is not. to be. found in the

passage which is not to be. found in the
Prophets.
Bat Jesus told the Jews to "scarch the
jews had no other literature; for "the Scrip
turesn to jew would include what Dr..
Lorimer and the mt pull put aslae,
thing He must tell them to read those books. /
No man OF sense will deny or doubt that there
is Id them. apart from all question OF special
inspiration, vast amount Of what is good, and
true, and grand, and Beautifully ind wise. and
profitable. There is enough to enjoy and ad-
tnlre without reading Of Dayid's amours, or q
drowning world, or God that makes Il world
md then is sorry for His blunder (Gcn. Vi, o.
or long genealoeies, or: pricsty ceremonies, or
doubtful history, or olo Jewish laws.
Indeed, let the student run over In mind the
literature OF the world then accessible to the
Jew, even to the educated jew. nnd what can be
lind that moral philosopher would commend
to his readers in preference to the best books OF
nf Jewsl srptHfss 81 Ha
lus, and Euripidcs, or OF Plato and Aristotle;
but OF those writings which could inGuence the
conduct OF life. OF SUCH writings, whether we
test them by the following judgments OF the
centuries, or By the 1acts OF she1r known resuts;
His opponents, not His disciples, to study.
Jesus often cited the Scriptures OF the Jews
against them as an argumentu,n I'D homiueu, a.
style of reasoning which never makes one re-
sponsible for His premises. SO IN John T., 10,
te assumes Tor His argument TIVE points with
III if. In John v. 80, He says, "Search the
Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal
life; and they are they which testify Of me-"
This direction is based on their opinion, and on
the fact that, in the prophets, goodness, and
wisdom, md m truth, all which He was, are shown
rs stricken and sorrowng, rejected and uespised,
slain aud rising again to triumph at last.
ur. LorimcT, then, has made huge assump-
tion about Jesus and the Old Testament and
some msstatcments' II Is not true that - ae a
without reserve has commended this book" he
does not constantly say that Moses wrote OF
Him u; the only times reported are in Luke
xiv, 81, and John ". 4G. He nowhere says
- that the entire Old Testament was tributary
to His history and elory.' H. does not - at
tribnte au names and symbols Of beauty to him
sel1.'' lie does not called himself s. Tie flower
of Jcsse,' for that expression is not in the New
Testament. Nowhere in the Gospels does he
cali himself the "root and offspring OF David,
came from the poetry Of the 4 posalypse (Gh
xxii.). and not from the Gospel history. Or.
I,orimer spoke OF himself as !" one delegated to
tell his hearers what is in the tBook Of God, !"
and stgire you a wise impression OF its scope
ssa and r. fas haS me sf done hat
0fty wears ago, I am disposed to turn upon him
md niyise hin to read it again, and learn to
quote it correctly and to reason fairly from It.
Another examination, especially II he can make
it without the prejudices, and prepossesstons'
and assumptions that now ritiate his reasonngs
and conclusions, may rid him Of his notion about
| giving ga Wise impression" " VI LIS p1eeen'
In conclusion, THAT does DR.. Lorimer mean
| by strejectfng the Bible"9 He says IL is fash
ionaole to reject the Mora o. Inc tord ont;s VINO 9
| named them the s'Holy Bible"2 By what Dl-
vine authority was this selection made! What
| il with Luther, dscredit the Book Of James:
What if, with the early: Church. I throw aside
Revelation and the seeoud Epistle OF Peter!
meyer names God or hints at any religion, as
no more entitled to o. Llace in this collection
than Tacitus' 'sGermania" or Hcrolotus
0Euterpe ~ In such ease, would Dr.. LorimcI
class me With those who "reject the Word o'
| 1 understand the Doctor to claim that the
| book must he taken as q whole, and with 6
faith that it is all inspired and free from error
| It is a great assumption to claim the unity Of
| the Bible, and the historic verify and mora
| Let us take similar case. Right at my hand
! are a series of volumes marked 81 sShakspeare's
Works" Now, it is conceded that there is ver1
little external evidence that Pericles is from
! other dramas. The same is true of ''Troilu:
! and Cressida.' II take IN hand my lac slmile
Of the first folio find it differs much from my
| Whites Shakespeare and other editions NOW
If / exercise criticism, throw out - Pericles
and s'Troi1us and Cressida,' y claim to DO able tt
recognize Shakspeare's; abundant borrowing!
or stcalings, md, furthermore, come to thu
opinion that with the beauties and subllmtttc:
Of these Yolumcs~ ~thetSs ~are mingled passa.e:
| unworthy OF such genius, puerllt.es, conce!ts
| extrayagauces,-if I SO do and think, DO re
icct the works OF, Shakspeare: II not, the1
does Colcnso, or Matthew Arnold, or Iheodor'
Parker reject the Bible2 The case Is parable
substantially.
Now, there are maryland the number IL In
| crcasing-who arc forced to say, from study o
the Bible, and not from neglect Of It, that tn
Old Testament is largely unh1stor1c2l; that 1t
inconsistent with itself in statements OF 1acts
10 plumbers, in things great and small; that i i
md wholly unchristian;. that its prophet
| erred, and its psalmists cursed thet
enemies; that even ID the New Testament ther
are doubtful passages and books With all tn
they are ready to say that no books ever GATH
cred In one volume before or since have so trul
shown the mind Of God and the character Q
God; that the Lord Christ draws their lore
no other that ever wore the human form; thu
ain Him is life, and the life is the light c
men''; and that the books that have born
along the ages the good news OF God are worth
of better treatment than either professed friend
or ayowcd enemies have given them, and OF a
honor that can be given to book, while Te +.
member that ssthe letter kilicth, but the spir
| riyeth life." So thinking, are we to DC told Q
| the clergy that we reject the Word Of the Lord
- ~ '''~ "o'' SMITH WILDWOOD.
CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPT
| URE.
| GAN ARGUMENT FOUNDED UPON sruR1ou