The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-10-05
Information for Mr. Nelson,

10 The independents:
] myself find no difficulty in the facts
about John VIII, I'll. which Mr.. A.
d.. Nelson imagines ought to trouble me.
That this passage is absent from the oldest
manuscripts Of the fourth gospel il no
proof that it is "unhistorioaI." It was pro.
badly lnterpolated from one of the many
primitive gospels, now lost, which were
mo 9 historical than the evangelical records
which we possess. The fact that it was
added to the text of this gospel at 30 late a
date Is conclusive proof that this writing
was not then considered an 'infallible
revelation," for if it had been, no one
would have dared to have made such an
addition; or if made. it would not have
been accepted. 1t was to illustrate this we'll
known fact that the gospels were long used
simply as literary documents without any
peculiar sanctity,-it was for this purpose
that Mr.. Nelson must have heard me refer
to this matter at some former time. Its
Interpolation at a late date does not prove
the passage untrue. but it does prove that
Christians then had no such SUI erstitious
views respecting the infallibility of this
writing as afterwa de took possession OF tho
church.
Moreover. if this wero the only passage
free from the idea of q sAnrificial atone
ment, tue case would be- different; but in
this respect 1t Ia in l. imony with the
gospels ia general. though Jesus turned
his attention especially to sinners, ii is no
where related that he said anything more
to them than to this fallen woman. Heno-
where asked anything more thar repent
hncf; he nowhere promised q sinner escape
from punishrnens. provided the slime: be.
lieve in the merits OF his blood.
MT. Nelson wishes very much that I had
pald some attention to anothe passage in
the Fourth Gospsl-John iv. 6-26. Let US
consider 1t TO a moments: Does it contain
any hsse ton of Jesus deity or any refer
onee to the n cessity OF belief in mis- blood?
lhese things. on the contrary, n.e evident:
a. Jesus there dsscribes the nature OF
trus Worship, but he rot only fails to ask
worship of himself hs God. lie uses Ian
Guo2e which shows that such a thought
could not have been in his mind. He i'm
plies the clea est distinction between him
self and God. GU There is no reference
Whatever 10 his death or to tho necessity
OF belief in him in anyway whatever, 81
The fact that the woman called him
the Messiah. and that Jesus accepted
the term rs applicable to himself.
carries with it DO i'm plication OF Goahood.
Tor the people at that time had no Thought
That the messiah would be more than
human. The IDEA of Il being such az
christians describe by the term 'God.map''
10 wholly un~-Jewish, while the messiah in
nowhere SO represented In the old tesla
ment. 90 The declaration of the woman
places JesnE no higher than the plane OF
humanity. Come see "a man" that told
me all things that ever | did. If ghs had
saio: Com see the second person of the
trinity Mr.. Nelson would have had good
reason Tor calling my attention to this pas
sage. But 1t seems that the Almighty left
out all such terms aud phrases from this
revelation. J. n Cpoov.n
Helena, Oct. 4.