The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1912-01-17
Who are Exempt
from Obedience to
the Commandments :

Some time ago we commented severely
upon Senator E. D. Smiths recent speech
at Abbeville, because we were taught by
the Press and Banner that the, remarks
| were so full Of irreverence as to be indeed
profanity. The same paper now makes
similar accusations against the Rev. DR.
Cody's remarks in the pulpit. We repro.
duce these latter In order to show no par
tiality against Senator Smith, and because
we realize that DR.. Cody will not be injured
thereby.-Anderson Mail.
The remarks about DR.. Cody's speech at
the dedication of the /Abbeville Baptist
church were not intended to injure him,
but to do him good. 1t was merely pro-
test at what we regarded as irreverence,
or as the useless or vain repetition of the
Name which we are forbidden to take in
"vain." The English language is suffi-
GENTLY comprehensive to furnish words
that would enable the cultured and tai
ented speaker to express every human
thought. It abounds in synonyms and
pronouns, any one of which may be used
without the risk of mourning the divine
displeasure, or mourning the penalty which
attaches to the vain repetition Of His
name.
We did not seek to injure DR.. Cody. We
are informed that he was largely instru-
mental in securing material aid in the
building Of our magnificent temple. The
people Of Abbeville have reason to be very
thankful to him. If we had known Of his
labors in our behalf we should have made
mention Of his good work, and should
have rendered to him profound and hearty
thanks. ...., t..
But as to the seeming disregard Of the
Third Commandment: .. ..
''Thou shalt not take the name OF the
Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will
not hold him guiltless that taketh his
name in yain." . -
To whom were these words spoken?
We're they spoken to graceless scamps in
the market places; or were they directed
Sto vulgarians on the street; or were they
addressed to rapscallions on the highway?
No; they we're addressed to neither of
these, but to Moses, the religious leader Of
the Lords own chosen: people. Why
] should religious people Of today use the
Lords name as play thing? Should it
be so common as to be q meaningless
nothing. - ....I
Who, today, disregards the Second Com
mandment? Is it the Jew? Or Is it the
Christian? Where is the respectable Jew
who ever called the Lords name one hun
dred and twenty times, or fifty times, or
i three times In one half hour? Will any of
those Christians who speak the Name as
freely as they would call the name Of Jim
Johnson or John Jones, be kind enought to
tell US where they get their authority to
do that which the best Of US are forbidden
to do?, How do they expect to escape the
divine displeasure for 30 plain disregard
of the commandment Where has the
command OF the old testament been abro-
gated or changed to meet latter day con-
ditions?
"Thou shalt not take the name Of the
Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will
not hold him guiltless that taketh his
name In vain" "..'
Our own testimony would be, that, ex-
cept among the clergy, we hear very few
"vain" repetitions Of the name. Viola
tions of the Third Commandment are
few, except among the clergy. The laity,
as a rule, are not profane. Instances Of
profanity on the part of laymen are rare.
1t is pleasure to note that talented and
cultured clergymen are generally rever-
entail.
An anonymous friend kindly sends US
an extract from the Spartanburg Journal.
That paper seems to think that it is per-
fectly legitimate to call the Name, when
talking seriously"
"for the Lord thy God ain jealous God,
visiting the iniquity Of the fathers upon
the children unto the third and fourth
generation Of them that hate me, and
shAwing mercy unto thousands OF them
that love me and keep my command
mentS." -.
'Thou shalt not take the name OF the
Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not
hold him guiltless thatJtaketh his name in
tain."
Besides religious people who make free
use Of the Name, there are others. Would
you punish one man, and let the other go
free?
If it is wrong for Senator Smith, or any
other layman, to make irreverent use Of
the holy Name how can religious men ex-
pect to be excused for desecrating the holy
temple by many vain" repretitions Of the
sacred Name.
The Anderson Mail of later date con-
tains note from lady whose name we
have forgotten. We would publish her
letter but have lost the paper containing
1t.
She thinks Mr.. wilkins and DR.. Cody
were entirely reverential, but she neg
lected to give her opinion of Mr.. Bristow's
PRAYERS of invocation" and dedication" ;"
From our view point both prayers were as
reverential as the human heart and the
English language could make.
That those of US who are ignorant may
be informed, we challenge DR.. Cody, and
his apologists, to show scriptural authori-
tv wherein he has q right to make even
fifty vain" repetitions OF the Holy Name
in one half hour. AS rule, gentlemen on
the street are reverential. Why should
not the same rule apply to preachers and
'"