1900
Rev. Dr. John Balcom Shaw considering the conditions of a revival and its power in the Homiletic Review, adds these suggestive words: "The curse of the church today, particularly in this city, is respectability and exclusiveness. We are dying of dignity. Conventionality is crushing out our very life. How the free, glad, uplifting influence of Him who 'worketh when, and where, and how he will,' would change all this! It would take all the ministers of our churches, if working unitedly, a century to overtake this tendency and another century to overcome it. The Holy Ghost could do it in a week."
—The Ram's Horn, March 17, 1900, p. 17
Showing posts with label criticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label criticism. Show all posts
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Friday, April 11, 2008
An Afternoon With Dowie
1900
Among the great volume of mail which comes to us on the subject of the Dowie exposure, we have received the following communication, Which was written several months ago by Rev. Wm. Ashmore after he had made a personal visit to the Dowie Institute, and had published his impressions in the Journal-Messenger.
By Rev. William Ashmore
John Alexander Dowie's success in rallying a constituency and expanding himself is almost phenomenal. He has a large meeting house which seats a great crowd of people, and has also a hotel under his control, and is about starting, if he has not already started, a bank, as we are told. We have no Pauline precedents for any of these things, but then Mr. Dowie is said by his followers to be an advance on Paul. The main spoke in Mr. Dowie's wheel is the power of divine healing, which he claims he possesses in a remarkable degree and as a special gift of God. A great many cures are said to have been wrought, and the spaces on the walls of his church building are hung with crutches, and what seem to be bandages and discarded plasters, probably. They remind one of an enterprising corn-extractor at Dayton, O., who had a hundred or more corns and bunions which he had taken off the toes and feet of his customers, and was exhibiting them as an Indian brave does his scalps. It is this power of working cures which gives Mr. Dowie what influence he has with common people.
There is a deal of illusion here. That whole subject is by no means so fully ventilated as it ought to be, nor are discriminations made as they ought to be, and so people are blinded and misled. Dowie gives out that all other ministers deny the existence of special healing in answer to the prayer of faith, and that he alone advocates it, and furnishes instances of success. Many people believe his statements, and, knowing that there are well attested cases of healing that have come within the range of their own in formation, they are ready to conclude that Dowie is right and the ministers arc wrong.
But now that is not true. We all believe that God does answer the fervent prayer of his people for healing. We doubt if a minister can be found in the land who does not so believe, and who does not offer special prayer for that very purpose. There are few ministers who can not, in their own experience, point to some cases of remarkable answers to prayer of this very kind. Certainly every old minister can furnish illustrations, more or less. We offer prayers for the sick in our pulpits. We are sent for, and go and pray at their bedsides, and we have seen many cures recorded quite as remarkable as are any of the cases of Dowie, or Sweinfurth, or any other specialists of the kind. As for discarded canes and crutches and plasters and bandages, that have been thrown aside after the prayers of ordinary ministers, in the past century alone, and before Dowie ever was heard of, if they were all brought together and hung up and tacked on to the walls of Dowie's church, they would cover them so thick that there would not be a place left big enough to hold a corn plaster. Dowie's collection of trophies would dwindle into nothingness in comparison. But he makes a great parade of his, while other ministers do not, and so people think that nobody's prayers for the sick avail but Dowie's. The writer of this article holds that he himself was once brought back from the very grave's mouth, in special answer to special prayer, by brethren called in for that purpose, and quite as remarkably as any he has read of in Dowie's list; and all this in the ordinary ministry of the Word. If one wants to have more experience in divine healing, he would do well to seek out good earnest believers in prayer in his own church, and get them to pray for him, and not have to encounter the flippancy and vulgarity which we saw in John Alexander Dowie, and of which we shall speak hereafter.
What specially characterizes Mr. Dowie is his claiming to have a pre-eminence over all of God's praying ones, and his making of "divine healing," or miraculous healing a hobby to which all other things are made subsidiary; and we are obliged to conclude, a profitable, money-making hobby as well. However, it may be done, certain it is that there is nothing of a religious kind in Chicago which is made to pay so handsomely, in one way and another, as Dowie's "divine healing."
Mr. Dowie's love of "pre-eminence" is obvious to the most superficial observer. He is the "General Overseer" of the newly formed "Christian Catholic Church." He is the head, and will remain so. His picture appears constantly in his paper. His readers are not allowed to forget how he apears. On the day we were there he was, as usual, bidding defiance to his opponents, of whom there is an unlimited number, especially in the churches of God. Contending for his authority, he reached a climax. when he said, in a loud, defiant voice, they knew he had been specially "anointed by the Holy Ghost" for the work he was then doing; and, in almost a roar, he added: "I am God's prophet! I know I am!" This was said with none of the meekness or gentleness of Christ, and with none of the modest, even though firm, assertiveness of Peter and John and Paul, while defining themselves before their opponents; but with the swagger of a ring boxer. If his manner meant anything, it meant — as he shouted, "I am God's prophet!" and swung himself around with arm and fist like a scythe cutting a swath — "If any man disputes it, let him look out!" That fist might not have been so very dangerous, but the way it was flourished was suggestive of a bunged eye, or a bloody nose, or perhaps both. The whole procedure reminded me of Mahomet when he said: "God is God, and Mahomet is his prophet!"
Dowie is an Ishmaelite. He is against churches and ministers, one and all, savagely and without distinction. Anybody who opposes his claims comes in for vituperation. He would have it understood that he is "the great power of God," not only for Chicago, but for the nation at large, and, indeed, for the whole world! He is generating a class of harsh, unChrist-like, censorious followers, who, when they hear some one criticizing the extravagances of their leader's talk, at once begin to say — following an example set by himself — "The devil is at work." So he may be —but in whom, is another question.
—The Ram's Horn, March 17, 1900, p. 5.
Among the great volume of mail which comes to us on the subject of the Dowie exposure, we have received the following communication, Which was written several months ago by Rev. Wm. Ashmore after he had made a personal visit to the Dowie Institute, and had published his impressions in the Journal-Messenger.
By Rev. William Ashmore
John Alexander Dowie's success in rallying a constituency and expanding himself is almost phenomenal. He has a large meeting house which seats a great crowd of people, and has also a hotel under his control, and is about starting, if he has not already started, a bank, as we are told. We have no Pauline precedents for any of these things, but then Mr. Dowie is said by his followers to be an advance on Paul. The main spoke in Mr. Dowie's wheel is the power of divine healing, which he claims he possesses in a remarkable degree and as a special gift of God. A great many cures are said to have been wrought, and the spaces on the walls of his church building are hung with crutches, and what seem to be bandages and discarded plasters, probably. They remind one of an enterprising corn-extractor at Dayton, O., who had a hundred or more corns and bunions which he had taken off the toes and feet of his customers, and was exhibiting them as an Indian brave does his scalps. It is this power of working cures which gives Mr. Dowie what influence he has with common people.
There is a deal of illusion here. That whole subject is by no means so fully ventilated as it ought to be, nor are discriminations made as they ought to be, and so people are blinded and misled. Dowie gives out that all other ministers deny the existence of special healing in answer to the prayer of faith, and that he alone advocates it, and furnishes instances of success. Many people believe his statements, and, knowing that there are well attested cases of healing that have come within the range of their own in formation, they are ready to conclude that Dowie is right and the ministers arc wrong.
But now that is not true. We all believe that God does answer the fervent prayer of his people for healing. We doubt if a minister can be found in the land who does not so believe, and who does not offer special prayer for that very purpose. There are few ministers who can not, in their own experience, point to some cases of remarkable answers to prayer of this very kind. Certainly every old minister can furnish illustrations, more or less. We offer prayers for the sick in our pulpits. We are sent for, and go and pray at their bedsides, and we have seen many cures recorded quite as remarkable as are any of the cases of Dowie, or Sweinfurth, or any other specialists of the kind. As for discarded canes and crutches and plasters and bandages, that have been thrown aside after the prayers of ordinary ministers, in the past century alone, and before Dowie ever was heard of, if they were all brought together and hung up and tacked on to the walls of Dowie's church, they would cover them so thick that there would not be a place left big enough to hold a corn plaster. Dowie's collection of trophies would dwindle into nothingness in comparison. But he makes a great parade of his, while other ministers do not, and so people think that nobody's prayers for the sick avail but Dowie's. The writer of this article holds that he himself was once brought back from the very grave's mouth, in special answer to special prayer, by brethren called in for that purpose, and quite as remarkably as any he has read of in Dowie's list; and all this in the ordinary ministry of the Word. If one wants to have more experience in divine healing, he would do well to seek out good earnest believers in prayer in his own church, and get them to pray for him, and not have to encounter the flippancy and vulgarity which we saw in John Alexander Dowie, and of which we shall speak hereafter.
What specially characterizes Mr. Dowie is his claiming to have a pre-eminence over all of God's praying ones, and his making of "divine healing," or miraculous healing a hobby to which all other things are made subsidiary; and we are obliged to conclude, a profitable, money-making hobby as well. However, it may be done, certain it is that there is nothing of a religious kind in Chicago which is made to pay so handsomely, in one way and another, as Dowie's "divine healing."
Mr. Dowie's love of "pre-eminence" is obvious to the most superficial observer. He is the "General Overseer" of the newly formed "Christian Catholic Church." He is the head, and will remain so. His picture appears constantly in his paper. His readers are not allowed to forget how he apears. On the day we were there he was, as usual, bidding defiance to his opponents, of whom there is an unlimited number, especially in the churches of God. Contending for his authority, he reached a climax. when he said, in a loud, defiant voice, they knew he had been specially "anointed by the Holy Ghost" for the work he was then doing; and, in almost a roar, he added: "I am God's prophet! I know I am!" This was said with none of the meekness or gentleness of Christ, and with none of the modest, even though firm, assertiveness of Peter and John and Paul, while defining themselves before their opponents; but with the swagger of a ring boxer. If his manner meant anything, it meant — as he shouted, "I am God's prophet!" and swung himself around with arm and fist like a scythe cutting a swath — "If any man disputes it, let him look out!" That fist might not have been so very dangerous, but the way it was flourished was suggestive of a bunged eye, or a bloody nose, or perhaps both. The whole procedure reminded me of Mahomet when he said: "God is God, and Mahomet is his prophet!"
Dowie is an Ishmaelite. He is against churches and ministers, one and all, savagely and without distinction. Anybody who opposes his claims comes in for vituperation. He would have it understood that he is "the great power of God," not only for Chicago, but for the nation at large, and, indeed, for the whole world! He is generating a class of harsh, unChrist-like, censorious followers, who, when they hear some one criticizing the extravagances of their leader's talk, at once begin to say — following an example set by himself — "The devil is at work." So he may be —but in whom, is another question.
—The Ram's Horn, March 17, 1900, p. 5.
John Alexander Dowie — Not Messenger of God
1900
From all Christendom come the heartiest expressions of praise and gratitude that the person and works of that monumental impostor, John Alex. Dowie, have been laid open to the light of day as was done so effectually in The Ram's Horn March 3d. We have been surprised and a little amused to have kind but cautious friends approach us and ask in trepidation whether we felt safe in unmasking such a dangerous character. They had heard of his violent temper and its awful discharges of vituperation against those who incur his displeasure. They had heard also of his supposed demoniac mesmeric power to wither or restore those upon whom he is pleased to work with his depraved power. But truth does not fear the basilisk eye of a conjurer.
It is true that Dowie has been driven into a corner by the startling arraignment which was heaped against him in this paper. In an agony of rage at seeing his commercial plans for a material Zion balked at the outset by this timely, or untimely, exposure, he struggles against his impending doom. For nearly five hours last Sunday he stood and fought like an imprisoned rat with his back to the wall and poured out impotent invective against The Ram's Horn and those who contributed to help us unveil the Dowie delusion. On previous occasions he had drained the vials of his hate against such men as Doctors Henson, Hillis, and the like, and even the saintly Moody had scarcely escaped his poisoned spear. But now his quiver of hate is empty; the vial of his wrath is dry. What he says now come as the dregs from a cankered heart or the sickly fumes from a burst cannon. He has neither power to kill nor make alive, to build nor to destroy. He will go to his own place. But we pity the charmed victims who are still chained by his spell. It is a comfort to know, however, that there will be few hereafter who need come under his dextrous touch unadvised or unwarned. People in every corner of the globe now know that John A. Dowie is NOT a Messenger sent from God.
—The Ram's Horn, March 17, 1900, p. 4.
From all Christendom come the heartiest expressions of praise and gratitude that the person and works of that monumental impostor, John Alex. Dowie, have been laid open to the light of day as was done so effectually in The Ram's Horn March 3d. We have been surprised and a little amused to have kind but cautious friends approach us and ask in trepidation whether we felt safe in unmasking such a dangerous character. They had heard of his violent temper and its awful discharges of vituperation against those who incur his displeasure. They had heard also of his supposed demoniac mesmeric power to wither or restore those upon whom he is pleased to work with his depraved power. But truth does not fear the basilisk eye of a conjurer.
It is true that Dowie has been driven into a corner by the startling arraignment which was heaped against him in this paper. In an agony of rage at seeing his commercial plans for a material Zion balked at the outset by this timely, or untimely, exposure, he struggles against his impending doom. For nearly five hours last Sunday he stood and fought like an imprisoned rat with his back to the wall and poured out impotent invective against The Ram's Horn and those who contributed to help us unveil the Dowie delusion. On previous occasions he had drained the vials of his hate against such men as Doctors Henson, Hillis, and the like, and even the saintly Moody had scarcely escaped his poisoned spear. But now his quiver of hate is empty; the vial of his wrath is dry. What he says now come as the dregs from a cankered heart or the sickly fumes from a burst cannon. He has neither power to kill nor make alive, to build nor to destroy. He will go to his own place. But we pity the charmed victims who are still chained by his spell. It is a comfort to know, however, that there will be few hereafter who need come under his dextrous touch unadvised or unwarned. People in every corner of the globe now know that John A. Dowie is NOT a Messenger sent from God.
—The Ram's Horn, March 17, 1900, p. 4.
Spiritual Stirring in South America
1900
South America is usually considered such congenial soil for the cultivation of papal institutions, that few of us realize the immense strides which the nations of the Southern continent have made in the direction of emancipation from Roman oppression. In the Argentine Republic, for instance, a recent army order releases soldiers from the obligation of attending Roman Catholic worship. The minister of education has proposed the reading of the Bible in public schools. A public educator of considerable distinction has boldly recommended attendance at Protestant services. Religious gatherings in the open air are now permitted on the principal squares of the capital. Free speech and an open Bible are not congenial to the growth of papal influence, and it is reasonable to expect a diminution of that baneful power and a growth of evangelical faith in Argentine and throughout all the South American nations where a similar spirit of liberty is encouraged.
What has been done in South America in the direction of introducing the Bible into public schools puts us to shame. We have so weakly surrendered to the demands of Romanists and Infidelity that we have practically divorced not only religion and state but religion and education. There are few places where any pretense is now made at giving religious instruction in public schools. So far has the pendulum swung in the other direction that it is almost with apology that we even read literature which contains any reference to God.
In the public schools of New York the other day a child was asked to copy a sentence from Longfellow which contained some casual mention of God and His creation. The teacher found that the child had omitted that passage and stubbornly refused to insert it on the ground that his father had instructed him never to write that name since there was no such Being and it was a falsehood or pretense to speak of His existence. It would not be strange if the teacher was called upon by the official board to send an abject letter of apology to the irate parent.
The nation will some day, and that soon, if we are not mistaken, come to a lively sense of the danger of omitting to make the essentials of morals and religion a part of youthful instruction. The Educational Union of Chicago has done a wise and patriotic thing in preparing a special book of sacred selections from the Bible wholly removed from sectarian reference. It is edited by a committee representing several denominations and has met with most hearty acceptance on all sides. It has not yet secured entrance to public schools of Chicago, but it is being used elsewhere in places where the Jesuit activity in the form of political influence is not so widespread as it is in this and other large cities.
—The Ram's Horn, March 17, 1900, p. 4.
South America is usually considered such congenial soil for the cultivation of papal institutions, that few of us realize the immense strides which the nations of the Southern continent have made in the direction of emancipation from Roman oppression. In the Argentine Republic, for instance, a recent army order releases soldiers from the obligation of attending Roman Catholic worship. The minister of education has proposed the reading of the Bible in public schools. A public educator of considerable distinction has boldly recommended attendance at Protestant services. Religious gatherings in the open air are now permitted on the principal squares of the capital. Free speech and an open Bible are not congenial to the growth of papal influence, and it is reasonable to expect a diminution of that baneful power and a growth of evangelical faith in Argentine and throughout all the South American nations where a similar spirit of liberty is encouraged.
What has been done in South America in the direction of introducing the Bible into public schools puts us to shame. We have so weakly surrendered to the demands of Romanists and Infidelity that we have practically divorced not only religion and state but religion and education. There are few places where any pretense is now made at giving religious instruction in public schools. So far has the pendulum swung in the other direction that it is almost with apology that we even read literature which contains any reference to God.
In the public schools of New York the other day a child was asked to copy a sentence from Longfellow which contained some casual mention of God and His creation. The teacher found that the child had omitted that passage and stubbornly refused to insert it on the ground that his father had instructed him never to write that name since there was no such Being and it was a falsehood or pretense to speak of His existence. It would not be strange if the teacher was called upon by the official board to send an abject letter of apology to the irate parent.
The nation will some day, and that soon, if we are not mistaken, come to a lively sense of the danger of omitting to make the essentials of morals and religion a part of youthful instruction. The Educational Union of Chicago has done a wise and patriotic thing in preparing a special book of sacred selections from the Bible wholly removed from sectarian reference. It is edited by a committee representing several denominations and has met with most hearty acceptance on all sides. It has not yet secured entrance to public schools of Chicago, but it is being used elsewhere in places where the Jesuit activity in the form of political influence is not so widespread as it is in this and other large cities.
—The Ram's Horn, March 17, 1900, p. 4.
Monday, July 16, 2007
All Annoyed With the God
1905
Momus, in Greek fable, was the god of mockery and censure, who delighted in finding fault with gods and men. He was chosen to act as judge when there was a strife between Neptune, Minerva and Vulcan for supremacy in artistic power.
Neptune made a bull, Minerva a house and Vulcan a man. Momus declared that Neptune should have set his bull's horns farther forward for fighting purposes. He said that Minerva should have so constructed her house that it could be moved away from troublesome neighbors and that Vulcan should have made a window in the man's breast through which his thoughts could be seen.
All were so annoyed at his criticisms that they turned him out of heaven, and soon after this he died of vexation because he could find no fault in Venus, the goddess of love and beauty.
Momus, in Greek fable, was the god of mockery and censure, who delighted in finding fault with gods and men. He was chosen to act as judge when there was a strife between Neptune, Minerva and Vulcan for supremacy in artistic power.
Neptune made a bull, Minerva a house and Vulcan a man. Momus declared that Neptune should have set his bull's horns farther forward for fighting purposes. He said that Minerva should have so constructed her house that it could be moved away from troublesome neighbors and that Vulcan should have made a window in the man's breast through which his thoughts could be seen.
All were so annoyed at his criticisms that they turned him out of heaven, and soon after this he died of vexation because he could find no fault in Venus, the goddess of love and beauty.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Amos Boggs Judges Poor Sermon
1900
Mr. Amos Boggs had his own ideas as to what constituted a good sermon. When he was asked his opinion of the learned discourse given by a clergyman from the city, who was spending a few days in Shawville, he stroked his beard and replied:
"If there was anybody there that calc'lated to find out the ro'd to Heaven, they'd have been a mite disappointed, I reckon," he said, slowly; "but if they wanted to know how to get from Egypt to Jericho and back, they'd have found out. It jest depends."
Real Work Ethic
"When I have nothing to do I work," said Professor Max-Muller recently. A finer expression of the same thought comes from a humble old Scotchman, whose death is described in "Village Notes."
He was speaking his last homely words of advice. "Jock," said he, "when ye hae naething else to do ye may be aye sticking in a tree. It will growing, Jock, when ye're sleeping."
Mr. Amos Boggs had his own ideas as to what constituted a good sermon. When he was asked his opinion of the learned discourse given by a clergyman from the city, who was spending a few days in Shawville, he stroked his beard and replied:
"If there was anybody there that calc'lated to find out the ro'd to Heaven, they'd have been a mite disappointed, I reckon," he said, slowly; "but if they wanted to know how to get from Egypt to Jericho and back, they'd have found out. It jest depends."
Real Work Ethic
"When I have nothing to do I work," said Professor Max-Muller recently. A finer expression of the same thought comes from a humble old Scotchman, whose death is described in "Village Notes."
He was speaking his last homely words of advice. "Jock," said he, "when ye hae naething else to do ye may be aye sticking in a tree. It will growing, Jock, when ye're sleeping."
Sunday, June 24, 2007
"More Brains, Lord!"
1887
Rev. Dr. Sunderland, on accepting the pastorship of an American church in Paris, offered his farewell prayer as Chaplain of the United States Senate, a short time after. On this occasion he made some peculiar home-thrusts at the honorable gentlemen for whom, during four months previous, he had been daily interceding at the Throne of Grace. He uttered the following supplication very audibly:
"We pray Thee, 0 Lord! to give to the councillors and statesmen of America brains! More brains, Lord! More BRAINS!"
On hearing this very well-timed entreaty, but rather harsh criticism, Mr. Stunner dropped his bead upon his breast quite feelingly, Jim Lane rolled his eyes piously, Garrett Davis evinced signs of emotion, and a gentleman in the reporters' gallery uttered an emphatic "Amen!" by way of response.
Many of the honorable secretaries dropped their heads upon their desks to conceal a smile at the Chaplain's supplication, which smile extended to the dimensions of a broad grin, as the "Amen" was heard to proceed from the reporters' gallery. The worthy Sergeant-at-Arms, who was standing in his usual deeply reverential attitude, (with solemn countenance on religious thoughts intent,) turned the white of one of his official eyes in the direction of the self-constituted clerk in the gallery, but he evidently could not discover a countenance which did not exhibit the utmost decorum of expression.
—Anecdotes of the Rebellion, p. 21.
Rev. Dr. Sunderland, on accepting the pastorship of an American church in Paris, offered his farewell prayer as Chaplain of the United States Senate, a short time after. On this occasion he made some peculiar home-thrusts at the honorable gentlemen for whom, during four months previous, he had been daily interceding at the Throne of Grace. He uttered the following supplication very audibly:
"We pray Thee, 0 Lord! to give to the councillors and statesmen of America brains! More brains, Lord! More BRAINS!"
On hearing this very well-timed entreaty, but rather harsh criticism, Mr. Stunner dropped his bead upon his breast quite feelingly, Jim Lane rolled his eyes piously, Garrett Davis evinced signs of emotion, and a gentleman in the reporters' gallery uttered an emphatic "Amen!" by way of response.
Many of the honorable secretaries dropped their heads upon their desks to conceal a smile at the Chaplain's supplication, which smile extended to the dimensions of a broad grin, as the "Amen" was heard to proceed from the reporters' gallery. The worthy Sergeant-at-Arms, who was standing in his usual deeply reverential attitude, (with solemn countenance on religious thoughts intent,) turned the white of one of his official eyes in the direction of the self-constituted clerk in the gallery, but he evidently could not discover a countenance which did not exhibit the utmost decorum of expression.
—Anecdotes of the Rebellion, p. 21.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
When He Missed His Mother
1910
Bishop of Lincoln Regretted Inability to Make Frank Criticism of Poor Sermon
Cannon Scott Holland, in an appreciation of the late bishop of Lincoln, mentions that Doctor King was a bachelor, and his mother lived with him till her death. He said once, after hearing a rasping sermon that irritated him: "It is at such a time that I miss my mother." He was asked why.
"Because directly we were through the door I should have turned to her and said: 'That was a beastly sermon,' and then it would have been out, and I should have been sorry to have said it and should have begun to apologize for the sermon and to love the preacher. Now the poison is in me all the week and I can't get rid of it."
Doctor King had a delicate and subtle wit. Once, said the canon, we had all been rather swept off our feet by the vivacity of certain Hampton lectures which were laid out on rather well worn conventional lines.
The material was old, no doubt, but still it was surprising how well they went. How was it? What would King say of them? "Well, it is wonderful," he said, "how good an old pair of trousers will come out if you have laid them away for some time in a drawer."
He had hit it exactly. The trousers were green, for all their apparent sheen.
Bishop of Lincoln Regretted Inability to Make Frank Criticism of Poor Sermon
Cannon Scott Holland, in an appreciation of the late bishop of Lincoln, mentions that Doctor King was a bachelor, and his mother lived with him till her death. He said once, after hearing a rasping sermon that irritated him: "It is at such a time that I miss my mother." He was asked why.
"Because directly we were through the door I should have turned to her and said: 'That was a beastly sermon,' and then it would have been out, and I should have been sorry to have said it and should have begun to apologize for the sermon and to love the preacher. Now the poison is in me all the week and I can't get rid of it."
Doctor King had a delicate and subtle wit. Once, said the canon, we had all been rather swept off our feet by the vivacity of certain Hampton lectures which were laid out on rather well worn conventional lines.
The material was old, no doubt, but still it was surprising how well they went. How was it? What would King say of them? "Well, it is wonderful," he said, "how good an old pair of trousers will come out if you have laid them away for some time in a drawer."
He had hit it exactly. The trousers were green, for all their apparent sheen.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Bishop Anderson Preaches on God's Revelation
Nebraska, 1910
"Higher Criticism" O.K'd
Following is the account of a sermon taken from an article on an assembly in Lincoln, Nebraska, August 1910. Some of the details, as to who exactly Bishop Anderson was, his first name, etc., are not given.
"You preachers who have been ranting about higher criticism have got to quit and inform yourself of what higher criticism stands for," was the assertion with which Bishop Anderson startled some of his more orthodox hearers in the sermon of the morning. "Bishop Bashford said on Sunday that he wanted the ministers to cease denouncing the law of evolution," the speaker continued, "and I want to say the same thing to apply to higher criticism. I think it is time for those who have blazed away at higher criticism to stop and find out what higher criticism stands for. It is absolutely foolish for anyone to wax excited or get worried over Biblical scholarship. No one need be alarmed over the investigations being made which are called 'higher criticism.' If there is a preacher here who has been tearing loose in his pulpit on this I wish he would come up here and inform us what it is he has been assailing. Criticism is not unfriendly, it is constructive. It is merely a study of the Bible as a collection of books to ascertain the authorship and the date of writing. I don't want my Bible exempt from the severest intellectual investigation applied to other works. The word of God is not harmed but helped thereby. It stands forever and its value is better discovered when it is subjected to the most exacting tests."
After the assertions made by Bishop Bashford on evolution on Sunday, many who do not believe in the new true religion, severely criticized him. Bishop Anderson also did not escape the contradiction of some or his audience who talked his utterances over after the service this morning.
Recites from Hebrew Poet
The theme of the bishop's sermon was "Books Which God Writes." As a text he recited the rapturous outburst of the Hebrew poet, beginning: "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His handiwork." He took the psalm, verse by verse, and drew his applications from the individual sentences contained therein. The three books in which God has written His revelation, according to the preacher, are, first, the book of nature; second, the Bible, and third, the book of life and the spiritual consciousness of man.
"When Beethoven began to write music," Bishop Anderson continued, "he found it impossible to express all effects and meanings in the selections he composed for the piano. Later, he composed orchestra music adapted for a large variety of instruments and was able to secure the interpretation desired. So God did not confine himself in His revelation to a written work, but indelibly and unmistakably wrote in the book of nature. In former times it was thought that matter is evil and that the world belonged to the devil. I assert that this is the best possible world God could have made. It is a superb expression of His attributes.
Creator Greatest Artist
"God is not separated from the universe by law. He is law and permeates all the mechanism which we designate by the name, law. Kant said: 'I am amazed at the starry heavens above and the moral law within.' God is a great artist and has created in the universe a masterpiece.
"When Robert Louis Stevenson landed at Samoa, he saw a Scotchman standing on the shore, hat in hand evidently in the act of worship. It was an early hour of morning and the great author was curious but did not wish to disturb the devotions of the man. Later he became intimately acquainted with the man and asked him in regard to the circumstances in which he had first seen him. The Scotchman replied: 'Every morning at sunrise, I go out into he open to see the beautiful universe awake and I feel exalted and worship the magnificence of nature.' God has written a part of his truth in nature.
"Another book of God," said the bishop, "is the Bible. It is necessary to express secret and subtle thought that could not be expressed in the book of nature.
"The third book of God to which I would allude is the book of human life and the testimony of the Most High written in the hearts of men. Men can read this revelation if they make their hearts pure and thereby clarify their spiritual vision.
"Some men who can't run a two by four store," said the speaker, "find fault with the world and would like to instruct the Lord on how to run his business, Earth is crammed with heaven and good things and the gloomy pessimist who cannot discover them is to be pitied."
—Lincoln Evening News, Lincoln, NE, Aug. 10, 1910, p. 8.
"Higher Criticism" O.K'd
Following is the account of a sermon taken from an article on an assembly in Lincoln, Nebraska, August 1910. Some of the details, as to who exactly Bishop Anderson was, his first name, etc., are not given.
"You preachers who have been ranting about higher criticism have got to quit and inform yourself of what higher criticism stands for," was the assertion with which Bishop Anderson startled some of his more orthodox hearers in the sermon of the morning. "Bishop Bashford said on Sunday that he wanted the ministers to cease denouncing the law of evolution," the speaker continued, "and I want to say the same thing to apply to higher criticism. I think it is time for those who have blazed away at higher criticism to stop and find out what higher criticism stands for. It is absolutely foolish for anyone to wax excited or get worried over Biblical scholarship. No one need be alarmed over the investigations being made which are called 'higher criticism.' If there is a preacher here who has been tearing loose in his pulpit on this I wish he would come up here and inform us what it is he has been assailing. Criticism is not unfriendly, it is constructive. It is merely a study of the Bible as a collection of books to ascertain the authorship and the date of writing. I don't want my Bible exempt from the severest intellectual investigation applied to other works. The word of God is not harmed but helped thereby. It stands forever and its value is better discovered when it is subjected to the most exacting tests."
After the assertions made by Bishop Bashford on evolution on Sunday, many who do not believe in the new true religion, severely criticized him. Bishop Anderson also did not escape the contradiction of some or his audience who talked his utterances over after the service this morning.
Recites from Hebrew Poet
The theme of the bishop's sermon was "Books Which God Writes." As a text he recited the rapturous outburst of the Hebrew poet, beginning: "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His handiwork." He took the psalm, verse by verse, and drew his applications from the individual sentences contained therein. The three books in which God has written His revelation, according to the preacher, are, first, the book of nature; second, the Bible, and third, the book of life and the spiritual consciousness of man.
"When Beethoven began to write music," Bishop Anderson continued, "he found it impossible to express all effects and meanings in the selections he composed for the piano. Later, he composed orchestra music adapted for a large variety of instruments and was able to secure the interpretation desired. So God did not confine himself in His revelation to a written work, but indelibly and unmistakably wrote in the book of nature. In former times it was thought that matter is evil and that the world belonged to the devil. I assert that this is the best possible world God could have made. It is a superb expression of His attributes.
Creator Greatest Artist
"God is not separated from the universe by law. He is law and permeates all the mechanism which we designate by the name, law. Kant said: 'I am amazed at the starry heavens above and the moral law within.' God is a great artist and has created in the universe a masterpiece.
"When Robert Louis Stevenson landed at Samoa, he saw a Scotchman standing on the shore, hat in hand evidently in the act of worship. It was an early hour of morning and the great author was curious but did not wish to disturb the devotions of the man. Later he became intimately acquainted with the man and asked him in regard to the circumstances in which he had first seen him. The Scotchman replied: 'Every morning at sunrise, I go out into he open to see the beautiful universe awake and I feel exalted and worship the magnificence of nature.' God has written a part of his truth in nature.
"Another book of God," said the bishop, "is the Bible. It is necessary to express secret and subtle thought that could not be expressed in the book of nature.
"The third book of God to which I would allude is the book of human life and the testimony of the Most High written in the hearts of men. Men can read this revelation if they make their hearts pure and thereby clarify their spiritual vision.
"Some men who can't run a two by four store," said the speaker, "find fault with the world and would like to instruct the Lord on how to run his business, Earth is crammed with heaven and good things and the gloomy pessimist who cannot discover them is to be pitied."
—Lincoln Evening News, Lincoln, NE, Aug. 10, 1910, p. 8.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
No Resurrection, Princeton Professor Says
1914
The story of the resurrection of Christ, as recorded by the Disciples, was the product of Peter's imagination and zealous faith, according to Lucius Hopkins Miller, professor of Biblical instruction at Princeton University, in an article in the Biblical World just released by the University of Chicago Press.
The article is entitled "Life of Jesus in the Light of Modern Criticism."
Prof. Miller maintains that Jesus rose merely in the spirit and not in the body, and the story of the empty grave is a myth. He describes the impressions produced on the minds of the Apostles following Christ's crucifixion as a "series of visions."
—Edwardsville Intelligencer, Edwardsville, IL, Feb. 20, 1914.
The story of the resurrection of Christ, as recorded by the Disciples, was the product of Peter's imagination and zealous faith, according to Lucius Hopkins Miller, professor of Biblical instruction at Princeton University, in an article in the Biblical World just released by the University of Chicago Press.
The article is entitled "Life of Jesus in the Light of Modern Criticism."
Prof. Miller maintains that Jesus rose merely in the spirit and not in the body, and the story of the empty grave is a myth. He describes the impressions produced on the minds of the Apostles following Christ's crucifixion as a "series of visions."
—Edwardsville Intelligencer, Edwardsville, IL, Feb. 20, 1914.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Brands Higher Critics of The Bible as Judases
1907
Minister Attacks Biblical World and Professors Are Scored
St. Louis, Nov. 13.— At yesterday's session of the Bible League of North America meeting the conference's 13-inch theological guns were turned upon the Biblical World, one of the official publications of the University of Chicago. The indignation of the conference was aroused by the publication recently of an editorial in this magazine, in which the second advent of Christ was derided and the resurrection of Jesus denied.
The chief address of the day was made by Rev. W. M. McPheeters, D.D., instructor in the Southern Presbyterian Theological seminary at Columbia S.C. His subject was "Has the Influence of Radical Criticism Been Wholly to the Advantage of Religion and the Bible?"
This question the minister answered with an emphatic and indignant negative.
Criticism Kiss of Judas.
"Higher criticism is not the Roman's spear," said he, "which pierced the side of the Lord. It is rather the kiss of Judas, which, under the pretense of friendliness, aims at the destruction of religion. We, the adherents of literal faith in every work of holy writ, are contending today for the altar and the hearthstone.
"Radical criticism, such as that voiced by the University of Chicago proposes a complete change from Christianity to infidelity. It not only presumes to modify, but even, on occasions, rejects the truth taught by Christ, such as his resurrection and second advent.
"There are a few ambitious young men at the university, who, impatient of obscurity and meager pay, think to procure themselves better positions by attracting publicity. This aim they can accomplish best by sensational attacks upon what is holy.
"The editorial says that the expectation of Christ's second coming is based not on the historical but the imaginative portions of the Bible. But the second advent is mentioned in the Acts, a historical book. It is estimated that every twenty-fifth verse of the Old Testament refers to the second coming of the Messiah."
Uses Sarcasm as Weapon.
A paper satirizing the methods of higher criticism, by one of the ministers present, was read at the morning session by Rev. P. V. Genness. The author, by adopting the reasoning as he understood it, of the higher critics, sarcastically proved that the Declaration of Independence was not written until after the civil war.
Rev. Dr. C. J. Scofield, of the First Congregational church, Dallas, Texas, said that the beliefs expressed by the Biblical World, if generally adopted, would work the subversion of all religion.
"These young professors, said he, "have almost reached the point where they consider the Bible not a divine, but merely a human document."
The motto of the Bible League of America is "Back to the Bible." Its purpose is to renew faith in both testaments and to oppose the inroads of higher criticism.
—Fort Wayne Sentinel, Fort Wayne, IN, Nov. 13, 1907, p. 5.
Minister Attacks Biblical World and Professors Are Scored
St. Louis, Nov. 13.— At yesterday's session of the Bible League of North America meeting the conference's 13-inch theological guns were turned upon the Biblical World, one of the official publications of the University of Chicago. The indignation of the conference was aroused by the publication recently of an editorial in this magazine, in which the second advent of Christ was derided and the resurrection of Jesus denied.
The chief address of the day was made by Rev. W. M. McPheeters, D.D., instructor in the Southern Presbyterian Theological seminary at Columbia S.C. His subject was "Has the Influence of Radical Criticism Been Wholly to the Advantage of Religion and the Bible?"
This question the minister answered with an emphatic and indignant negative.
Criticism Kiss of Judas.
"Higher criticism is not the Roman's spear," said he, "which pierced the side of the Lord. It is rather the kiss of Judas, which, under the pretense of friendliness, aims at the destruction of religion. We, the adherents of literal faith in every work of holy writ, are contending today for the altar and the hearthstone.
"Radical criticism, such as that voiced by the University of Chicago proposes a complete change from Christianity to infidelity. It not only presumes to modify, but even, on occasions, rejects the truth taught by Christ, such as his resurrection and second advent.
"There are a few ambitious young men at the university, who, impatient of obscurity and meager pay, think to procure themselves better positions by attracting publicity. This aim they can accomplish best by sensational attacks upon what is holy.
"The editorial says that the expectation of Christ's second coming is based not on the historical but the imaginative portions of the Bible. But the second advent is mentioned in the Acts, a historical book. It is estimated that every twenty-fifth verse of the Old Testament refers to the second coming of the Messiah."
Uses Sarcasm as Weapon.
A paper satirizing the methods of higher criticism, by one of the ministers present, was read at the morning session by Rev. P. V. Genness. The author, by adopting the reasoning as he understood it, of the higher critics, sarcastically proved that the Declaration of Independence was not written until after the civil war.
Rev. Dr. C. J. Scofield, of the First Congregational church, Dallas, Texas, said that the beliefs expressed by the Biblical World, if generally adopted, would work the subversion of all religion.
"These young professors, said he, "have almost reached the point where they consider the Bible not a divine, but merely a human document."
The motto of the Bible League of America is "Back to the Bible." Its purpose is to renew faith in both testaments and to oppose the inroads of higher criticism.
—Fort Wayne Sentinel, Fort Wayne, IN, Nov. 13, 1907, p. 5.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Attitude of the Church Towards Science and The Higher Criticism
1904
By Rev. J. S. BRYAN, Sparta, Georgia
Methodist Church
The time has not been very long since freedom of thought was considered a crime, and every newly discovered truth which contradicted the church's standards of doctrine was condemned as heresy. The church attempted to suppress the spirit of free inquiry with rack sword and fire; but even these violent means proved ineffectual. Men endowed with Godlike faculties will think, and thinking will inevitably lead to new discoveries of truth. The church has been taught a severe lesson of wisdom and toleration by her former mistakes, and she must henceforth assume a different attitude toward men capable of original and independent thought. The church should be the friend and patron of learning, and should heartily encourage and foster the spirit of investigation and discovery.
She need not fear to welcome any new truth or fact from any source. No truth can ever be inconsistent with any other truth. There can be no real conflict between scientific and religious truth. Any discordance is only apparent. Mr. Spurgeon felicitously and correctly stated the harmony between true religion and true science as follows: "We may rest assured that 'true vestiges of creation' will never contradict Genesis, nor will a correct 'Cosmos' be found at variance with the narrative of Moses. He is wisest who reads both the world book and the word book as two volumes of the same work, and feels concerning them, 'My Father wrote them both.' " The extreme conservatism which is willing to remain content with present attainments in science or theology is an effectual barrier to all further progress. The world has outgrown ecclesiastical conservatism and dogmatism. Whatever truth can be demonstrated by experiment or established by sufficient evidence, the church must receive, or she will forfeit the respect and confidence of all persons of liberal intelligence. Traditional opinions and beliefs must be given up if they cannot be defended.
At the beginning of the last century, according to the accepted scriptural chronology, the earth had been created only about six thousand years. The discoveries of geology, then a new science, contradicted the chronology and demanded a much longer period. Thoughtful and candid men, like Dr. Chalmers, reread Genesis in the light of the new science and announced the reconciling fact that the book assigned no date at all to creation. Instead of six thousand, even millions of years might be conceded to the geologist without contradicting the Mosaic cosmogony. The medieval church believed and taught that the Ptolemaic astronomy was founded on the Bible. Bruno was burnt for denying it, and Galileo narrowly escaped the same penalty by a timely recantation. In the two instances mentioned above science has corrected erroneous interpretations, of the scriptures. As Mr. Spurgeon suggests, the world book and the word book should be read as two volumes by the same divine author.
The latest demands on the church for modification of her theological teachings are made by evolution and the higher criticisms. Radical and extravagant theories and speculations on either subject deserve no serious consideration, but every truth, or fact, that comes properly accredited must be acknowledged. As geology necessitated a revision of chronology, so evolution demands a revision of the traditional view of creation. Evolution is not necessarily atheistic. It is not a cause, but a mode of development. Mr. Spencer, its chief expounder, defines it as "a change from definite homogeneity to indefinite heterogeneity," etc. Now, change is an effect produced by some preceding cause. Mr. Spencer, true to his agnosticism, declares that the first cause is unknowable. According to Mr. Spencer's confession, the God of the Bible may be the unknowable cause of his philosophy, and evolution may be His mode of working. The Athenian philosophers ignorantly worshiped an unknown God until Paul declared Him unto them. Evolution is now generally accepted as a fact by leading theologians as well as scientists. Its proofs are drawn from various sources, such as astronomy, geology, embryology. It is constantly repeated before our eyes in the ordinary processes of nature. The oak develops from an acorn, the fowl from an egg, the animal from an ovum.
If evolution be accepted as a fact, what is the result? The church, again enlightened by science, must modify her traditional teaching in regard to creation, instead of separate, distinct, epochal creative acts, she must accept the doctrine of an original creation of matter and a continuous, connected development of all things under this universal law. Evolution, then, becomes the divine method of unfolding the universe. By its acceptance no essential truth or fact of scripture need be sacrificed. Theistic evolution does not set aside a belief in God, nor in an original creation. Neither does it lessen one's admiration of His wisdom and power as manifested in the grandeur and glory of His works. To the mind of the devout evolutionist "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork."
The church cannot assume an attitude of indifference towards the modern criticism of the Bible. For a long time the Bible was held too sacred to be touched by the hand of the literary critic. To deal with it as with other books of ancient literature would have been considered sacrilegious. A fear to submit it to criticism is virtually a confession of doubt as to its ability to stand the test. John Stewart Mill, in his work on "Liberty," says we hold no truth securely until we know the number and strength of the arguments against it and know how to answer them. The Bible, as the basis of Christianity, forms no exception to this rule. The Book invites candid criticism: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
It is but justice to say that generally the critics handle the Book reverently although they handle it fearlessly. The results of their investigations have been surprising and apparently revolutionary. Some of their most important conclusions are sustained by the best scholarship of the age, and their views have gained wide currency among the ministers and the intelligent laymen of all the churches. In many respects, our traditional beliefs have been rudely shaken, if not effectually overthrown, by these learned critics, but nothing essential or substantial has been taken away from us. These scholarly men are investigating questions mainly of authorship, dates, methods of composition, literary characteristics and moral purposes of the several books of the Bible. We should not hesitate to receive gratefully any reliable information which they furnish us on these questions. If there be poetical, legendary, and mythical elements, which we have long been accustomed to regard as prose, as history, and as miracle; if there be errors of science or history; if there be interpolations, inconsistencies and contradictions, as some allege, we desire to know the truth about these things. Let them be pointed out and proved. Let fact be separated from fiction, and truth from error. We should not be blind worshippers of the letter of the Book. It has long withstood the attacks of open enemies, and we should not fear the results of honest criticism by its friends conducted in a spirit of fairness and reverence.
—The Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta, Aug. 7, 1904, p. 8, back section.
By Rev. J. S. BRYAN, Sparta, Georgia
Methodist Church
The time has not been very long since freedom of thought was considered a crime, and every newly discovered truth which contradicted the church's standards of doctrine was condemned as heresy. The church attempted to suppress the spirit of free inquiry with rack sword and fire; but even these violent means proved ineffectual. Men endowed with Godlike faculties will think, and thinking will inevitably lead to new discoveries of truth. The church has been taught a severe lesson of wisdom and toleration by her former mistakes, and she must henceforth assume a different attitude toward men capable of original and independent thought. The church should be the friend and patron of learning, and should heartily encourage and foster the spirit of investigation and discovery.
She need not fear to welcome any new truth or fact from any source. No truth can ever be inconsistent with any other truth. There can be no real conflict between scientific and religious truth. Any discordance is only apparent. Mr. Spurgeon felicitously and correctly stated the harmony between true religion and true science as follows: "We may rest assured that 'true vestiges of creation' will never contradict Genesis, nor will a correct 'Cosmos' be found at variance with the narrative of Moses. He is wisest who reads both the world book and the word book as two volumes of the same work, and feels concerning them, 'My Father wrote them both.' " The extreme conservatism which is willing to remain content with present attainments in science or theology is an effectual barrier to all further progress. The world has outgrown ecclesiastical conservatism and dogmatism. Whatever truth can be demonstrated by experiment or established by sufficient evidence, the church must receive, or she will forfeit the respect and confidence of all persons of liberal intelligence. Traditional opinions and beliefs must be given up if they cannot be defended.
At the beginning of the last century, according to the accepted scriptural chronology, the earth had been created only about six thousand years. The discoveries of geology, then a new science, contradicted the chronology and demanded a much longer period. Thoughtful and candid men, like Dr. Chalmers, reread Genesis in the light of the new science and announced the reconciling fact that the book assigned no date at all to creation. Instead of six thousand, even millions of years might be conceded to the geologist without contradicting the Mosaic cosmogony. The medieval church believed and taught that the Ptolemaic astronomy was founded on the Bible. Bruno was burnt for denying it, and Galileo narrowly escaped the same penalty by a timely recantation. In the two instances mentioned above science has corrected erroneous interpretations, of the scriptures. As Mr. Spurgeon suggests, the world book and the word book should be read as two volumes by the same divine author.
The latest demands on the church for modification of her theological teachings are made by evolution and the higher criticisms. Radical and extravagant theories and speculations on either subject deserve no serious consideration, but every truth, or fact, that comes properly accredited must be acknowledged. As geology necessitated a revision of chronology, so evolution demands a revision of the traditional view of creation. Evolution is not necessarily atheistic. It is not a cause, but a mode of development. Mr. Spencer, its chief expounder, defines it as "a change from definite homogeneity to indefinite heterogeneity," etc. Now, change is an effect produced by some preceding cause. Mr. Spencer, true to his agnosticism, declares that the first cause is unknowable. According to Mr. Spencer's confession, the God of the Bible may be the unknowable cause of his philosophy, and evolution may be His mode of working. The Athenian philosophers ignorantly worshiped an unknown God until Paul declared Him unto them. Evolution is now generally accepted as a fact by leading theologians as well as scientists. Its proofs are drawn from various sources, such as astronomy, geology, embryology. It is constantly repeated before our eyes in the ordinary processes of nature. The oak develops from an acorn, the fowl from an egg, the animal from an ovum.
If evolution be accepted as a fact, what is the result? The church, again enlightened by science, must modify her traditional teaching in regard to creation, instead of separate, distinct, epochal creative acts, she must accept the doctrine of an original creation of matter and a continuous, connected development of all things under this universal law. Evolution, then, becomes the divine method of unfolding the universe. By its acceptance no essential truth or fact of scripture need be sacrificed. Theistic evolution does not set aside a belief in God, nor in an original creation. Neither does it lessen one's admiration of His wisdom and power as manifested in the grandeur and glory of His works. To the mind of the devout evolutionist "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork."
The church cannot assume an attitude of indifference towards the modern criticism of the Bible. For a long time the Bible was held too sacred to be touched by the hand of the literary critic. To deal with it as with other books of ancient literature would have been considered sacrilegious. A fear to submit it to criticism is virtually a confession of doubt as to its ability to stand the test. John Stewart Mill, in his work on "Liberty," says we hold no truth securely until we know the number and strength of the arguments against it and know how to answer them. The Bible, as the basis of Christianity, forms no exception to this rule. The Book invites candid criticism: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
It is but justice to say that generally the critics handle the Book reverently although they handle it fearlessly. The results of their investigations have been surprising and apparently revolutionary. Some of their most important conclusions are sustained by the best scholarship of the age, and their views have gained wide currency among the ministers and the intelligent laymen of all the churches. In many respects, our traditional beliefs have been rudely shaken, if not effectually overthrown, by these learned critics, but nothing essential or substantial has been taken away from us. These scholarly men are investigating questions mainly of authorship, dates, methods of composition, literary characteristics and moral purposes of the several books of the Bible. We should not hesitate to receive gratefully any reliable information which they furnish us on these questions. If there be poetical, legendary, and mythical elements, which we have long been accustomed to regard as prose, as history, and as miracle; if there be errors of science or history; if there be interpolations, inconsistencies and contradictions, as some allege, we desire to know the truth about these things. Let them be pointed out and proved. Let fact be separated from fiction, and truth from error. We should not be blind worshippers of the letter of the Book. It has long withstood the attacks of open enemies, and we should not fear the results of honest criticism by its friends conducted in a spirit of fairness and reverence.
—The Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta, Aug. 7, 1904, p. 8, back section.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Sappho and the Spiritualists
1903
The late lamented Sappho, the Greek poetess, has been writing more poems and communicating them to the world through a spiritualistic medium. We regret to note a distinct loss in style in the last 2,000 years, and, judging from other facts in her history we fear that her place in the Elysian Fields is not an entirely desirable one. — Philadelphia Inquirer.
The late lamented Sappho, the Greek poetess, has been writing more poems and communicating them to the world through a spiritualistic medium. We regret to note a distinct loss in style in the last 2,000 years, and, judging from other facts in her history we fear that her place in the Elysian Fields is not an entirely desirable one. — Philadelphia Inquirer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
