Christian herald. (Portland ;) 1882-18??, February 16, 1883, Page 2, Image 2

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

H* -
' f
Original Contributions.
Reply tQ . the Article Headed
“Foolish Preaching.”
. -----*'
I have made repeated efforts pri­
vately and publicly, to secure a
statemenUof the way in which this
article found its wray into the col­
umns of the H erald . If I had
succeeded, I should have deemed
its personalties and misrepresenta­
tions sufficiently answered, ln-
stead of this, which would have
been simply justice to me, J am
placed in a false and most unenvia­
ble position before the readers of
the H erald , and then its columns
are closed against me before I had
even intimated that I had present­
ed my “ cZoainy criticism.”
I know that both the former ed­
itors of the H erald condemned the
teaching of the articles to which I
was replying and that one of them
condemned this article "in iiiore~se'-
vere terms than I w’ould be willing
to use publicly. If the writer and
publisher of the articles are not
ashamed of it, 1 am ashamed for
them. The personalties in the ar
tide are their own sufficient an­
swer. They would not have been
indulged in, had anything better
presented itself to their author.
The complete misrepresentations of
my statement will be apparent
when it and they are placed side
by side. I said, “ The rudiments
of the world—dancing, circus and
theatre-going, the practice of adul­
tery under the divorce laws of our
States, etc,, are as far from the law
of God as evil from Good.” This
is twice misrepresented as follows :
«« * ♦ ♦ was nothing more
nor less “ circus and theater going,
and marrying a divorced woman in
w’hose legal divorce a certain alle
gation had not been the grounds of
her divorce !!” and again, “ * *
* ♦ was just dancing, circus-go­
ing, and marrying a divorced wom­
an, who had obtained a divorce
from a drunken brutal husband,
albeit the crime of adultery had
not been the grounds of the di­
vorce 11 ” These will be seen to be
most exaggerated caricatures of my
o unable to meet the real
issue, a man of straw was made,
and in his violent efforts both it
"apd 5 ts 111 akeir fell among the swine
and geese. Such company not be­
ing to my taste, I ask excus­
ed from following them.
To the attempted argument upon
Gal. 4: 9, I reply as follows:
’ There is very little if any relevancy
. ---- 1
• •
­ kind. I tried to answ er the argu­
to the,point at issue in what is
said. ’ That the jews had been in vances were common among the ment without gloves but to treat
bondage under the law -of Moses Gentiles. They were by no means it» author - kindly. I leave the
and freed from tlm law of Christ is confined to the Jews. The wording readers to judge of my success in
true. It is not true, however,, that here was not that employed by the this effort. Unless future develop- <
that the Gentile Galatians were inspired writers, when Jewish obser­ ments call for more this w’ill end
ever in bondage to that law. I t is vantes were spoken of. When they the matter with me. . .
R. H. Moss.
stated by the prophet that the Gen­ were alluded to the word sabbath
tiles weve^to be without law or thb was used. The reason for this is,
law until Christ came. There is that all Jewish observances had the
The Blessed Virgin.
no Scripture for the idea of men idea of sabbath or rest connected
being redeemed from law. Christ with them. It was not days, but
In his answer'lo our article on
redcemecT those who were under the sabbath days that the Jews observ­ the Blessed Virgin, the “ Christian
law7, from the curse of the law but ed. There was no observance of Herald,” of Monmouth, makes him­
not from law. He also redeems months or times (seasons) among self guilty of a flagrant mis-state­
Gentiles who were never under the the Jews. It was sabbatical years ment of the question. The ques­
law from sin, but not from law. that they observed. The brethren tion, brother, is not whom we have
There is no proof in the record that did observe days and months and to follow, whether Jesus Christ /
the “ false brethren ” spoken of in times and years. In doing so they or the fathers; but whose explana­
2 : 4, were any nearer Galatia than danced, bad circus and theater per­ tion of the words of Jesus Christ is
Jerusalem. True some of the teaching formances, adultery and fornication to be preferred, whether that of
was there, but they could have made w'ere common in them. Read the those holy, learned and great men
a letter its vehicle, as has been often 1st chap, of Romans, 5th of Gal., whom we call the Holy Fathers, or
done since. We are told that the 5th of Eph., 1st of 1 Tim. and 2d of that of modern editors of news-
.bondage. umlcx....tlie,.xudiiuepts of. ..¿TeUior a. more extended list oL .papers. „ We enntenitthat the'___
the world, is “ the same bondage the rudiments of the world. The Scripture was much better under­
spoken of in chap. 2: 4, w here whole list was condemned by the stood, ex]>ounded and commented
false brethren had turned them law. It is true that .Paul teaches by those celebrated Doctors of the. *
back again under law.” A reading the. Jew's that since Christ had Church than by any preacher of
of chap. 2 will show any one that come their observances were of no our age. But such is the Protest­
the false brethren there spoken of more value than those heathen ant way of conducting a contro­
were in Jerusalem, and that they .ones which men so completely con
versy ; as long as they have a
tried to bring Paul under bondage demned by their law. But lie docs glimmer of hope to fiud Tradition,
again, but did not succeed as he not say that they “pertained to the the Fathers and tlie faith of old on
would not give place unto them for flesh and ended w'ith it?” But he their side, Protestants are loud in
even an hour. Paul was too good a does say, 1 Tim. 1 : 5, “ Now the their appeals to Tradition, the
logician to write about bringing the end of the commandment (of God) Fathers and the faith of old ; so did
Gentiles again under bondage to is charity out of a pure heart, and the first Reformers, Melauclithon,
that which they had not been once a good conscience, and faith un­ Calvin, Kemnitz and hundreds of *
feigned.” This is as true of the Episcopalians; but now, that the
As they were never under that bon­ law of Moses as of the law’ of Christ victorious arguments of Catholic
dage they could not be brought since both wereGod’s law. The allu­ divines ha^fe placed in undeniable
back again under it. There is no sion to the brethren now’ for whom evidence how Protestantism is at
need to disregard orthography, I have been preaching is unworthy variance with the constant Tradi­
grammar and the principles of bib­ of its author and the columns of tion of the Church, with the teach­
lical interpretation, by going back the H ehakld . The brethren have ing of the Holy Fathers and with
to the 4th verse of the 2d chap., to felt it very much but have been the faith of bygone ages, now, they
find a bondage (which they were forbearing to those w ho do them throw all that unceremoniously
never under), when one which was such a gross injustice. I think it is overboard as useless ballast. Let it
much worse is found in the 8th high time that the brethren on the lie so. We prefer to believe and
verse of the 4th chap., and they coast and the H erald speak out to profess the truth with those
were undoubtedly once under it. openly their convictions upon- a Holy men, of whose salvation and
“Howlieit then, (when men were question which so vitally concerns glory in heaven we have no doubt,
clrildren, 3rd verse) when ye knew the purity and peace of the church rather than to l>e tossed about on
not God, ye did service (even in as this one of divorce and remar­ the waves of uncertain opinions of
bondage) unto them which by na­ riage does. This lias been the preachers w’ho have as yet to work
ture are no gods.’ The law of main issue in this controversy. out their salvation and run great
Moses never brought men in bon­ The uncalled for intimation to the risk of failing to do so.
dage to false gods. One of its ele­ contrary notwithstanding, I am
As the “ Herald ” is rather cour­
mentary principles was the worship well satisfied with my part of it. 1 teous in his remarks, we will do
of the one true God. Paul’s allu­ have done what I thought was my him the courtesy to answer his
sion to the observance of “ days duty, and am perfectly willing to queries : He desires us to “ tell him
“ ~ exactly in. what the honor we pay
and m o nt hs , and- trmesr aml years; abide the result.
is entirely misapprehended by thé
I thank God, that he gave me to the Virgin consists,” and what
authority of the article. If the strength and ability to write as 1 we have to say al>out the two texts
brethren had not had such obser­ did. I knew that the harsh and adduced by him, one from Luke,
vances it might be some proof that unkind expressions in the series of the other from John.
he alluded to the observances re­ articles were intended for "inc but
The second query would require
quired by the law. Every one | was unwilling- to 'answer them in too much space and will be deferred
V'- '■