A NEW WITNESS FOR GOD.
* * * *
BY
ELDER B. H. ROBERTS
AUTHOR OF
"THE GOSPEL," "THE LIFE OF JOHN TAYLOR," "OUTLINES OF ECCLESIASTICAL
HISTORY," "SUCCESSION IN THE PRESIDENCY OF THE CHURCH," ETC., ETC.
* * * *
"Some millions must be wrong, that's pretty clear. * * * * 'Tis time
that some new prophet should appear."
* * * *
PUBLISHED BY GEORGE Q. CANNON & SONS COMPANY, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH.
1895.
PREFACE.
Three quarters of a century have passed away since Joseph Smith
first declared that he had received a revelation from God. From that
revelation and others that followed there has sprung into existence
what men call a new religion--"Mormonism;" and a new church, the
institution commonly known as the "Mormon Church," the proper name of
which, however, is THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS.
Though it may seem a small matter, the reader should know that
"Mormonism" is not a new religion. Those who accept it do not so regard
it; it makes no such pretentions. The institution commonly called the
"Mormon Church," is not a new church; it makes no such pretensions, as
will be seen by its very name--the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints. This of itself discloses what "The Mormon Church" claims to
be--the Church of Jesus Christ; and to distinguish it from the Church
of Jesus Christ that existed in former days, the phrase "of Latter-day
Saints" is added. "Mormonism," I repeat, is not a new religion; it is
the Old Religion, the Everlasting Gospel, restored again to the earth
through the revelations received by Joseph Smith.
At a glance the reader will observe that these claims in behalf of
"Mormonism" pre-suppose the destruction of the primitive Christian
Church, a complete apostasy from the Christian religion; and hence,
from the standpoint of a believer, "Mormonism" is the Gospel of Jesus
Christ restored; and the institution which grows out of it--the
church--is the Church of Jesus Christ re-established among men.
During the three quarters of a century that have elapsed since the
first revelation was announced by Joseph Smith, the world has been
flooded with all manner of rumors concerning the origin of "Mormonism,"
its doctrines, its organization, its purposes, its history. Books
enough to make a respectable library, as to size, have been written on
these subjects, but the books, in the main, are the works of avowed
enemies, or of sensational writers who chose "Mormonism" for a subject
because in it they supposed they had a theme that would be agreeable to
their own vicious tastes and perverted talents, and give satisfactory
returns in money for their labor. This latter class of writers have
not only written without regard to truth, but without shame. They are
ghouls who have preyed upon the misfortunes of an unpopular people
solely for the money or notoriety they could make out of the enterprise.
That I may not be thought to overstate the unreliability of anti-Mormon
literature, I make an excerpt from a book written by Mr. Phil
Robinson, called _Sinners and Saints_. [1] Mr. Robinson came to Utah
in 1882 as a special correspondent of _The New York World,_ and stayed
in Utah some five or six months, making "Mormonism" and the Latter-day
Saints a special study. On the untrustworthiness of the literature in
question, he says:
"Whence have the public derived their opinions about Mormonism? From
anti-Mormons only. I have ransacked the literature of the subject,
and yet I really could not tell anyone where to go for an impartial
book about Mormonism later in date than Burton's 'City of the Saints,'
published in 1862. * * * But put Burton on one side, and I think I
can defy any one to name another book about the Mormons worthy of
honest respect. From that truly _awful_ book, 'The History of the
Saints,' published by one Bennett (even an anti-Mormon has styled him
'the greatest rascal that ever came to the West,') in 1842, down to
Stenhouse's in 1873, there is not to my knowledge a single Gentile work
before the public that is not utterly unreliable from its distortion of
facts. Yet it is from these books--for there are no others--that the
American public has acquired nearly all its ideas about the people of
Utah."
It may be asked why have not the Saints themselves written books
refuting the misrepresentations of their detractors, and giving correct
information about themselves and their religion. To that inquiry there
are several answers. One is that they _have_ made the attempt. Perhaps
not on a sufficiently extensive scale. They may not have appreciated
fully the importance of doing so; but chiefly the reason they have
not published more books in their own defense, and have not been more
solicitous about refuting slanders published against them, is because
of the utter impossibility of getting a hearing. The people to whom
they appealed were hopelessly prejudiced against them. Their case was
prejudged and they themselves condemned before a hearing could be had.
These were the disadvantages under which they labored; and how serious
such disadvantages are, only those know who have felt the cruel tyranny
of prejudice.
Now, however, there seems to be a change in the tide of their
affairs. Prejudice has somewhat subsided. There is in various
quarters indications of a willingness to hear what accredited
representatives of the "Mormon" faith may have to say in its behalf.
It is this circumstance that has induced the author to present for the
consideration of his fellow-men this work, which is written, however,
not with a view of defending the character of the Latter-day Saints,
but to set forth the message that "Mormonism" has to proclaim to the
world, and point out the evidences of divine inspiration in him through
whom that message was delivered.
The author has chosen for his work the title, "A NEW WITNESS FOR GOD,"
because that is the relation Joseph Smith, the great modern prophet,
sustains to this generation; and it is the author's purpose to prove,
first, that the world stands in need of such a witness; and, second,
that Joseph Smith is that witness.
The subject is treated under four THESES.
I.
_The world needs a New Witness for God._
II.
_The Church of Christ was destroyed; there has been an apostasy from
the Christian religion so complete and universal as to make necessary a
New Dispensation of the Gospel;_
III.
_The Scriptures declare that the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the last
days--in the hour of God's judgment--will be restored to the earth by a
re-opening of the heavens, and giving a New Dispensation thereof to the
children of men._
IV.
_Joseph Smith is the New Witness for God; a prophet divinely authorized
to preach the Gospel and re-establish the Church of Jesus Christ on
earth._
How well the writer has succeeded in sustaining these propositions, the
reader will judge for himself; he only asks that his treatment of the
subjects be considered with candor.
To guard against error or inaccuracy in doctrine the writer applied to
the First Presidency of the Church for a committee of brethren well
known for their soundness in the faith, and broad knowledge of the
doctrines of the Church, to hear read the manuscript of this book.
Whereupon Elder Franklin D. Richards, one of the Twelve Apostles of the
New Dispensation, and Church Historian; Elder George Reynolds, one of
the author's fellow-Presidents in the First Council of the Seventies;
and Elder John Jaques, Assistant Church Historian, were appointed as
such committee; and to these brethren, for their patient labor in
reading the manuscript, and for their suggestions and corrections, the
writer is under lasting obligations.
THE AUTHOR.
Footnotes
1. p. 245.
CONTENTS
* * * *
THESIS I.
THE WORLD NEEDS A NEW WITNESS FOR GOD.
CHAPTER I.
The Necessity of a New Witness
* * * *
THESIS II.
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST WAS DESTROYED; THERE HAS BEEN AN APOSTASY FROM THE
CHRISTIAN RELIGION, SO COMPLETE AND UNIVERSAL AS TO MAKE NECESSARY A
NEW DISPENSATION OF THE GOSPEL.
CHAPTER II.
The Effect of Pagan Persecution on the Christian Church
CHAPTER III.
The Effect of Peace, Wealth and Luxury on Christianity
CHAPTER IV.
Changes in the Form and Spirit of Church Government--Corruption of the
Popes
CHAPTER V.
Change in Public Worship--In the Ordinances of the Gospel
CHAPTER VI.
The Testimony of Prophecy to the Apostasy
CHAPTER VII.
Catholic Arguments--Protestant Admissions
* * * *
THESIS III.
THE SCRIPTURES DECLARE THAT THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST IN THE LAST
DAYS--IN THE HOUR OF GOD'S JUDGMENT--WILL BE RESTORED TO THE EARTH BY A
RE-OPENING OF THE HEAVENS, AND GIVING A NEW DISPENSATION THEREOF TO THE
CHILDREN OF MEN.
CHAPTER VIII.
The Necessity of a New Revelation--The Arguments of Modern Christians
Against it Considered
CHAPTER IX.
Prophetic History of the Church--The Restoration of the Gospel by an
Angel
* * * *
THESIS IV.
JOSEPH SMITH IS THE NEW WITNESS FOR GOD; A PROPHET DIVINELY AUTHORIZED
TO TEACH THE GOSPEL, AND RE-ESTABLISH THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST ON
EARTH.
CHAPTER X.
The New Witness Introduced
CHAPTER XI.
A New Dispensation of the Gospel
CHAPTER XII.
Objections to the New Witness Considered
CHAPTER XIII.
The Character of the New Witness
CHAPTER XIV.
Fitness in the Development of the New Dispensation
CHAPTER XV.
The Evidence of Scriptural and Perfect Doctrine
CHAPTER XVI.
Manner of the Prophet's Teaching
CHAPTER XVII.
The testimony of Toil and Suffering--Exertion and Danger--A Christian
Argument Applied
CHAPTER XVIII.
The Testimony of Miracles--The Evidence of Fulfilled Promises
[By an error Chapter XIX. was numbered XX., hence the apparent
omission.]
CHAPTER XX.
The Evidence of Prophecy
CHAPTER XXI.
The Evidence of Prophecy--Continued
CHAPTER XXII.
The Evidence of Prophecy--Continued
CHAPTER XXIII.
The Evidence of Prophecy--Concluded
CHAPTER XXIV.
The Church Founded by Joseph Smith, a Monument to his Inspiration
CHAPTER XXV.
Testimony of the Inspiration and Divine Calling of Joseph Smith Derived
from the Comprehensiveness of the Work he Introduced
CHAPTER XXVI.
Testimony of the Inspiration and Divine Calling of Joseph Smith Derived
from the Comprehensiveness of the Work he Introduced--Continued
CHAPTER XXVII.
Evidence of Inspiration Derived from the Wisdom in the Plan Proposed
for the Betterment of the Temporal Condition of Mankind
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Evidence of Divine Inspiration in Joseph Smith Derived from the
Prophet's Teaching in Regard to the Extent of the Universe, Man's
Place in it, and his Doctrine Respecting the Gods
CHAPTER XXIX.
Evidence of Divine Inspiration in Joseph Smith Derived from the
Prophet's Teaching in Regard to the Extent of the Universe, Man's
Place in it, and his Doctrines Respecting the Gods--Continued
CHAPTER XXX.
Evidence of Divine Inspiration in Joseph Smith Derived from the
Prophet's Teaching in Regard to the Extent of the Universe, Man's Place
in it, and his Doctrine Respecting the Gods--Concluded
CHAPTER XXXI.
The Testimony of the Martyrdom--Conclusion
THESIS I.
The World Needs a New Witness for God.
CHAPTER I.
THE NECESSITY OF A NEW WITNESS.
THE very title of this book may give offense. "A New Witness for God!"
will exclaim both ministry and laity of Christendom; "are not the Old
Witnesses sufficient? Has not their testimony withstood the assaults of
unbelievers, atheists and agnostics alike for nineteen centuries? What
need have we for a New Witness? Every weapon that hostile criticism
could suggest, has been brought to bear against the tower of our
faith based on the testimony of the Old Witnesses; and it stands more
victorious now than ever, four square to all the winds that blow. [1]
The testimony of the Old Witnesses has outlived the ridicule of
Voltaire, the solemn sneers of Gibbon, the satire of Bolingbroke, the
ribaldry of Paine; just as it will outlive the insidious assaults of
the German mythical school, and the rationalistic school of critics,
which are now much in vogue. Such the confident boast of orthodox
Christians.
"Meanwhile, every diocesan conference rings with the wail over 'infidel
opinions.' It grows notoriously more and more difficult to get educated
men to take any interest in the services or doctrines of the church;
* * * literature and the periodical press are becoming either more
indifferent, or more hostile to the accepted Christianity year by year;
the upper strata of the working class, upon whom the future of that
class depends, either stand coldly aloof from all the Christian sects,
or throw themselves into secularism. Passionate appeals are made to all
sections of Christians, to close their ranks, not against each other,
but against the 'skepticism rampant' among the cultivated class and the
religious indifference of the democracy." [2]
In the face of these facts, notwithstanding the confident boasts of
orthodox Christians about the invulnerableness of the testimony of the
Old Witnesses, it will be well for us to look a little more closely
into the achievements of Christianity, Catholic as well as Protestant,
and see if they are as satisfactory when measured by actual results, as
they are claimed to be in the fervid rhetoric of the orthodox special
pleader.
What is distinctly and commonly recognized as the Christian religion,
was founded some nineteen centuries ago [3], by the personal ministry
of Jesus Christ, and those whom he chose as Apostles. For about three
centuries it had a hard struggle for existence. The persecutions waged
against it, first by the Jews, from whose religious faith it may be
said to have sprung; and second, from the pagans, then in possession
of all secular power, well-nigh overcame it. The "beast" made war upon
the saints and "prevailed against them." Then Constantine, the friend
of Christianity, succeeded to the imperial throne of Rome, and external
persecution ceased. Christian ministers were invited to the court of
the emperor and loaded with wealth and honors. Magnificent churches
were erected, and the hitherto despised religion became the favorite
_protege_ of the imperial government. From a precarious and wretched
existence, the Christian church was suddenly raised to a position of
magnificence and power. Nor was it long in playing the part of the
camel which, being permitted by the kind indulgence of its master to
put its head within the tent during a violent storm, next protruded
its shoulders, then its whole body, and turning about kicked out its
master. [4] So did the Christian ecclesiastical power with the civil
power. That is to say, that which was at first granted to the church
as a privilege was soon demanded as a right; and what was at first
received by grace, was at the last taken by force. On the ruins of
pagan Rome, rose papal Rome, and while the latter power did not abolish
secular government, it did make it subservient to ecclesiasticism. From
the chair of St. Peter, the Roman pontiffs ruled the world absolutely.
Kings and emperors obeyed them, and all stood in awe before the throne
of the triple-crowned successor of St. Peter.
Finally, through the mutual jealousy and ambition of the bishops of
Rome and Constantinople, a controversy arose which, in the ninth
century, resulted in a great and lasting division of Christendom into
two great ecclesiastical bodies; viz., the Greek Catholic or Eastern
Church, and the Roman Catholic or Western Church. In the Western Church
the secular or civil power continued to be regarded as subordinate to
ecclesiastical authority, a sort of convenient instrument to execute
the decrees of the church. Hence Roman Catholic Christianity drew to
itself all that prestige in the propagation of its doctrines which
comes from the authority and support of the state; and though the power
of the state was held to be subordinate to that of the church, no
one who has read our Christian annals can help being struck with the
importance of the civil power as a factor in the propagation of Roman
Catholic Christianity. The barbarous peoples who came in contact with
the Christian nations, were often compelled to accept the so-called
Christian religion as one of the terms of capitulation; and the fear
of the sword often eked out the arguments of the priests, and was
generally much more effective.
I think it proper that the above statement should be emphasized by the
following proofs:
"In the year 772, A. D., Charlemagne, king of the Franks, undertook
to tame, and to withdraw from idolatry, the extensive nation of the
Saxons, who occupied a large portion of Germany, and were almost
perpetually at war with the Franks, respecting their boundaries and
other things; for he hoped that if their minds could become imbued
with the Christian doctrines, they would gradually lay aside their
ferocity, and learn to yield submission to the empire of the Franks.
The first attack upon their heathenism produced little effect, being
made not with the force of arms, but by some bishops and monks whom
the victor had left for that purpose among the vanquished nation. But
much better success attended the subsequent wars which Charlemagne
undertook, in the years 775, 776, and 780, A D., against that heroic
people, so fond of liberty, and so impatient, especially of sacerdotal
domination. For in these assaults, not only rewards, but also the sword
and punishments were so successfully applied upon those adhering to
the superstition of their ancestors, that they reluctantly ceased from
resistance, and allowed the doctors whom Charles employed to administer
to them Christian baptism. Widekind and Albion, indeed, who were two
of the most valiant Saxon chiefs, renewed their former insurrections;
and attempted to prostrate again by violence and war, that Christianity
which had been set up by violence. But the martial courage, and the
liberality of Charles at length brought them, in the year 785, solemnly
to declare that they were Christians, and would continue to be so. *
* * The Huns inhabiting Pannonia, were treated the same way as the
Saxons; for Charles so exhausted and humbled them by successive wars,
as to compel them to prefer becoming Christians to being slaves." [5]
In Denmark, during the tenth century, "the Christian cause had to
struggle with great difficulties and adversities, under King Gorman,
although the queen was a professed Christian. But Harald, surnamed
Blatand, the son of Gorman, having been vanquished by Otto the Great,
about the middle of the century, made a profession of Christianity in
the year 949, and was baptized. * * * Perhaps Harald, who had his birth
and education from a Christian mother, Tyra, was not greatly averse
from the Christian religion; and yet it is clear that in the present
transaction he yielded rather to the demands of his conqueror, than to
his own inclinations. For Otto, being satisfied that the Danes would
never cease to harass their neighbors with wars and rapine, if they
retained the martial religion of their fathers, made it a condition of the
peace with Harald that he and his people should become Christians." [6]
"Waldemar I., King of Denmark, obtained very great fame by the many
wars he undertook against the pagan nations, the Slavs, the Wends,
the Vandals, and others. He fought not only for the interests of his
subjects, but likewise for the extension of Christianity; and wherever
he was successful, he demolished the temples and images of the gods,
the altars and groves, and commanded the Christian worship to be set
up. * * * The Fins who infested Sweden with frequent inroads, were
attacked by Eric IX., King of Sweden, called St. Eric, after his death,
and by him subdued after many bloody battles. * * * The vanquished
nation was commanded to follow the religion of the conqueror, which
most of them did with reluctance and disgust."
"Towards the close of the century [the tenth], * * * some merchants of
Bremen or of Lubec trading to Livonia, took along with them Mainhard, a
regular canon of St. Augustine in the monastery of Segberg in Halsatia,
to bring that warlike and uncivilized nation to the Christian faith.
But as few listened to him, Mainhard consulted the Roman pontiff,
who created him the first bishop of the Livonians, and desired that
war should be waged against the opposers. This war, which was first
waged with the Esthonians, was extended farther and prosecuted more
rigorously by Berthold, the second bishop of the Livonians, after the
death of Mainhard; for this, Berthold, formerly Abbot of Lucca, marched
with a strong army from Saxony, and recommended Christianity not by
arguments but by slaughter and battle. Following his example, the third
bishop, Albert, previously a canon of Bremen, entering Livonia in the
year 1198, well supported by a fresh army raised in Saxony, and fixing
his camp at Riga, he instituted, by authority of Innocent III., the
Roman pontiff, the military order of knight's sword-bearers, who should
compel the Livonians by force of arms to submit to baptism. New forces
were marched from time to time from Germany, by whose valor and that of
the sword-bearers the wretched people were subdued and exhausted, so
that they at last substituted the images of Christ and the saints in
place of their idols." [7]
A volume of evidence similar in import to the foregoing could be
compiled, showing that from the accession of Constantine the Great down
to the sixteenth century, the Roman Catholic Church did not hesitate to
employ the civil power to enforce conversion and punish recalcitrants.
If the Eastern Church has been less successful in extending the borders
of Christianity by means of conquests waged by the civil power, it was
because the division of the world it occupied afforded less opportunity
than Western Europe, where a great struggle was on between the race of
men made weak by the effete civilization of Rome and the more vigorous
barbarians. But while the Eastern Church made less direct use of the
sword to extend its dominions, it nevertheless had the state for an ally
which sustained it at need.
When in the sixteenth century the great revolt against the authority
of the pope and the religion of the Roman Catholic Church gave birth
to the Protestant churches, they, too, in the main, formed alliances
with the states in which they were founded. Nay, in the very struggle
for their existence, the states of Germany, of Holland, Scandinavia
and of England, drew the sword in their behalf and by their support
made it possible for the seceding religionists to establish churches
despite all efforts of the Roman pontiffs to prevent them; and after
the revolution was an accomplished fact, the states above enumerated
continued to give support to the churches founded within their borders.
If the church and the state in some instances were regarded as separate
and distinct societies, they acted at the same time as close neighbors,
and nearly interested in each other's welfare. If they lived separate,
they were not estranged; and each at need gave the other support.
I have thought it necessary to call the attention of the reader to
the conditions in which Christianity has existed since the days of
Constantine under all three great divisions of Christendom--the
Roman Catholic, the Greek Catholic, and Protestant--in order that
he might be reminded of the fact that circumstances of the most
propitious character have existed for the propagation of the so-called
Christian religion. Christendom has had at its command the wealth
and intelligence of Europe; it has been able to follow the commerce
of European states into every country of the world; and not only its
commerce, but its conquests as well; and wherever the love of adventure
or the desire for conquest has led Christian soldiers, Christian
priests have either accompanied or followed them, that the gospel, in
the hands of the Christian minister, might be a balm for the wounds
inflicted by the sword in the hands of the Christian soldier; so that
if Christian armies were a bane to the savages, the Christian priests
might be an antidote!
Yet with all the advantages which came to Christianity through the
support of the state; with the intelligence and wealth of Europe behind
it; with the privilege of following in the wake of its commerce and
conquests; what has Christendom done in the way of converting the world
to its religion? But a little over one-fourth of the inhabitants of the
earth are even nominally Christian! There are in the world, according
to statistics published on the subject:
Roman Catholics ...........................206,588,206
Protestants (all sects) ................... 89,825,348
Greek and Russian Churches ................ 75,691,382
Oriental Churches ......................... 6,770,000
Making the total of all Christians........ 378,874,936.
The other religions stand as follows:
Brahminical Hindoos .......................120,000,000
Followers of Buddha, Shinto and
Confucius .................................482,600,000
Mohammedans ...............................169,054,789
Jews ....................................... 7,612,784
Parsees (fire-worshipers in Persia) ........ 1,000,000
Pagans not otherwise enumerated ...........277,000,000
______________
Making a total of .......................1,007,267,573 [8]
Surely when the superior advantages for the propagation of the
Christian religion are taken into account, one could reasonably expect
better results than this, after a period of nineteen centuries, sixteen
of which may be said to have been of a character favorable to the
extension of the borders of the church.
But let us take a nearer view of the status of Christendom. As seen in
the foregoing, but a little more than one-fourth of the population of
the earth is even nominally Christian. No one will contend that all
those nominally Christians are really Christians. Church membership
may be one thing, conversion to the Christian religion quite another.
If those who are Christians in name only, and church members from
custom or for worldly advantage were separated from those who are
Christians upon principle, upon conversion and real faith, the number
of Christians in the world would be materially reduced. For it cannot
be denied that when any religion becomes popular there are multitudes
of insincere men who will outwardly accept it, and give it lip-service
in return for the advantages that accrue to them socially, financially
or politically.
Moreover, Christendom is not united in one great body or church; but
on the contrary it is divided into numerous contending factions whose
differences are so far fundamental that there appears no prospect of
reconciliation among them. The Catholics refuse to recognize any power
of salvation in Protestantism. To the Catholic the Protestant is an
heretic, a renegade child; and on the other hand, to the Protestant,
the Catholic is an idolator, and the pope the very anti-Christ,
prophesied of in scripture.
Nor are the Roman and Greek Catholics much nearer at one with each
other than the Roman Catholics and Protestants. Away back in the
ninth century, as a result of the controversy between the Eastern and
Western Churches, Pope Nicholas, in a council held at Rome, solemnly
excommunicated Photius, the patriarch of Jerusalem, and had his
ordination declared null and void. The Greek emperor resented this
conduct of the pope, and under his sanction Photius, in his turn,
convened what he called an acumenical council, in which he pronounced
sentence of excommunication and deposition against the pope, and got it
subscribed by twenty-one bishops and others amounting in number to one
thousand.
Although this breach was patched up after the death of the Emperor
Michael, difficulties broke out again between the East and the West
from time to time, until finally in the eleventh century, when Michael
Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, opposed the Western Church
with respect to their making use of unleavened bread in the sacrament,
their observation of the Sabbath, and fasting on Saturdays, charging
therein that they lived in communion with the Jews. Pope Leo IX.
replied, and in his apology for the Western Churches, declaimed warmly
against the false doctrine of the Greeks, and ended by placing on
the altar of Santa Sophia, by his legates, a deed of excommunication
against the Patriarch, Michael Cerularius. This was the final rupture.
From that time the mutual hatred of the Greeks and the Latins became
insuperable, insomuch that they have continued ever since separated
from each other's communion. [9]
Though both the Greek and the Protestant Churches are separated
from the Roman Catholic Church, yet there is no union or fellowship
between them; on the contrary, they hold doctrines so opposite that
union between them is out of the question. At least so remote is the
prospect, that all attempts at union have been ineffectual.
Turn now to Protestant Christendom. Surely we shall find a union of
organization and agreement of sentiment here! But no; division, on
the contrary, is multiplied. Protestant Christendom is divided into
numerous sects between some of which the gulf of separation is almost
as broad and deep as that which separates Protestants from Catholics.
Such is the distracted condition of Protestant Christendom that sects
are daily multiplying, and confusion is constantly increasing. Nor can
one refrain from saying with Cardinal Gibbons, that "This multiplying
of creeds is a crying scandal, and a great stumbling-block in the way
of the conversion of the heathen nations." [10] And I will add, equally
a stumbling-block to the conversion of the unbelievers living among
Christians.
This last class of persons named, the unbelievers living among
Christians, we must now consider; and note the effect of their assaults
upon Christianity. They are, for the most part, without organization;
without unity of purpose, except in so far as they are united in their
disbelief of revealed religion. Their position being essentially a
negative one, the incentive to organization is not active. It requires
unity of purpose and organization of effort to build; those who content
themselves with pointing out the defects, real or imagined, of the
work of the builders, or saying the structure does not answer well
the purposes for which it was erected, feel no such necessity for
organization as the builders do.
In consequence of having no organization, infidels keep no account of
their numerical strength; they publish no statistics, and therefore we
have no way of estimating how numerous they are. But no one with large
acquaintance in Christian countries, and who is in touch with the trend
of modern religious thought, can doubt that the number of unbelievers
is considerable, and their influence upon the Christian religion more
damaging than Christian enthusiasts are willing to admit.
What a motley crowd this great body of unbelievers is! First is the
downright atheist who says plainly, "There is no God. Nothing but blind
force is operating in the universe; there is no Providence whose will
can interrupt the destined course of nature." Providence they set down
as a dream. "The universe and all its varied phenomena are generated
by natural forces out of cosmic atoms, and into atoms to be again
resolved," is their creed.
Following the atheist is the deist, who, while not one whit behind the
atheist in rejecting revealed religion, is of the opinion that mind
is somewhere operating in the universe, but refuses to recognize that
intelligence as associated with a personality. Still that Intelligence,
whatever or wherever it be, is God; but with them is always "It," never
"He."
Then comes the agnostic. He prefers to suspend his judgment on
the question of Deity; and with a modesty, not always free from
affectation, says, "I don't know. The evidence in the case is not
quite clear; in fact it is sometimes quite conflicting." He questions;
is debating; but you find his sympathies, at bottom, on the side of
unbelief.
Next to the agnostic comes the rationalist, who, while he leaves God
more or less of an open question, has his mind made up in respect to
Jesus Christ. He recognizes him as a good man, though mistaken on many
questions; but though he strips Jesus of all divinity, he nevertheless
recognizes him as the friend of God and of man; and sees embodied in
him, moreover, "the symbol of those religious forces in man which are
primitive, essential and universal." [11]
Such are the varied classes which assail the Christian religion. Their
methods of assault, though having much in common, are as varied as
the kinds of unbelievers. The atheist mockingly asks if there be a
God why he does not make himself manifest to all the world; why he
keeps himself shrouded in mystery? Why not reveal himself to all as
well as to a chosen few? Pushing aside the testimony of those who say
they have stood in his presence, he boldly asserts there is no God,
because no one has ever seen him; he has not made himself known to men,
and in conclusion he points to the natural and uninterrupted order of
things in the universe as proof that all things are governed by blind
forces instead of intelligence, whether a personality or apart from
personality.
The deists say nearly all that the atheists say; but admitting an
intelligence back of all phenomena in the universe, they pretend to
read his will in the book of nature, [12] and contrast its perfections
with the imperfections of all written books of revelation. To them
the Bible--the Christian volume of revelation--is imperfect and
contradictory; it teaches a morality and seems to tolerate practices
unworthy of a Being of infinite goodness.
The agnostics join with the deists in their objections. They see all
the contradictions, imperfections and alleged immorality that deists
see in the Christian volume of revelation; and with them question the
authenticity and credibility of the scriptures. If they differ from
the deists in anything, it is simply in arriving at a less positive
conclusion. But the worst is to come.
There has arisen within our century, mainly in Germany, a class of
theological writers, who indeed profess a reverence both for the name
and person of Jesus Christ, and a real regard, moreover, for the
scriptures as "embodiments of what is purest and holiest in religious
feeling;" and yet they degrade Christ to a mere name, and strip the
scriptures of all their force as the word of God, by denying the
historical character of the Biblical narrative. Starting with the
postulate that the miraculous is impossible and never happens, or at
least has never been proven, [13] they relegate the scriptures--the New
Testament as well as the Old--to the realms of poetry, legend or myth,
because they are filled with accounts of the miraculous. [14]
This movement of theological thought had its origin in a new science,
the science of historical criticism, which had its birth in our own
nineteenth century. The new science consisted simply in applying to the
mass of materials on which much of ancient history had been hitherto
based--myths, legends and oral traditions--the rules [15] embodying
the judgment of sound discretion upon the value of different sorts
of evidence. The effect of the application of this principle to the
materials out of which our ancient histories were constructed, was to
banish to the realms of pure myth or doubtful legend much which our
fathers accepted as historical fact. The relations of ancient authors
are no longer received with as ready a belief as formerly; nor are
all ancient authors any longer put upon the same footing and regarded
as equally credible, or all parts of their work supposed to rest upon
the same basis. [16] Many old, fond theories have been shattered;
in some respects the whole face of antiquity has been changed, [17]
and instead of now looking upon the ancients as demi-gods, and the
condition in which they lived as being something supernatural, we
are made to feel that they were men of like passions with ourselves,
possessed of the same weaknesses, actuated by the same motives of self
interest, ambition, jealousy, love, hatred; and that the conditions
surrounding them were no more supernatural than those which surround
us. The science of historical criticism by the application of its main
principle has stripped ancient times of their prodigies, and has either
brought those demi-gods of legend to earth and made them appear very
human, or has banished them entirely from real existence.
So long as the leading principle of this new science was applied to
profane history alone; and the revolution it inaugurated confined
to smashing the myths of ancient Greece, Rome, Babylon, Egypt and
India, no complaints were heard. Indeed, the work was very generally
applauded. But when the same principle began to be applied to what, by
Christians at least, was considered sacred history, then an exception
was pleaded.
This difficulty was met by orthodox believers much in the same way that
an earlier question, one about miracles, was met by Conyers Middleton.
It will be remembered that the Catholic Church has always claimed for
herself the power of working miracles from the earliest days until the
present; and cites, in confirmation of her claims, testimony that seems
at once respectable and sufficient. The Protestants, with the Anglican
Church at their head, in the discussions to which reference is here
made, conceded that the possession of the gift of working miracles was
_prima facie_ evidence of divine authority and soundness of faith. [18]
So much being conceded, Protestants were puzzled when to fix the date
that miracles ceased. They were certain that no miracles had happened
in their times, but were equally positive that they had occurred in
the early Christian centuries. But the recent testimony presented by
their Catholic opponents was just as worthy of belief as the testimony
of the early Christian Fathers; in some respects it was better,
because it was within reach for examination. What was to be done? If
this recent testimony of the Catholic Church concerning miracles was
to be rejected, could the earlier testimony of the Christian Fathers
stand? The discussion had reached this point when Middleton published
his "Free Inquiry," in which he held that the miracles claimed by
the Catholic Church, both in former and recent times must stand or
fall together. For if the testimony of the early Christian Fathers
and contemporary witnesses could confirm the former, the testimony of
the recent witnesses, being just as respectable as the former, and
hence as worthy of belief, would confirm the latter. Middleton met
the difficulty by rejecting all testimony to miracles after the close
of the apostolic age. When it was suggested that the New Testament
miracles might be treated in a like summary manner, he took the
position that the New Testament account of miracles was inspired, and
therefore beyond the reach of criticism.
So likewise I say, orthodox Christians were disposed to meet
the application of this principle of Historical Criticism under
consideration. They protested against the application of it to sacred
history. They insisted that the marvelous occurrences related in the
Bible, and which read so much like myth or legend, were recorded
by inspired writers, hence above criticism. The exception pleaded,
however, was not granted. There were bold spirits both within the
church as well as outside of it, who did not hesitate, at least so
far as the Old Testament was concerned, to apply the new methods of
criticism to sacred history.
The conclusions of those who started with the hypothesis that what we
call the miraculous is impossible, would not be difficult to forecast.
From the outset, with them, the Old Testament was doomed. In the
wonderful incidents related as the experience of the patriarchs, of
Moses, Aaron, Joshua and the kings and prophets of Israel, this school
of critics could discern a striking parallel to the legends of Rome, of
Greece and Egypt; and as readily rejected the one as the other. They
rejected also the cosmogony of Genesis, insisting that it was not the
history of the creation but poetry, and as such must be regarded, but
not as fact.
Suspicion once cast upon the historical value of sacred writings, the
critics grew bolder and declared that portions of the sacred narrative
presented the appearance of being simply myths; and from this by
degrees it soon became the fashion to attach a legendary character
to the whole of the Old Testament. It was decided by the same class
of critics that the whole narrative, in the main, rests upon oral
tradition and that that tradition was not written until long after
the supposed events occurred. Moreover, when the old traditions were
written, the work was done by poets bent rather on glorifying their
country than upon recording facts; and it is claimed that at times they
did not hesitate to allow imagination to amplify the oral traditions
or at need to invent new occurrences, to fill up blanks in their
annals. The authorship of the sacred books was held to be a matter of
great uncertainty, as well as the date at which they were written; but
certainly they were not written until long after the dates usually
assigned for their production. This style of criticism not only got rid
of the cosmogony of Genesis, but discredited as histories the whole
collection of books comprising the Old Testament. The Fall of man, that
fact which gives meaning to the atonement of Christ, and without which
the scheme of Christian salvation is but an idle fable--was regarded as
merely a myth. So, too, were the revelations of God to the patriarchs;
his communion with Enoch; his warning to Noah, together with the story
of the flood; the building of Babel's tower; the visions of Abraham;
the calling of Moses; the splendid display of God's power in the
deliverance of Israel from bondage; the law written upon the tables of
stone by the finger of God, the ark of the covenant and the visible
presence of God with Israel; the visitation of angels to the prophets;
their communion with God and the messages of reproof, of warning or
of comfort they brought to the people--all, all were myths, distorted
legends, uncertain traditions told by ecstatic poets, falsely esteemed
prophets! Such was the wreck which this new science of criticism made
of the Old Testament.
There was scarcely a halt between the wrecking of the Old Testament
by this new school of critics and their assault upon the New. Their
success gave them confidence, and they attacked the Christian documents
with more vigor than they had the Old Testament. By research which did
not need to be very extensive in order to conduct them to the facts,
they discovered that the age which witnessed the rise of the Christian
religion was one in which there existed a strong preconception in favor
of miracles; that is, the miraculous was universally believed, and it
was held by our new school of critics that this pre-conception in favor
of miracles influenced the writers of the New Testament to insert them
in their narratives.
Ever present in their New Testament criticism as in that of the
Old, was the cardinal principle that miracles never take place--the
miraculous is the impossible; [19] hence whenever our anti-miracle
critics found accounts of miracles interwoven in the biographies of
Jesus, or in the epistles of the apostles, they inexorably relegated
them to the sphere of myth or legend. [20]
Unhappily for orthodox believers who cling to the gospel narratives
as reliable statements of fact, they themselves found it necessary to
discard as apocryphal many of the books and writings which sprang into
existence in the early Christian centuries; books which pretended to
relate incidents in the life of Messiah, especially those which treated
of his childhood and youth. The marvelous account of his moulding
oxen, asses, birds and other figures out of clay, which at his command
would walk or fly away; his power to turn his playmates into kids; his
striking dead with a curse the boys who offended him; his stretching
a short board to its requisite length; his silencing those who try to
teach him [21]--all this, and much more, Christians had to discard as
pure fable. But they stopped short with the pruning process at the
books of the New Testament as we now have them.
Our new school of critics, however, infatuated with the chief principle
of their new science, went right on with the pruning, and made as sad
work of the New Testament as they had with the Old. They rejected the
miraculous in the New Testament writings as well as the account of
miracles which the Christians themselves rejected in the apocryphal
writings. By this step they got rid of the story of the miraculous
conception and birth of Christ; of the journey of the vision-led
magi; of the dream-led Joseph; of the testimony of the Holy Ghost,
and of the Father at Christ's baptism; of converting water into wine;
of Christ walking upon the water; of the miraculously fed multitude;
of the healing of the sick by a word or with a touch; casting out
devils; the raising of the dead; the earthquake; the rending of the
vail of the temple; and the miraculous three hours' darkness at the
crucifixion; Christ's resurrection from the dead; his appearance
after the resurrection; his final ascension into heaven; and the
declaration of the two angels that he would come again to the earth as
he had left it: in the clouds of heaven and in great glory. The new
criticism got rid of all this--all that makes Christ God, or one of
the persons of the Godhead, or that ascribes to him powers above those
that may be possessed by a man. Christ's divinity is destroyed by this
method of criticism, and one instinctively asks what there is left,
and is told--"The manifestations of the God concealed in the depths
of the human conscience." [22] "God-man, eternally incarnate, not an
individual but an idea!" [23]
To this then it comes at last, a Christianity without a Christ--that
is, without a divine Christ; and a Christ not divine--not God manifest
in the flesh, is no Christ. We had trusted that Jesus of Nazareth
had been he who would have redeemed not only all Israel, but all the
nations of the earth. We and our fathers had believed that he had
brought life and immortality to light through the gospel; but alas! it
turns out according to our new school of critics, that his "revelations
of blissful scenes of existence beyond death and the grave, are but
one of the many impostures which time after time have been palmed off
on credulous mankind!" Christ but a man, "the moralist and teacher of
Capernaum and Gennesaret"--nothing more! On a level with Socrates,
or Hillel, or Philo! What a void this new school of criticism makes!
A Christianity without the assurance of the resurrection! without
the hope of the glorious return of the Messiah, to reward every man
according to his works!
The new school of critics does not question so severely as other
critics have done the authenticity of the Christian documents, or the
date of their origin. Indeed, one of their chief apostles concedes the
authenticity of the gospels and their antiquity. [24] But after having
admitted the authenticity and antiquity of the Christian documents,
they then proceed to mutilate the story they relate--the gospel they
teach--as to render it practically valueless to mankind. This is
accomplished by regarding the Christian documents as legends, [25]
from which if we would arrive at historical truth must be excluded
all that is miraculous, [26] and hence all that makes Christ God. And
while to the imagination of the idealist much that is of value and
that is beautiful may remain in the attenuated Christianity which
the new criticism would leave us, yet for the great body of humanity
such a Christianity would be worthless. For however beautiful the
moral precepts of the merely human Jesus may be, they will have no
perceptible influence on the lives of the multitude unless back of
them stands divine authority, accompanied by a conviction of the fact
of man's immortality and his accountability to God for his conduct.
Shorn of these parts, what remains may be beautiful; but it would
be as the beauty of a man from whom the spark of life had fled--the
beauty of the dead. Of course the orthodox Christian denies that this
style of attack on the Christian religion has had any success. To him
it is an "attack" which has "failed." "In spite of all the efforts of
an audacious criticism," says one, "as ignorant as bold--the truth of
the sacred narrative stands firm, the stronger for the shocks that it
has resisted; the boundless store of truth and life which for eighteen
centuries has been the ailment of humanity is not (as Rationalism
boasts) dissipated. God is not divested of his grace, or man of his
dignity--nor is the tie between heaven and earth broken. The foundation
of God--the everlasting gospel--still standeth secure--and every effort
that is made to overthrow, does but more firmly establish it." [27]
Let us examine this matter more nearly, and with less partiality
than Rawlinson has done. If for the new school of critics to succeed
means that the orthodox view respecting Jesus of Nazareth, and the
religion he founded must be entirely overthrown by being driven out of
existence, then the new criticism is an "attack" which has "failed,"
for orthodox Christianity, that is, the Christianity which recognizes
Christ as divine--as God, and the New Testament as divinely inspired
and stating the substantial facts of Messiah's life--is still with us.
There are a number of reasons why the orthodox view of Christ has not
been entirely overthrown by the new criticism. First, the great body
of Christians which constitute the Catholic Church have been preserved
in the orthodox faith of Christ by the protecting aegis afforded by
the authority of that Church. Recognizing the church as superior to
the written word, alike its custodian and interpreter, and accepting
the meaning which the church attaches to the Bible as infallible,
Catholics, I say, have been preserved from the faith-shattering effects
of the New Criticism. Second, the criticism has been conducted, in the
main, and especially in the early stages of it, in the German language,
and hence has been largely confined to the German nation. Third, the
discussion wherever it has taken place has been carried on over the
heads of the laity; it has not been within their reach, hence to a
large extent it has been without effect upon them--an "attack that has
failed." But in each case, let it be remembered, its non-effect is
the result of not coming in contact with it. In one case it has been
kept away from the people by the authority of the church; in the other
through the inability of the laity, outside of Germany, to understand
the language in which the attack was written; and thirdly, through
the inability of the masses to bring the necessary scholarship to the
investigation.
But, on the other hand, if to attract to itself a large following,
both among clergymen and laity, and especially among scholars; if to
modify prevailing orthodox opinion concerning the historical character
of the Old Testament, and force concessions respecting the character
at least of some parts of the Christian documents; if to permeate
all Christendom--the Catholic Church perhaps excepted--with doubt
concerning the divinity of Christ, and to threaten in the future the
faith of millions of Christians--if to do this is to succeed, then
the new criticism is succeeding, for that is what it is doing. Forty
years ago it was the complaint of German orthodox writers that this
German neology, as the new criticism is sometimes called, had left "No
objective ground or standpoint," on which the believing theological
science can build with any feeling of security. [28] "Nor," says the
same authority, "is the evil in question confined to Germany. The
works regarded as most effective in destroying the historical faith
of Christians abroad, have received an English dress, and are, it is
to be feared, read by persons very ill-prepared by historical studies
to withstand their specious reasonings, alike in our country and in
America. The tone, moreover, of German historical writings generally is
tinged with the prevailing unbelief; and the faith of the historical
student is likely to be undermined, almost without his having his
suspicions aroused, by covert assumptions of the mythical character of
the sacred narrative, in works professing to deal chiefly, or entirely
with profane subjects." [29]
It is more than thirty years since these admissions were made; since
then the German works complained of have been more generally translated
and widely read than before. Besides, since then, Renan has given
his "_Origins of Christianity_" [30] to the world, and by his great
learning, but more especially by the power and irresistible charm of
his treatment of the subject, has popularized the conceptions of the
Rationalists, until now the virus of their infidelity may be said to be
poisoning all Protestant Christendom.
What must ever be an occasion for chagrin, not to say humiliation,
to orthodox Christendom, is, its inability to meet in any effectual
way the assaults of this new criticism. In Germany they complain
against Strauss for having written his "_Life of Jesus_" in the German
language. If he must write such a book, so full of unbelief in the
orthodox conception of Jesus, he ought at least to have had the grace
to have written it in Latin! [31]
For his rationalism Renan is driven out of the Church of Rome; but
this only gives notoriety to his views, creates a desire to read his
books and spreads abroad his unbelief. When the Presbyterian Church
takes to task one of its most brilliant scholars [32] for accepting
the results of the new criticism, he is sustained by the powerful
Presbyterian Synod of New York and acquitted; and when an appeal
is taken to the general assembly of the church and he is finally
condemned, he is able to retort that while he was condemned by the
general assembly, it was by numbers and not by intelligence that he
was overcome; it was the less intelligent Presbyteries of the rural
district that gave the necessary strength to his opponents. The better
informed members--members from the cities and centers of education
and enlightenment--were with him. [33] The defense commonly made for
orthodox Christianity is an appeal to its antiquity and its past
victories. Its defenders point with pride to the failure of the proud
boast of Voltaire, who was foolish enough to say: "In twenty years
Christianity will be no more. My single hand shall destroy the edifice
it took twelve apostles to rear." "Some years after his death," say
the orthodox, "his very printing press was employed in printing New
Testaments, and thus spreading abroad the gospel." Gibbon with solemn
sneer devoted his gorgeous history [34] to sarcasm upon Christ and his
followers. "His estate," say the orthodox, "is now in the hands of one
who devotes large sums to the propagation of the very truth Gibbon
labored to sap." [35]
All this may be very well, but even in their day these men of the
eighteenth century had a large following, and did much damage to
orthodox belief. In fact, it is not inconsistent to claim that, in an
indirect way, they were the forerunners of our new school of criticism;
for many Christian scholars not satisfied with the answers made to the
infidel writers of the eighteenth century have accepted the results of
this new criticism as a solution of the difficulties urged against
christianity by the infidels of the eighteenth century.
It is time now to pause and summarize what has been thus far discussed:
First, the divided state of Christendom of itself argues something
wrong; for nearly every page of holy scripture urges the unity of
Christ's Church. "Is Christ divided?" [36] is the ringing question that
the apostle of the Gentiles asks the schismatically inclined church
at Corinth. "I beseech you, brethren," says he, "by the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there
be no division among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in
the same mind and the same judgment." [37] He then proceeds to tell
them that they are utterly at fault in one saying that he was of Paul;
another that he was of Apollos, and another that he was of Cephas. [38]
What he would say of divided, not to say warring Christendom of today,
one may not conjecture, further than to say that if the incipient
divisions in Corinth provoked his condemnation, the open rupture and
conflicting creeds of the Christianity of the nineteenth century would
merit still harsher reproof.
Second, the failure of Christianity to evangelize the world in nineteen
centuries, sixteen of which, to all human judgment, appear to have
been especially favorable to that evangelization, since at the back
of Christianity stood the powerful nations of Europe whose commerce
and conquests opened the gates of nearly all nations to Christian
missionaries--argues some weakness in a religion bottomed on divine
revelation and sustained through all these centuries (so Christians
claim) by divine power. To be compelled to admit after all these
centuries favorable to the establishment of Christianity that now only
a little more than one-fourth of the population of our earth is even
nominally Christian is to confess that the results do not do credit
to a religion making the claims and possessing the advantages of
Christianity.
Third, the existence of a broad and constantly widening stream of
unbelief, not only in Christian lands and apart from Christian
communion, but within the very churches claiming to be churches of
Christ, together with the inability of the orthodox to meet and silence
the infidel revilers of the Christian religion--tells its own tale of
weakness; and bears testimony of the insufficiency of the Christian
evidences to bring conviction to the doubting minds of many sincere and
moral people.
All these considerations proclaim in trumpet-tones
"'Tis time that some new prophet should appear."
Mankind stand in need of a new witness for God--a witness who may speak
not as the scribes or the pharisees, but in the clear, ringing tones of
one clothed with authority from God. The world is weary of the endless
wrangling of the scholastics. They settle nothing. Their speculations
merely shroud all in profounder mystery, and beget more uncertainty.
They darken counsel by words without knowledge. Therefore, to heal
the schisms in Christendom; to bring order out of the existing chaos;
to stay the stream of unbelief within the churches; to convert the
Jews; to evangelize the world; to bring to pass that universal reign
of truth, of peace, of liberty, of righteousness that all the prophets
have predicted--the world needs a new witness for God.
Footnotes
1. Such is the language, slightly paraphrased, which Mrs. Humphrey Ward
puts in the mouth of the orthodox Ronalds in her dialogue entitled _The
New Reformation_ (See Agnosticism and Christianity--Humbolt Library
Series, page 151); and it accurately states the claims of the orthodox
Christian.
2. "Agnosticism and Christianity," p. 151. The passage is paraphrased.
3. I thus carefully qualify the statement for the reason that I believe
the Christian religion--that is, the Gospel, has a much earlier
existence than the birth of Christ. Messiah is spoken of in Scripture
as "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world," from which
expression in connection with many other evidences--too numerous to
mention here (see the Author's work "The Gospel," ch. xxxii.)--I get
the idea that the plan of man's redemption through the atonement of
Jesus Christ is at least as old as the foundation of the world. It was
revealed to Adam, and the Patriarchs, to Abraham, to Moses, and to some
of the prophets; and finally through the earthly ministry of the Son of
God himself; but it is an error to suppose that it came into existence
first through the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth on earth.
4. Æsop's Fables.
5. Mosheim's Ecclesiastical Institutes, book iii., cent. viii., part
i., chap. i. (Murdock's translation always quoted.)
6. Mosheim, book iii., cent. x., part i., chap. i.
7. Mosheim, book iii., cent. xii., part i., chap. i.
8. "What the World Believes," Gay Bros & Co., New York. Dr. Hurst's
"Outline History of the Church" (1875) gives the following population
to the creeds:
Christianity ........................ 407 Millions.
Judaism ............................... 7 "
Buddhism ............................ 340 "
Mohammedism ......................... 200 "
Brahmanism .......................... 175 "
Confucianism ......................... 80 "
All other forms of religious belief . 174 "
While this is a little different grouping of the religions than that in
the text, the computation is approximately the same. "Of the Christian
populations of the world, 131,007,449 are assigned to Protestantism,
200,339,390 to Roman Catholicism, and 76,390,040 to the oriental
churches. In the New World, comprising North and South America, the
Roman Catholics are in the majority, having about sixty millions" (Behm
& Wagner). The above is also quoted with favor by Dr. Joseph Faa Di
Bruno in his work "Catholic Belief," p. 397.
9. Burder's History of all Religions (1860), p. 140; also Buck's Theol.
Dic., Art. Greek Church.
10. Faith of our Fathers, p. 109.
11. Christianity and Agnosticism, p. 161.
12. "The true deist has but one Deity; and his religion consists
in contemplating the power, wisdom and benignity of the Deity in
his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral,
scientifical and mechanical. * * * * The Almighty Lecturer (Deity), by
displaying the principles of science in the structure of the universe,
has invited man to study and to imitation. It is as if he had said to
the inhabitants of this globe we call ours, 'I have made an earth for
man to dwell upon, and I have rendered the starry heavens visible, to
teach him science and the arts. He can now provide for his own comfort,
and learn from my munificence to all, to be kind to each other.' * *
* * * In Deism our reason and our belief become happily united. The
wonderful structure of the universe, and everything we behold in the
system of the creation, prove to us far better than books can do, the
existence of a God and at the same time proclaim his attributes. It is
by exercise of our reason that we are enabled to contemplate God in his
works and imitate him in his ways. When we see his care and goodness
extended over all his creatures, it teaches us our duty towards each
other while it calls forth our gratitude to him."--_Thomas Paine._
13. "It is not in the name of this or that philosophy, but in the name
of constant experience that we banish miracle from history. We do
not say 'miracle is impossible'; we say: 'there has been hitherto no
miracle proved.' * * * * Till we have new light, we shall maintain,
therefore, this principle of historical criticism, that a supernatural
relation cannot be accepted as such, that it always implies credulity
or imposture." Renan, Life of Jesus, E. T. pp. 44, 45.
14. "Let the gospels be in part legendary, that is evident since they
are full of miracles and the supernatural." "Renan, Life of Jesus, p.
19." Renan is one of the chief writers of the rationalistic school.
"No just perception of the true nature of history is possible without a
just perception of the inviolability of the chain of finite causes, and
of the impossibility of miracles." Strauss, Leben Jesu, Vol. I., p. 64.
E. T.
15. "Canons," is the scientific term.
16. "Inquiry into the Credibility of Early Roman History." (Sir G. C.
Lewis) Vol. I., p. 2, of the Introduction.
17. The whole world of profane history has been revolutionized: * * *
* The views of the ancient world formerly entertained have been in ten
thousand points either modified or revised--a new antiquity has been
raised up out of the old--while much that was unreal in the picture
of past times which men had formed to themselves has disappeared,
consigned to that "Limbo large and broad" into which "all things
transitory and vain" are finally received, a fresh revelation has in
many cases taken the place of the old view, which has dissolved before
the wand of the critic; and a firm and strong fabric has arisen out
of the shattered _debris_ of the fallen systems.--George Rawlinson's
"Historical Evidences" (London Edition) pp. 28, 29.
18. A footnote scarcely affords the space necessary in which to discuss
the value of miracles as evidence to the truth of a religion or the
divine authority of the miracle worker; but a few observations at this
particular point will be, in the estimation of the author, _apropos._
It is a mistake on the part of the Protestants or any one else to
concede that the power to work miracles is absolute evidence of the
truth of a religion, or of the divine calling of the miracle worker.
Too much importance has been given to miracles as evidence of divine
authority. Looking upon what are commonly called miracles, not as
events or effects contrary to the laws of nature, but interventions on
the part of God (through the operation of natural, though perhaps to
man unknown laws) for the benefit of his children, and recognizing God
as the Father of all mankind, it would be an extremely narrow conception
of the love and mercy of the Deity to suppose that he would confine
these interventions to any one class of his children. Surely it is
egotism run mad for a people to suppose that they have succeeded so
far in becoming the special favorites of heaven that all God's special
providences will be confined to them. No, no; he who maketh his sun
to rise on the evil as well as the good, and sendeth rain on the
just and unjust alike, is capable of better things than men ascribe
to him in this matter of miracles. But it does not follow that those
who enjoy these special manifestations have correct religious creeds
or possess the fullness of truth. Equally erroneous is it to suppose
that the powers of evil cannot work what are called miracles; that is,
put into operation forces as yet unknown to man which produce effects
uncommon to his experience. Can it be that our Christian writers have
forgotten that "to win us to our harm, the instruments of darkness
tell us truths--win us with honest trifles, to betray us in deepest
consequences?" Have they forgotten that the miracles of Moses were well
nigh matched by those of the magicians of Egypt? That Simon Magus,
notwithstanding he had no lot nor part in the things of God, yet had
wrought miracles. Have they forgotten that in the description given us
in Holy Writ (II. Thess. ii.) of the rise of Anti-Christ, that Satan
shall have power to work "signs and lying wonders," and that God will
permit the strong delusions that those might be condemned who believe
not the truth but have pleasure in unrighteousness? Have they forgotten
that the word of prophecy hath said that even unclean spirits,
"devils," shall have the power of "working miracles," even calling down
fire from heaven, to deceive the inhabitants of the earth? (Rev. xvi)?
If miracles are to be taken as an absolute test of divine authority,
will not the unclean spirits, these miracle-working devils, prove the
divinity of their mission? Again, it said that "John" (the baptist),
than whom there is no greater prophet, "did no miracle" (John x. 41).
It appears, therefore, that not all that are sent of God work miracles;
and we see that devils have in the past and will in the future possess
that power; hence miracles are not as important a class of testimony as
they have usually been esteemed; and writers are utterly at fault who
regard them as an absolute test of true religion or divine authority.
19. I find it necessary to say another word on miracles. There is a
general misapprehension, I think, of what a miracle really is. The
commonly accepted definition of the term is, "an event or effect
contrary to the established constitution and course of things, or a
deviation from the known laws of nature." Renan defines a miracle
to be, "not simply the inexplicable, it is a formal derogation from
recognized laws in the name of a particular desire." What is especially
faulty in these definitions is this: Miracles are held to be outside or
contrary to the laws of nature. Let us examine this. Two hundred years
ago the only motive powers known to ocean navigators were wind and the
ocean currents. Suppose at that time those old mariners had seen one
of our modern ocean steamers running against both ocean currents and
the wind; and, withal, making better speed in spite of both wind and
tide than the old time sailing vessel could even when running before
the wind and the ocean currents in her favor. What would have been
the effect of such a sight on the mind of the old-time sailor? "It is
a miracle!" he would have exclaimed; that is, it would have been an
"effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things,"
"a derogation from recognized laws." But is such an effect to us who
know something of the force of steam contrary to the laws of nature?
No; it is simply the employment of forces in nature of which the
old-time mariner was ignorant; and while it would have been a miracle
to him, to us it is merely the application of a newly discovered
force of nature, and it is now so common that we cease to look upon
it with wonder. So with the things that we now in our ignorance call
miracles--such as the healing of the sick, restoring the blind to
sight, making the lame to walk, through the exercise of faith, and the
resurrection of the dead--instead of these things being in "derogation
from recognized laws," we shall yet learn that they are done simply by
the application of laws of which we are as yet in ignorance. With man's
limited knowledge of the laws of nature, how presumptuous it is in him
to say that the healing of the sick or even the resurrection of the
dead are in "derogation of the laws of nature," or that deviation from
those few laws of nature with which he is acquainted will never happen,
or is impossible! Better reasoners are they who, like George Rawlinson,
say, "Miraculous interpositions on fitting occasions may be as much a
regular, fixed, and established rule of his (God's) government as the
working ordinarily by what are called natural laws." In other words,
what we in our ignorance call miracles, are to God merely the results
of the application of higher laws or forces of nature not yet learned
by man. Miracles are to be viewed as a part of the divine economy.
20. It will be observed that throughout a difference between myth and
legend is recognized. Strauss thus distinguishes between them: "Mythus
is the creation of a fact out of an idea; legend the seeing of an idea
in a fact, or arising out of it." "The myth is therefore pure and
absolute imagination," says Rawlinson; "the legend has a basis of fact,
but amplifies, abridges, or modifies that basis at its pleasure." And
thus De Wette: "The myth is an idea in a vestment of facts; the legend
contains facts pervaded and transformed by ideas."
21. All this and a hundred other things equally silly and untrue which
mar rather than dignify the character of Jesus Christ are related
in the "First Gospel of the Infancy," translated by Mr. Henry Sike,
professor of Oriental Languages at Cambridge. "The Infancy" was
accepted by the Gnostics, a Christian sect of the second century.
22. "Life of Jesus" (Renan), p. 50, E. T.
23. "Life of Jesus" (Strauss), vol. III., p. 434, E. T.
24. "Upon the whole, I accept the four canonical gospels as authentic.
All, in my judgment, date back to the first century, and they are
substantially by the authors to whom they are attributed." "Renan's
Life of Jesus," Introduction, p. 34, E. T.
25. "Let the Gospels be in part legendary, that is evident since they
are full of miracles and the supernatural. . . . . The historic value
which I attribute to the Gospels is now, I think, quite understood.
They are neither biographies, after the manner of Suetonius, nor
fictitious legends, like those of Philostratus; they are legendary
biographies." Renan, "Life of Jesus," Introduction, p. 17 38.
26. "Till we have new light, we shall maintain, therefore, this
principle of historical criticism, that a supernatural relation cannot
be accepted as such, that it always implies credulity or imposture,
that the duty of the historian is to interpret it, and to seek what
portion of truth and what portion error it may contain. Such are the
rules which have been followed in this life" (of Christ). Renan, "Life
of Jesus," p. 45, E. T.
27. "Historical Evidences" (Rawlinson), p. 228.
28. "Historical Evidences," (Rawlinson), Preface.
29. "Historical Evidences" (Rawlinson), see Preface. See also Keil's
preface to his "Comment on Joshua."
30. "Origins of Christianity" in three volumes; "The Life of Jesus,"
"The Apostles," "Saint Paul."
31. See Preface to Strauss' "Life of Jesus."
32. Dr. C. A. Briggs.
33. The triumphant language of Dr. Briggs in the _North American
Review_ is: "The majority of votes in favor of the suspension was very
great. But if the votes are weighed as well as counted the disparity
will not be regarded as serious. The basis of representation in the
general assembly gives the small presbyteries in the country districts
and on the frontiers a vastly greater power than they are entitled
to by their numbers or influence, while the strong presbyteries in
our large cities and in the great communities are put at a serious
disadvantage. The general assemblies, as they are now constituted,
represent the least intelligent portion of the church, and not
unfrequently a majority in the Assembly really represents a minority of
the ministers and people in the denomination. A majority of a general
assembly is not taken seriously by intelligent Presbyterians."
34. "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."
35. The remarks in relation to both Gibbon and Voltaire are to be found
in the _Christian Visitor_ for 1889.
36. 1 Cor. i. 13.
37. _Ibid_ verse 10.
38. 1 Cor. i. 12.
THESIS II.
The Church of Christ Was Destroyed: There Has Been an Apostasy from the
Christian Religion, So Complete and Universal, as to Make Necessary a
New Dispensation of the Gospel.