New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-10-10

Ssers 20 cast suspicion the whole for the sake OF
isolated SF re- Sumsn
standards then it becomes destructive and then
must draw hard and sharp line against Its false pre-
Above al, We demand that saneta sanek rae..ntT
bic desire for truth. He who will not let himself be
spprehended by the spirit Of Scripture will never com
pIly Judged Scripture therefore must bo meed with
ts own measure. To apply the standards OF merely
natural and human events the selfreyeang actions
~ cod to begin by doing violence TO Scripture. This
is tho fundamental error of all false ratonastc crti
our first step in opposing this practice is TO expose
the false principle on which it rests Since the days OF
the Tubingen SCHOOL, this criticism has arrogated 10
itself the title OF HISTORICAL though II ia often only phil0
sophcal. II claims TO examine with historical impair
TALLY and often from the first biased by arbitrary
philosophical assumptions. These men approach the
records OF Christianity imbued with pantheistc or
ratonaistc aversion to tho miraculous with the nten
rendering the supernatural facts recorded therein
nearly human as possible BY means OF
historical phenomena. and OF acknowledging a. hstor
teIligbo TO them because it does not exceed mans
capacity; just as II God the Lord could not mako
history with his deeds which far transcend our COM
prehenslonHe, who is Cause and Aim Of all history
hs good sooth not impartial historical inyestiga-
ton, but rather the result OF looking through mighty
distorted philosophical spectacles This criticism can
not, however compass It's ends without innunera6ie
coups de force ana unbounded arbtrariness And this
the second quarter TO which our scientific defense has
direct Its attacks To say nothing OF the way IN
specific nature OF Christianity would merely point
out how the efforts OF the latter and his disciples have
/
anty az the universal religion from Christ aud the first
Apostles to the authorship OF st. Paul just as II he him
self had not openly declared that he did not preach him
self but Christ Jesus I'll Cor Nv. 81 and that man
lay another foundation thanithat which Is laid d. Cor
accnrsed il he preach another gospel than that of
Christ GAL 1sl would not Indignantly have declined
In order 10 deprive tho Founder of Christianity Of his
specific dignity the Son Of God. this false criticism
has as all know, endeayOred TO turn His miracles
into natural elements OF myths, and to give His test
monies and teachings respecting Himself the impress OF
aanAnp nf Iafnr anda aaiaU
to cast sur upon his absolute snlessness. AS If it
were not impossibe-witness even the confession of
Rousseau-to invent such q picture OF Christ as that
which the Gospel gives u.s. As if-eyen supposing all
four Gospels to be spnrous-the four uninpeaeneed
Godmanhood and the perfectly holy medatory charac-
ter OF the Cruclhed aud Risen One. And as the
most arbitrary criticism OF the Gospels had not left
genuine some sefestmonies OF Christ, In which He
Laws clam attributes which positively exceed any
mere human standard in the passages which relate
10 HIS second coming as the judge OF the world Here
we see criticism reach the browning point OF arbtrar
neg and talk of "fanaticsm and "uDjustiaable self
BE 1t So but let these critics
bear the crushing burden OF bringing evidence which
may give the fantest glmmerng OF an understand
ing how such serious natural and intellectual defects
co1Id coexist In the same individual with the otherwise
perfect sobriety cearness and quetness OF His words
and actions. and with the LOFTY moral dignity OF His
whole nature IL it not utterly absurd, ask to sup
pose that the religion Of humanity and love takes its
origin from fanatic so eaten up by pridei But II
Christ uttered these testimonies of Himself like all His
other words with elaboration and truth, then He must
he the one whom the church has ever taken Him. the
only begotten Son OF the living God
All these attacks based on aversion to the miracu-
ions and especially the denial of the resurrection may
be consigned wel-merited grave by the one unan
swerabe argument you never explain the enigma
of primitive Christian belief, its word-couquering
powcr and its w0rdregeneraling effects nor the ex-
ence OF the Christian Church Itself II Christ not,
ana d not do what the Gospels tell or HIM. BY trying
10 explain primitive Christian history as chain or
merely natural occurrences, you turn It upside down
and make It an nsouOe enigma BY your denial OF the
yo are Compelled to seek the handspring
of so Immense movement as that OF Christianity In
persons circumstances aud relations which cannot bear
The weight such superstructure and In the end you
ask us to believe that the hndom OF truth TOOK its
origin from misunderstanding, error selfdeceptlOn ana
dishonesty The logical law Of the suiicing cause
makes all your efforts VAIN Hence negative criticism
has been considerably beaten back upon seyera points
Just compare the present state OF results In the cr
csms OF the Gospels with that OF few decades since
The Synopcs which had then been pushed onward INTO
the second century, have already step by step been
brought back into the first Even In the question as 10
the time when the Gospel OF 81 Johh was written ue
critic school has receded from the year 100 aur) TO
the beginning OF the second century Reim lOOll e.
time when St. John may sun have been awe. Ana II
Rein in recent work declares that the prevailing
truth ascrlbe TO this Gospel direct historical value
he thereby shows that he himself does no. object TO sac
than ever the ascrpon OF its authorship to st. John is
being defended not only by such critics as Ewald'
bat even by weizsacker, Ritseh, and others.
In view OF all THIS must protest aloud against the
against the in which they present to the public
In popular exegetcal works as Gospel truth the ascer-
aned results OF historical aud biblical investigation,
while these accepted only by minority OF theolo-
gans, and many OF them men of waning credit; and
they 20 so far give themselves credit for being the
promoters Of greater life in the Church. they should be
clearly shown how miseraby impractical aud INSULT
their denial OF inspiration, they utterly destroy the
living interest OF the mass OF men IN the Bible: by
No. few stude9 OF theology are. by means OF
becoming thoroughly disgusted with the study OF exc
gesls. -, -, . ,, a, +. -, ...,'
cIsm OF the charm OF novelty What Is It, with It's
resolution actual facts than new edition OF the old
GnOstcismi Aud will II not die away Just as this did,
f.frara for rel
evapOratng ideas or crumbng stones, instead OF the
living bread from Heaveni This school indeed seeks to
retain Christ as an idea. But idea redeem
the world SIM unhapply, Is mighty reality. and ana
reason why as long there sinners in need OF sal
walton, the world cannot give up the Word OF Life
DEFENSE AGAINST ASTEAIRACULoUs SCIENCE.
Our defense against the attacks OF modern anti
miraculous natural science will have to be conducted in
somewhat similar manner, since its principle OF the
denial of the miraculous is identical with that Of the
destructive critical school, Darwin and his followers
are working out the same fundamental idea as Baur
and his disciples viz to bridge over by natural means
all the chasms history, as to get rid Of all super
NATURAL agencies-and both schools though originally
0ue independentof another have nc length happily
met in the person OF Strauss we see in his last work
1.-THE old and new belief" In order TO maintain firm
position against the attacks OF natural science We must
first consider the purpose for which the Scriptures as
whole were given, and thus draw q sharp line be-
tween this aim and that OF scientific investigation Ger
religious truths cannot altogether avoid touch
ing on physical ground, especially or,a IN the
history or creation But Wnere III uOes enter upon
the reign OF nature it only does as far as is abso-
lutey necessary ground and establish our fal-to
instruct man his true destiny and TO make way for
correct notions OF the relation OF God to the world
while excluding all falseness Thus material |
ism ard natWalism, as well as panthe- |
lam and emanatiOnism equally excluded |
Then the physical processes are fagmentary sketched
FEW Se p Sa. hs history Of to
record forthwith proceeds Evidently then, this record
e. by no means complete from physical point OF view
On The contrary nnumerable questions left open 10
be answered by our investigation But In no case are
nbvscal relations brought In for their own sake. Entire
sence kept all points which do not form part OF
the foundation OF religious truth. How few physical
details the LIST and ID chapters OF Genesis contain IN
Comparison with heather cosmogoniesl
IL Is Important to remark the distinction, that while