The Hawaiian gazette., 1876-10-11
Christianity versus the Religion of
the Bible.

|
How man of SO varied and extensive information,
and apparently so candid as Augustus Bauvelt, can
take the ground that Christianity is opposed to the
Bible, cannot understand and yet he asserts in
plain language that Z" Biblical religion is one thing,
and Christianity quite another.' (See protestant
Vaticanisul" in scrbner's Monthly for september)
"When we have gone SO far" he inquiries, " as to
affirm with article VII. of the Church of England"
that the Mosaic acquisitions. touching cereu ones
and rites do not bind Christian men," and the
like, why should then stop and say: " Yet not
withstanding, Christian is free from ODE
dence of the comm audments which are called oral"
And this is his answer to the question, THAT
Jesus himself instead of having proclaimed the per-
petuity of the Mosaic law for all time in any of its
aspects, expressly limited its continuance in the all
comprehensive senseOf both the law and the prophets
| to the moment of its fulfllment by himself"
Now the prophets of the most varied character,
some of them foreelliug the destruction of nations
! and cities, and Others the establishment of that
Kingdom which shall be universal and everlasting
Jesus NO doubt to fulfill the moral precopts Of
both the law and the prophets but in fulfilling those
preceps, he did not abrogate them that they are
no longer binding Having repeated the two great
est commandments Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart" and " Thou shalt love thy
neighbOr as myself" he added, "on these two com.
mandments hang all the law and the prophets" Did
Jesus so fulfill these precepts that, in any possible
way, their divine validity has ceased forever
think not
The question is not whether the Jews correctly
derstOOd the precepts of their law. 1t is admitted
fbotth
terpretators made void the law. The question is,
were the moral precepts of the law contrary to the
precepts of the gospei Both make it the duty of
to love God with all the heart. But says Blau-
velt 1t cannot be denied that between the God of
the ancient Jewish theOcracy, and the God Of the
theocracy established by Jesus, there exists in
general, the broadcast aud most fundamental diversity
In the one we have q Jealous God, visiting
the iniquities of the fathers on the children to the
third and fourth generation of them that hate him y
in the other, we have benign Father, who max
eth his to rise the evil and the good and send
eth rain on the just and the unjust"
Now why did he not look for the contrast in the
writings of Moses? There he would have found the
proclamation, Jehovah God, merciful and gracious,
long suffering. and abundant in goodness and truth
keeping mercy for thousands, forgivng iniquity and
trnnsgression, and sin, and that will by no means
clear the guilty" lex. xxxiv., 6. ~ Nor did the
God of the old testament limit his kindness and care
to the Israeites, "for he Oyeh the stranger in Civ
ing him food and raiment." And his command is,
Love ye therefore the strangers for ye strang-
ers in the land of Egypt" (Dsut, x. 49, 49,. The
God of the Old Testament loves the stranger, whether
good evil and manifests his love in giving him
food and raiment. The God of the New Testament
sends rain the just and unjust. Where is the diff
ference?
The God Of the Old Testament visits the niquity of
the father upon the children to the third and fourth
generations and observation teaches us that is Just
The iniquities of vicious parents are often
visited upon children and grand children. This is |
the penalty Of transgressng the laws of physical
and moral nature.
have been better for the world il the entire Old Tesla
ment had been lost at the Christian era. His Ian
guage is Indeed, all things considered it could be
devoutly wished that steadily onward from the days
of Jesus downward to the present epoch no socaled
Christian preacher, creed-framer, commentator,
concocter of body of divinity had been por-
mitted to have free range for his socalled Christian
moral or religious notions throughout the ancient
Jewish Scriptures"
Did jesus regard tho Jewish scriptures as antagon-
istc to the doctrines be taught? If why did he
bid the Jews to search the Scriptures? (Jer. ", 39
If so, why did he open the understanding of his DIS
eiples, that they might understand the scripture?
Luke xiv, ASH And why does he assert in his
prayer. "Thy word is truthP (Jer. xvii. III
And did the Apostles regard the Old Testament as
hostile to the gospe2 Certainly not for their
preaching and their writings abounded in references
the Jewish scriptures. Paul says that the law is
our schoolmaster to Christ" (Gal. ill.,, 24.) He
writes TO Timothy. " From n child thou hast known
the holy scriptures, which able make thee wise
unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Je-
sus." e Tim. ill.,, l5) And he goes on to say
in the next that all scripture is given by in
spiration of God. and is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof for correction, for instruction in righteous
ness. that the man Of God may be perfect, thorough
ly furnished to all good works" How different this
sentiment of the great Apostle from that Of BlauVetl
Paul never said nor would he ever say, that far
from being Christian because they are Biblical arti.
cles of faith may be all the less Christian in proper
ton as they are all the more Biblical"
Blauvelt speaks Of Jesus with the utmost reverence
ETC., for anything that appears to the contrary be
regards Him as an nfallible teacher. " What they
long for-souls who weary alike Of the obsouring
and corrupting dngmas Of the traditional church
theology, and, to say nothing further at present,
weary also of at least the anti Christian udaistic
features of the religion Of the Bibe,-What they
grasp after more and more daily. doubtless is the
pure religious thought Of Jesus"
He speaks of " Christian apologists," and tells US
Ehat they ought to do viz +" To hold up hands be-
ore God and man which absolutely free to re-
move, not only the seandalous features ofthe
traditional church theology, but the most offensive
eatures of that Biblical religion, which, having be-
ome popularity, and, indeed, almost universally
with Christianity, are eren more funda-
mentally than all the dogmatical Of the theo-
Ogians, throttng and strangliug out Christianity,
nd they should do this in the name Of that Jesus
{ Nazareth, who founded Christianity, and in the
Tecse sense and to that exact degree and extent in
Iheh he personally caused Christianity to differ
rom the religion of the Bible which possess.
Blauvet thinks that he discovers tares in the fields
nd be proposes to 20 with his band Of " Christian
biologists" and gather them out, aBd will not the
wner Of the field say in answer to this proposition
By no means, for you seem not to distinguish be-