The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1894-12-15

messed this event and testified to its
reality needed no supernatural eleva-
tion of mind or heart. Their ordin-
airy faculties were all sufficient. Or
binary men could testify to what their
eyes saw, ears heard and hands hand
led just as we'll as an angel from
heaven, and what they testified to,
other men could record without any
supernatural aid. Neither the dis
ciples nor evangelists therefore need
ed any special inspiration to give us
trustworthy record. If the former
told the truth and the latter recorded
correctly what they told, we have
such record. Clearly then super
natural religion does not necessitate
supernatural record.
On the other hand if there be any
force in the above reasoning, record
may be trustworthy though it be
record of supernatural event. If
men can testify to what comes under
their own observation and other men
record correctly their testimony, as
in the case of the resurrection of
Christ, then there can be a trustwor-
the record of supernatural religion.
The New Testament account of the
origin of our religion may be entirely
trustworthy, therefore, though it does
contain a miraculous element. And if
it be said that miracle is impossible
and therefore there can be no trust
worthy record of miracle, we ans
wer that that is to determine the
character of the record by philo-
sophical assumption. To say that a
miracle is impossible is to assume
what cannot be proven. 1t is to as
sumo that we know all the methods
of Gods activity and understand all
the phenomena of the universe, which
is absurd. We may so define mir
acle as to make it seem impossible,
but then the impossibility all hinges
on our definition, which is more likely
to be wrong than right. To our
mind there is nothing more philoso-
phically absurd than to affirm the i'm
possibility of a miracle, especially
such as are recorded in the New Tes-
lament.
If it be said further that the almost
universal experience of mankind tes-
titles that miracles do not occur, and
therefore that the record of such
events cannot be accepted, the an
swer is that the conclusion is not con-
tanned in the premises. A few years
ago the universal experience of man.
kind testified that two men hun
dred miles apart could not talk with
each other. Suppose that at that
time canon of criticism had been
established that no record of such an
event is to be accepted. Why then
of course we must now reject all the
records we have of the thousands of
such events in obedience to this can
on. This shows the absurdity of re-
jecting the record of an event because
the ordinary or even the universal
experience of mankind testifies
against its occurrence. 1t may occur,
the world to the contrary notwith-
standing. In fact it is very unsafe
to make canon of criticism out of
the experience of mankind that will
apply to all time and all events.
That cannot be done until that exper-
fence is all in and the votes counted,
which surely is not yet.
This brief discussion shows how
unreasonable and opposed to all COM
mon sense, is the affirmation that
there can be no trustworthy record
of supernatural religion. 1t is just
as unreasonable as the assumption
that supernatural religion must
have supernatural record. The re-
ligion may be supernatural and the
record perfectly natural, and at the
same time perfectly trustworthy.
And if our Higher Criticism " was
profoundly convinced of this fact and
would go to the record free from all
these philosophical prepossessions,
its conclusions would have far more
weight with the uncritical world.
When we. who are not critical ex-
perts, see SO clearly that our critic is
trying to make out case, that he is
trying to find in the record what he
expects and wants to find there, we
are skeptical about his conclusions
and are likely to go little slow in
following his critical judgments.
SC.
SYCAMORE. ILL.
SILVER CROSS HOSPITAL SUNDAY
Ar T0TTpT