The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-01-21

large part Of what its author says is a re- .
hash of what has been claimed and urged .
by lnfidels for ages, and which it would be
repugnant to follow in all the details. The
author says he is aware that many wiser
and better men" than he are firmly con- J
WINGED Of the truth of this doctrine, and I
proceeds TO tell us that such wiser and |
better men so believe partly from habit, |
partly from an indisposition to interpret, /
study and reason for themselves; partly |
because they have accustomed themselves /
to allow others to think for them on this |
subject, but principally because they start |
out in life with the idea that
the Bible is sacred book, not
anything and everything" etc. Wherein
the author displays a distressingly low
opinion of the intelligence and the sin
certify of such wiser and better men. He
may be sure that these wiser and better
men feel that they possess better reasons
for being so firmly convinced than merely
because they can see nothing against the
doctrine but much in its favor"
On the authority of Amberly and other
such writers he fatty denies that Jesus
taught any new moral truths; such he
says were certainly not his ethics, for
most of them, as beautiful as they really
are were old before he was born, and all,
1 think, had been taught before he
came.H Note the patronizing comment
beautiful as they really are!' Quota
| tons are given purporting to be from
| Confucius and others of earlier date than
| the Christian era, which express senti-
ments more or less resembling some of
the teachings of Jesus. Suppose such
maxims were not merely resembling, but
were actually Identical with the words of
| Jesus, what would it prove! Manifestly,
| regarding Jesus as merely man, it would
| be preposterouS TO claim that he
| had any acquaintance with the writ
| ingS or oral doctrines of such people,
| of whose very names he would probably
| have been ignorant. His ethics then APP
pear to have been, in any case, original
as far as he was concerned, for his I'M
| taught knowledge of all this accumulated
wisdom of the most remote regions would
be even more difficult to explain Here
we are confronted with remarkable in
stance of the childlike credulity of inf
| deity. For centuries the earth's best
| and highest scholarship has studied the
Bible in every light, striving, perhaps
sometimes unsuccessfully, to fix the au-
| thenticity of the text. To the infdel
| mind, all this is naught. But let some
writer of similar unfaith, no matter how
obscure, quote from Confucius, or Zoroas-
| ter, or even more vague authority, any
kind of sentiment which it suits the in
| fidel to consider genuine, and it never oc-
| ours to him that possibly the purity of
| that text may have been corrupted, too.
to any unprejudiced mind, that if any
| plagiarizing was done, Jesus was the
| plagiarized and not the plagiarist. The
| infidel, then, may carp and dispute, and
| pin his lack of faith to shadowy heathens;
| the balance of the world will still and
always consider it as settled that Jesus
| Christ did teach mankind new system
| of ethics.
Still on the question of Christ's divinity
a whole long, chapter is given to prove
| that if Jesus were God he could not
| have been betrayed, and Judas was but
| helpless instrument-if Judas was a
! traitor, Jesus was not God, etc. This
singular proposition requires notice only
! because it was the original point of dis
| cussion between the author and the
| bishop, and hence was the nucleus around
which the Inquiry was woven. He
says: Il had heard the bishop preach a
sermon, in the course of which Judas
Iscariot received very large amount of
| vituperation, and was held up to the exc
Grafton of the world; l
knew that he held and taught the doc
| trine that Jesus was God; and the evident
! inconsistency of the two positions oe-
CURED to me so forcibly that, ETC." Now
most people would have allowed this
| evident inconsistency to pass unnoticed.
| The authors argument is, briefly, as fol-!
lows: Surprising Jesus to be God, he
| was omnipotent and omniscient; had come
J into the world according to his own pre-
| arranged plan of salvation to be betrayed
! by disciple, chosen and originally
created for that purpose. There
fore, Judas was necessarily a help
less instrument in the hands of
God, and as such is entitled to our
pity and commiseration, not our abuse.
| Amazing argument and astounding con-
| clusionl Such view could not possibly
occur to any but the most acute intel
| ligence, yet certain FEASIBILITY of
statement is calculated to deceive the I'M
wary. The author has ingeniously tied
himself up in a knot, somewhat like that
of a slight-of-hand performer who APP
parently ties a cord, but in such way
that little jerk straightens it out again
This is very easily seen. He says he
believes as a historical fact that Judas
did betray Jesus he also says page So |
that he believes in God, 'omnipotent |
omniscient, president; and that every |
thing exists by and through him" Well |
then, if the supposition that Jesus was
God nessitates the conclusion that Judas |
was mere puppet in the hands of ON |
impotence, and therefore martyr, it is
clear that the same conclusion is forced |
upon us whether Jesus was God or man,
for after all, everything exists by and !
through him." The prearranging and
foreordaining was certainly all /
done by God, whether that
Goa was Jesus OF nOG. Inc =
conclusion is then inevitable |
that Judas was a-martyr in any case, be-
ing the real victim of the plan, the ques-
ton of the divinity of Jesus not being in
any way involved. The same argument !
would make heroes or at least, martyrs.
of Arnold, Guiteau and all criminals |
in history or out of it. This is the doc |
trine of extreme fatalism, and is the most |
horrible form of intellectual perversity
known. Not for a moment would the au- |
thor of the Inquiry think of maintain |
ing doctrine which denied the guilt of /
all crime, and the merit of all virtue. |
Yet here he does so, though, of course, UNI
intentionally; and this is the loop in the |
knotted cord. He applies the doctrine of |
fatalism to Judas, but only on the suppo- |
sition that Jesus was God; and evidently |
if Judas was beyond the reach of human
motives in one case, he was equally so in |
the other
The author goes on to argue that Judas |
could not have betrayed" Jesus if the lat
ter was God, because to ''betray" implies |
violation of trust if then Jesus trusted
that Judas would not ''betray' him, he .
was disappointed, - and therefore could |
not have been God, etc. One would |
scarcely expect to find much stress laid |