The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1894-11-17

origin OF our rel1SlOn, WnaJ tnen!
Why evidently that would not affect
the facts. The facts would be there
just the same. What the teachings,
doings and sufferings of Jesus really
were would be the same, notwith-
standing our Enthusiastically account
of them.
But what would it affect? 1t would
would affect our knowledge of these
facts. We should hardly know what
these facts were and we could not
teach our religion as founded upon
these facts. The truth of our relig-
ion, that is of the facts of its begin
ming as is often said does not depend
upon the truth of the record, but the
knowledge of it largely does. Destroy
the credibility of the New Testament
and we should know very little con-
corning the life and teaching of its
Founder. We might learn something
of him, to be sure from church his
tory, but if the New Testament is to
be given up, then much of church
history must be given up also. That
history, so far as the beginnings of
Christianity are concerned, rests up
on no better authority than the New
Testament; indeed the New Tesla
ment contains the beginnings of
that history.
1t would be a very serious thing
therefore if the credibility of the New
Testament were destroyed, but this,
not because it would change the
facts, but because it would destroy
our knowledge of the facts and pre-
vent us from resting our religion any
longer upon these facts. These facts
might be all that we now believe
them to be but our means of demon
strating this would be gone and we
could neither believe in these facts
ourselves nor urge faith in them upon
others.
The foundation of the faith might
remain, but the means of propagating
that faith would be gone. But our
discussion up to this point is merely
| to make clear the distinction between
the facts of our faith and the record
of these facts. They are so often
COMPOUNDED that it seems necessary
to clearly distinguish them and show
their relation to each other. The
facts are the life and teachings of
Jesus; the New Testament is the record
we have of these facts.
Now criticism has to do with the
record, with this and with nothing
else. 1T has nothing to do with the
facts themselves. 1t does not affirm
their truth or falsehood, or say a
word as to their nature. It's whole
work is to ascertain what the record
says about these facts and whether
what it says is trustworthy. When
true to its office it stops short of Civ
ing any opinion as to the nature of
the facts, and confines itself solely to
ascertaining what and how much of
the record of these facts is to be be-
lieved.
Hence, TO begin with, criticism
ought to have no prepossessions con-
corning the nature of these facts
1t is too much to expect the critic to
be without prepossessions, but the
science, if it be science, ought not
to allow them. For the moment it
does allow them the science is vita
ted. It's conclusions are not trust
worthy for it proceeds upon prepos-
session that does not belong to it but
comes entirely from outside of it and
the truth or falsity of which it has
no means of determining.
And yet as strange as it may seem
these prepossessions or presupposi-
lions largely pervade the whole body
of critics. So far as our limited OBJ
servation extends they are to be seen
everywhere and are often so strong as
to determine the character of the crit
cism. There are two of these that
are specially prominent, SO much so
as to mark the line of separation be-
tween the old and the new, the con-
sentative and the radical school. The
one is that supernatural religion
necessitates a supernatural record;
that if Christ was inspired to teach,
then other men must have been in
spired to record his teachings.
The other is, that supernatural
religion is impossible; therefore there
can be no record of such religion.
A miracle, an event not to be &C
counted for on natural grounds, can
not be; therefore there can be no
trustworthy record of such an event.
These two prepossessions or preaffir-
nations divide the critics and deter
mine their criticism. One school