The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1897-02-27

consent; Baur's tendency much the
same; Renan will have none of the
Tubingen school; Volkmar is already
antiquated, and Pheidersr's fancies
are now the order of the day. Mean
while, we who believe in risen Lord
look quietly on while the higher
criticism swallows its own off
spring" Now, when this advocate OF
the authenticity of the Christian rec
ords has uttered this truthful indict-
ment of German land American) ra-
tionalism what does Merriman the
nationalist, who combines in himself
Elsmere, Gray, Langham and the
author of this precious progeny, re-
ply9 Every well, let us leave the
matter there for the present; suppose
we go to the Old Testament" etc.
The author could not have made a
much weaker showing for rationalism,
had it been her purpose to defend
and not to assail historical Christian
ity.
Again, Merriman, the champion of
German unbelief, refers to Zochler's
Handbook of Theological Science
in these words: "We owe all we know
at the present moment about the
New Testament to it" And here is
Zochler's language in the chapter
headed "Result of the Controversy
and end of the Tubingen SCHOOL,
The Tubingen School could not but
fall as soon as its assumptions were
recognized and given up. AS Hell
genfeld confesses, it went to an un-
justifable length, and inflicted too
deep wounds on the Christian faith.
No enduring results in matters of
substance have been produced by it. /"
As Rolands says, "to throw back the
Gospels from the second century,
where Baur and Volkmar placed
them, to the last thirty years of
the first is practically to surrender
the basis of of the nationalist theory"
And Merriman is compelled to &C.
cept these dates, which, accepted, sus-
| tain the Christian contention.
The fatal concessions made by
Mrs. Ward in her Nineteenth Century
article almost make it seem that she
was writing in the interest of revealed
religion, instead of against it.
For example, she says of Strauss:
"Of the real life and culture of the
men who wrote it (the New Tesla
ment), of the real historical condi-
tions surrounding tbs person of
Jesus, he had almost as little notion
as the dogmatic historians who I'M
dertook to answer him." And vet
Strauss was the man who was once
supposed to have overthrown Chris
tianity: who, indeed, at one time was
said to have demolished it. Today
he has not follower among the
scholars of Germany.
The bearing of these facts is most
emphatic. Baur admits that the
Christian religion is founded on the
resurrection of Christ, and nationalist
scholars are forced to admit that full
accounts of that stupendous event
we're in general circulation within
forty years of our Lords death. This
not only explodes the mythical
theory of Strauss, but by proving
that the record of the resurrection
of Jesus was SO nearly contemporary
eous with the alleged occurrence,
shows it to be strictly true, or an in
territorial fabrication. If the latter,
the book is not entitled to the respect
of mankind. If the former, then the
occupation of rationalism is gone.
One has we'll said rationalism can
not explain the figure OF Paul moving
through the first century, founding
churches all over the Roman empire,
and changing the world of thought
and life, much less can it explain
Christ. Professor Peabody says:
1.-THE starting forth of such figure
on the historic canvas, under the fin
gers of such unskilled limners as the
the fishermen of Galilee, is proof of
historic reality, and historic reality is
proof of divinity"
Even the sceptical De Wette de-
clared on his deathbed although
mystery which canuot be dissipated
rests on the way and manner of the
resurrection of Christ, the fact of the
resurrection can no more be brought
into doubt by honest historic evil
dence than can the assassination of
Caesar"
Paulus accepted the Gospel ac-
counts, but attempted in vain to ex-
plain the events recorded by natural
causes. Strauss assumed as founda-
ton to his mythical theory dates now
universally acknowledged to be false,
ood -aarad on adifica Of vanor on a