The record-union., 1897-03-28

will be pretty hard, we suspect" says
the Christian Register Unit) of Bos-
ton, 'for DR.. Trumbull to furnish evil
dence sufficient to establish this propo-
sitiOn. 1t may be, indeed. that the BIZ
bic miracles are not as wanton exer-
tions of the imagination as we find in
the Arabian Nights and in fairy sto-
ries pure and simple; but we maintain
that there is nothing to distinguish
them as class so far as credibility is
concerned, from the miracles of other
religions. CELSIUS in the second CEN
tury pointed out very clearly, and with
abundant examples, that the miracles
held by Christians We're made out of
just the same material as those held by
the people of other religions. The story
of Deucalion was just as reasonable as
that of Noah, the story of Hercules as
that of Samson; and there were birth
legends and resurrection legends diff
ferent in form and color, but making no
greater demands upon credibility that
those held by Christians. In the stories
OF Homer the gods are constantly work
ing through human agencies and in
natural ways. Is there anything in
the adventures of Odysseus which
makes any greater draft upon the
credulity than the story of Jonah in
the Old Testament? Or is there any
story of direct generation by the gods
through a human mother which is any
harder to believe as Tact than the story
of the miraculous birth of Jesus?"
1T is frequently said nowadays that
the account of the creation of the world
ir the first chapter of Genesis was tax
en- from the Babylonian legend relating
to the Creation. 1t is said that the
Hebrew author rewrote that Oriental
legend, striking out it's polytheism and
inserting the one living and true God
in the place of the many gods of the
Eabylonian account. How so unwar-
1anted and extravagant an opinion
originated, it is difficult to conceive"
says the New York Christian Intelli-
gencer' (Ref). In reality it is incon-
ceivable that the record of Genesis was
taken in any degree from the Babylon
ian mythological story. The points of
resemblance are few, the dissimilarities
are many, constant and extreme. In
view of what we have in Genesis, the
conclusion is irresistible that the Baby
lCnian story is an extreme degradation,
under poIytheism, of what may be sup
posed to have been an original inspired
record transmitted by tradition. The
record in Genesis is clear, graphic, inn
pressive, orderly, dignifed, and is i'm
measurably superior to the story as
preserved on Babylonian tablets The
latter is obscure, confused. deficient in
elevation, and is mainly a succession of
no With al CT in 1e,
fessor John D. Davis, Phi D., of Prince
ton supplies ample proof that Jensen's
affirmation that the tablets quite un-
questionably form the prototype of the
Biblical legends rests on "a demon
strabIe error But there is no need of
such an analysis as that made by Prof
Davis. The refutation Of Jensen's as
sumption is ON the face of the docu-
rnentS."
"The Church Standard" (EpiscopaD
admits that there is some truth in the
charge of sectarian superciliousness Of
ten brought against the Episcopal
Church There is" it says, "a good
deal of offensive conceit in the way in
which we talk about the 'sects' and the
denominations There is something
hardly less offensive in the patronizing
way in which we sometimes admit the
Christian graces which are exhibited in
the lives and works of their ministers
and members, as if, forsOoth, they were
marvel of Gods exceptional and
wholly uncovenanted grace. If we
were as catholic as we pretend to be,
We should behave differently; different
behavior would beget a different dis
position toward the Church from that
which generally prevails among nom
EpiScopaIianS