GOSPEL TRUTH.

Thames Star, Volume XV, Issue 4680, 7 January 1884, Page 2

GOSPEL TRUTH.

(To the Editor of the Evening Star.)

Sib,—On Friday, the 28th of December, you published the concluding portion of the Anglican Bishop of Melbourne's lecture on the " (genuineness of the Gospels." The whole of the portion of the address quoted by you shows the talent of the Bishop for specious pleading, but not for sound logic. The Bishop says: "I would ask the sceptic what explanation have you to give of the facst that our Gospels, including the supernatural element, were written by the men whose names they bear, or by men living in the age, were accepted as true by eyewitnesses of our Saviour's life ? " Now, the Bishop is well aware that sceptical ; critics have published books giving reasons why they do not believe that the Apostles wrote the Gospels, and alleging that npne of the Gospels were written until the second century, and have quoted Christian authority to show that the Gospels were never quoted by any of the early Christian fathers in their debates with heathen philosophers until Irenceus used Matthews' Gospel, not earlier than the year 172. ; The Bishop says that sceptics are t)ound to explain the facts; he says, " I can explain them simply and easily on the supposition that Jesus was the Son of God, did mighty works, rose again from the dead, and filled His Church with the spirit of Pentecost. How can you explain the facts without these pre-suppositior.s. Now,ifcis >• ?ery

plausible, but it is not soutid argument. The Bishop js endearoring to prove that • the circumstances related in the Gospels are true, and the way he proves it is on a mere supposition that Jesus was the Son of God ~ If His Lordship were asked, " How do you know that Jesus is the Son of God? " he would reply by saying, " We have the Gospels; they testify the wondrous works he did ; they are our sheetanchor." So he would prove the Gospsls by a supposition, and prove that the supposition was correct by referring you back, to the Gospels. (His Lordship must know that his supposition is flatly contradicted by reason, by science, and by Old Testament teaching ) If such plau*. sible logic is sound, I can easily prove that the antiquated carriage, popularly known as "Noah's Ark,'? is the most beautiful one on the Thames. How will I explain the fact that the public do aot think so ? I can explain it easily on the supposition that the public are suffering from defective vision. How will I prove that the public are affected with defective vision ? Why, there is the " Ark ; look at its exquisite architectural beauty; can you not perceive it? how insensible you must be, or how poor your vision. The Bishop continues—" Do you turn away, with sublime agnostic scorn, saying tBSF miracles are impossible, .and that you do not care to* try. Then you have abandoned the field of history and criticism, and have shut yourself up in your last earthwork that a miracle is impossible. So far from the impossibility of a miracle being the last earthwork of sceptics, it is a mere moand, one of a vast number of objections that sceptics offer, even if were proved to be possible it would not effect the position of sceptics; it is only one argument that would have to be given up." His Lordship's allusion to history is singurlarly unhappy, the fact being that history, both Jewish and profane, is silent with regard to the wonders recorded in the Gospels. Of course His Lordship meant Gospel history, but the unlearned amongst his audience would naturally suppose that he meant the general history of the period. .Hia Lordship omitted to say Gospel history. He says that Christianity was not born in a cloud, but in the open daylight of history. It seems strange that neither Philo or Josophus, the Jewish historians, or any of the pagan writers of the period, should have made any mention of the wonders recorded in the Gospel. His Lordship says the whole course of the Church and the Gospel can be accurately traced from the birth>f the formor at Pentocost, to the present hour—from the sacred autographs of Apostles, to manuscript which we hold to day in our hands. Now as there are no sacred autographs in exist, ence, and no manuscripts of the Gospel history either, earlier than the 4th century, this statement seems just a little audacious. His Lordship says that he "knows the attempted explanations of men like Strani, and Baur, and Renan, and I tell you that they have hopelessly broken down." Well, that is His Lordship's opinion. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that they have. Well, here are three talented men who have tried to explain the Gospels, and have failed;, well, so much the worse for the~m—or - for the Gospels. Their theories, however, only bind those who pin their faith on the theories of Straus, or Baur or Eenan, and do not bind the mass of sceptics who are not.their followers, and hare other reasons for their unbelief. I myself could elaborate a theory and surround it with plausible arguments. His Lordship might demolish it by sound argument, and that would prove that my theory was wrong, but that would not necessarily prove that I was not justified in my belief, as I might and probably should have other and sounder reasons for my scepticism. His Lordship gives an illustration which although the argument itself is sound, the application he makes of it may be unsound. I quote what he says : "If any one were to tell you he had dis^" covered some ancient book which proved that the Tiber rose in the Carpathian mountains what answer would you make him ? Would you not say it is impossible, for the course of the Tiber has been ac«; curately traced from its source in the Apennines to its outfall in the Mediterranean. So when a talented and learned ecclesiastic tells me that he has an ancient book that says that a man was the Son of God, was born of a Virgin, &c. I reject; the improbable story, and say it is impossible, for it is contrary to the teachings of nature as laid down by medical science and general knowledge, and contrary to the science of astronomy, which teaches that the earth is only one of a multitude of worlds, a mere atom in the scale of the Universe. A variety of other reasons could be given, but these are probably sufficient. In justice to Dc Moorhouse, I would in all charity observe that the specious arguments he has used were not original with him, that but is the fault of his eclesiastical training; such specious argu* ments are, or should be, left to the advocate (whose business has been defined to make the worse appear the better cause) rather than to the professed servant of Almighty God.—l am, &c, AX UnIIELIEVEB.