OCR Text |
Show I j THEOLOGY FOUNDED S I UPON NEGATIVES ) i ;. ' ' ; 1 j D". Patton's Best Argument to Prove the In-1 In-1 L spiration of the Bible Rested Upon j j r the Word "If;' j 1 j j (Written for Tka Intermountaiu Catholic.) ' ! I .1r- fraucis Landry Patton, president of the I Princeton Theological pen.' i nary, was the princi- ! ) n;i I speaker at the first meeeting of ibe American ! f Bible league, recently held in New York. His sub- j.vt was "The Present Assault on the Bible." I Without any attempt 1o prove the inspiration j Bible. Ir. Fatten appealed , rather to the I credulity of' his hearers than to their reason and' 1 intelligence. "Unless the Bible." -said Dr. Patton. I 'Vim stand in the daylight, there is no use in keep- in? ii in thi dark." This is precisely what ho I higher critics say. They are willing to submit to f l?ht of reason. After thorotighly examining I arguments of their theological teachers, regard- ' I i"P ihe inspiration of the Bible," they find them all defective. Hence they quote as freely from Shakes I peare or other profane writers as they do from the i Bible. j The tendency of modem preachers has been to J -xalt such writers above inspired writers and I rcconimcnd their works as the highest source of morality. This, too, is done from Christian pulpits. ! How does Dr. Patton prove that they err? He I simply walks into the net woven by the' higher erit- .j i'"-- Ho says: "It used to be Jield that Christianity was- a piece of supernatural information with respect to the future life' It is now held by the I Ijicher critics, who adhere to the principle of pri- j r'c judgment. They. too. like Dr. Patton. are or-, , daiiied ministers of the gospel, and their authority j f is equal to his. ' - - . j But Dr. Patton shifts the responsibility to the church, presumably to the one' to which he has tie-" voted his life, by saying: "When the authority is put in the church you have got to get a scriptural I hacking to uphold your church." Here again the hichcr critics can rule the president of .Princeton i Theological seminary out of court by shuwing that the essential principle of Protestantism was. and is to dissent frm the authority of the church. R Trofestrfntiin, ns tausrht by Dr. Patton, or the y hijrbcr critirs. is subsequent -to thcchurchi and.-vi;boit and.-vi;boit the authority nf that church. whieh:.both .. V'ui'-aily and chronologically ajitedates the Refor' i I nuiii-'ii. fhe religious systfjn whi-h President, pnt-- . uj'Ik'M would stand at zero. ' . , . -j l In lii conflict v.ith the higher critics the qur-s- I to be settled first is the inspiration of the J Hil'lo. Tlie higher critics deny that the writers of , 'In "rw Testament Avere messengers from God. or i iliiit li commissioned them to MritT in his name. -Ml iliis, say they, we have accepted in our infancy !! the authority of the church which preceded the gl"rir.us Keformation. But as all good Protestants reject that authority, we reject. .aluo her dictum as 1" i he inspiration of the Bible, s Here they throw the burden of proof on the 1 American Bible league, which all thp Fpeakers at j tlie .Nov York meeting naively avoided touching i Jip"ij. To their appeal to the Bible itself the higher ntics object. They say, and consistently, too. that til record may have been forged, or interpolated, j snd that, before lhey admit it in evidence, it should 1"- authenticated. How can 1 lie American Bible J-rtsnie authenticate it? They must prove to the critics that it has been carefully guarded from the j J beginning by some legitimate official- keeper who h k'V' a vigilant care of jt. Here it becomes incon- 1 3 vctiient to adduce the Catholic chun-h as a eome- tent, fjii'iliful and vigilant custodian. Have they S v- fur four centuries repudiated the Church, and 'Allied that she was the depositary of the inspired v ..r.' 'Therefore.' say the higher ' critics, "you l:ie no m:in- of authenticating the Bible or the t Miracles related in that book." j I he critics, it may be fairly presumed, are not I Tailoring through malice or hatred of the Bible. b'-c-uise they cling to the Christian name, and have j 1'lf Bible before them in the pulpit; but they.fol- I 1""- the law of reason, and from the premises given I them they conclude that there is .no possible J v-;iy to ri;)hih the fact that lhe writers of the .ev ,,r 0, Testaments were divinely commis- -i 'nec!, and, as a necessary consequence, that the B.bie is the inspirel word of (iod. Here they pJace j tie laboring oar in the hands of those who con- I 'i nin ihem for following lhe light of reason, or 1' ' ir ""u jtrinciplcs to their logical conclusion." t Evidently they can give no proof, for Dr. Pat- n ) says; "If wc believe the Almighty gave us a i v-oi-.j to tell us of the 'eternal peril, we are idiotic "'f wc n'gect that word." "Ifs" are no argument i f- : inspiration. The learned professor is living in I 'n age where logi(t, and not "ifs." prove idiocy. He ! iiiiiiht multiply "ifs" indefinitely, and in the end I voidd not arrive at conviction. Yet that is as far : ; he can possibly go. His very best argument to ) 3 love t'he inspiration of the Bible must rest on an ' i!.' That i. if the church which existed for six- ii(cn centuries before Protesantism was born was ' "1 t ot Hy depraved, and which preserved for us the JJJMn, vc mnv safelv accept it as inspired. But ere would lie, innumerable difficulties, and i end of "ifs." Y. D. |