| OCR Text |
Show MODERN INFIDELITY. Last Sunday Mr. Brown, in his vaporings, assumed as-sumed the role of an infallible teacher on what religion re-ligion was and was not. Any church or minister who would pretend to be as positive as Mr. Brown was would be denounced by him. But Mr. Brown, who strikes to the right as well as the left, gives no' proof for his ideal religion. From the Christian religion he eliminates all that is supernatural, and gives as substitute infidelity pure and simple. This I modern infidel, whilst denying the divinity of Christ, would profess to find in him "an absolutely true instinct," or perhaps a great benefactor. Xo trace of this polite concession and comnrnmi'w ic to be found in the ancient evidence regarding the person of Christ. During the first centuries of the Christian era the world was divided into two classes of opinion, and only two, with regard to the person of our Lord. The one professed his divinity, the other that he was an imposter. This latter character charac-ter was the only one attributed to him, not only by the Jews, but by the pagan philosophers, such as Celsus, Porphyrius, Julian the Apostate and others. Nowhere in the judgments that can be traced to the time of our Lord can be found the opinion which has obtained' currency in modern infidelity, namely, that he should be considered a great sage and teacher teach-er of morals. But our Savior himself rejects these I polite concessions of infidelity. "He who is not with me is against me." Mr. Brown, to conceal his disrespect for all religion, re-ligion, makes selections of his own in the life of Christ. He puts aside all that treats of dogma or miracles, retaining only what treats of morals, and this in order to have nothing to do with the supernatural, super-natural, and to see in Christ only the sublime teacher teach-er of a human doctrine. But this system of exclu-I exclu-I Bion and electicism is not admissible, and upon any other subject would be called insane. If the gospel narrative be true in one point, how can it be treated as false or imaginary in another. Just to suit the case of the infidel or to agree with his fancy ? How is it that as soon as a page of the gospel treats of a dogma, for instance, the Trinity, that page must be accounted as symbolical, namely, as figurative or as an effort of illustrative imagination, and every other page of the same book that relates to miracle must be accounted as legendary, and that nothing in that book is real and genuine except what treats of morals ? Is there anything in the gospel itself that leads to this easy conclusion of infidelity? Is it not with the same character of truth that we read m it : "Do unto others, what you would like to be done unto you," which is a moral principle, and "all power is given unto me in heaven and on earth," and then, as the exercise of that roower. Lazarus. three days dead, comes out of the sepulcher. If one believes the gospel as to the first principle, why deny it as to the other? If the last is rejected as a fable, why admit the first ? It would be more logical to reject the whole book, and boldly assert that the four Evangelists conspired and agreed to write myths and fables. This is the conclusion to which our modern infidel forces himself. The gospel can not be divided into truth on one part and falsehood on the other. Whole it must be admitted or whole it must be rejected. But reasoning with Mr. Brown, who deab in vague generalities, and who never attempts at-tempts to prove a proposition, is wasting logic in the desert air. His attempt to tell what religion is and is not is like that of an anarchist telling what constitutes consti-tutes law and order, peace and harmony. When the blind lead the blind there is only one result. When an unbeliever assumes the role of religious teacher. I there is to be a decay of Christian principles, and the mustard seed will surely perish. |
