the fundamentals: volume 8

8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 8

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fundamentals-volume-8 1/129

RICHARD LINDAMOOD

2700 GLENWAV

AVE,

CINCINNATI

4 OHlO

The

·

undamentals

estimony

Volume VIII

Compliments of

fwo Christian Laymen ·



The Fundamentals

Testimony to the

Truth

'

4

To

the

aw

and to tlu

Tut imony"

Isat 'a i 8:20

Volume VIII

Compliments of

Two Christian La ymen

TESTIMONY PUBLISHING COMPANY

Not Inc.)

808 La Salle Ave., Chicago , Ill. , U. S. A. ·



FOREWOR

With glad thanksgiving to God we send the eighth volume

of

THE FUNDAMENTALS to English-speaking Protestant

pastors, evangelists, missionaries, theological professors, theo-

. ' logical students, Y. M. C. A. secretaries, Y. W. C. A. secre

taries, Sunday School superintendents, religious lay workers,

and editors of religious publications, throughout the earth.

Like its precedessors, this volume goes out with the prayer

that, by the blessing of the Lord, the carefully and prayerfully

selected

articles which it contains may strengthen earnest be

lievers, may warn and re-establish in the truth those who are

wavering in

their

faith, and lead unrepentant sinners to con

viction of sin and to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

The

Lord

has bles sed abundantly the former volumes of

THE FUNDAMENTALS and thousand s of earnest letters from

Christian men and women in almost every land bear witness to

the fact that He is using the consecrated efforts of His serv

ants to the advancement of His cause and to His glory. The

Circle of Prayer has again grown in numbers since we sent

out the seventh volume; and the work of

THE FUNDAMEN-

TALS and of the Committee to which the two Christian lay-

•n1en

have entrusted the editing and publishing of these books,

and the two Christian laymen then1selves are remembered

daily

by

the faithful members of this Circle of Prayer before

the throne of grace. May many others also join this Circle

of Prayer, and unite with its present members in earnest sup

plication that the truth may run and be glorified and the

needed world-wide revival of true religion may come.

We ask all the friends of THE FUNDAMENTALS'; for

special prayer tI?-at He who answers prayer may continue to

lead and guide in the undertaking, so that the good will even

of its enemie s and unfriendly critics be gained and that lasting

results may be accomplished to the glory of God and the

salvation of men.

All editorial correspondence should be addressed to The

Fundamentals,

I2J

Huntington Place, Mount Auburn, Cin

cinnati,

Ohio U. S. A.

Manuscripts

submitted

1.vithout

be·ing

requested will be

returned only if accompanied by retur1't

posjage.

All business correspondence should be addressed to Testi-

111,ony ublishing Company, 808 La Salle Avenue, Chicago,

Illinois, U. S. A.

( See Pub Iishers' Notice, Page 128.)



CONTEN1 '

-

CHA.PT RR

PAGJl

I.

OLD TESTAMENT RITICISMANDNEW TESTAMEN

CHRISTIANITY

...............................

s

By Prof.

W.

H.

Griffith

Thomas,

D. D.,

Wycliffe College, Toronto, Canada.

II.

EVOLUTIONISMIN THE PULPIT ................

27

By

An .

Occupant of the Pew.

III.

DECADENCE F DARWINISM.......••••........

36

By Rev. Henry H. Beach,

Grand Junction , Colorado.

IV.

PAUL'S TESTIMONY OTHE DOCTRINEOF SrN ....

49

By Prof.

CHas. B.

Williams,

B. D.,

Ph. D.

Southwestern

Baptist

Theological Seminary ,

Fort

Worth,

Texas.

V.

THE SCIENCEOF CONVERSION... .. ....••......

64

By Rev. H. M. Sydenstricker, Ph.D.,

West Point, Mississippi.

VI.

THE DOCTRINAL ALUEOF THE FIRST CHAPTERS

OF GENESIS .......... . ............. . ,. . . .. 74

By Rev. Dyson Hague, M. A.,

Wycliffe College, Toronto, Canada.

VII.

THE KNOWLEDG OF Gan............... . .....

90

By

Rev. David Jame s Burrell, D. D.

LL.

D.,

Marble Collegiate Church , New York City, New York.

VIII.

P W

EACHTHE ORD ................. , ......

100

By the late Howard Crosby.

IX.

MORMONISM:TS ORIGIN CHARACTERISTICS,ND

ocTRINES

..................................

110

By Rev. R. G. McNiece, D. D.,

Salt Lake City, Utah.



THE FUNDAMENTALS

VOLUME VIII

CHAPTER I

LD TESTA1vIENT CRITICISM AND NEW TESTA-

MENT

CHRISTIANITY

BY PROFESSOR W. H. GRIFFITH THOMAS, D. D.,

WYCLIFFE COLLEGE} 'l'ORONTO, CANADA

A large number of Christians feel con1pelled to demur to

the present attitude of many scholar s to the Scriptures of the

Old Testament. It is now being taught that the patriarchs of

Jewish history are not historic persons ; that the records con-

nected with Moses and the giving of the law on Sinai are

unhistorical ; that the story of the tabernacle in the wilderness

1 a fabricated history of the time of the Exile; that the

prophets cannot be ·relied on in their references to the ancient

history ·of thefr own people, or in their predictions of .the

future; that the writers of the New Testament, who assur -

edly believed in the records of the Old Testam ·ent, were mis-

takel). in the historical value they assigned to those records ;

that our Lord Ifimself, in His repeated references to the

Scriptures of His own nation, and in His assumption of the

Divine authority of those Scriptures, and of the reality of the

great names they record was only thinking and speaking as an

ordinary Jew of His day, and was as liable to error in matters

of history and of criticis1n as any of them were.

The present paper is intended to·give expression to some of

the questions that have arisen in the course of personal study,

in connectioJ,1 with collegiate work and also during severa l

years of ordin~ry pastoral ministry.

It

is often urged that

5



•

•

•

•

•

6

•

problems of Old T,estam,ent critici,.m ,are for experts alone ,

•

and

can only

be

decided

by

them.

We

venture

to question

th ,e

· correctness ,

of

this

view,

espe,cially

when

it

i,s

remem ,bered tl1at

tio

many

pe,opfe

experts means experts in

Hebrew

philology

only. By

all me,ans

let

us

have

all

possible expert

kn ,owl ,edge;

but, as

Biblical questions ar,e

complex,

and

involve

s,everal

considerations, we need expert

knowledge

in

archaeOlogy

history,

theology,

an9

even spiritual experience, a·s well as in

philology. Every available

factor

must be taken into account ,

and the object of the

present

paper is to

emphasize certain

elements which appear liable to be overlooked, or at least in-

•

•

sufficiently co,nsi ,dered.

We

do

not

question

for

an

instant the right of

Bibli.ca]

criticis ,m considered in itself. On the ,c,ontrary, ,it is a

necessity

f

· 11 h

h

B·bt

b . . ,,, .

h

r a

I w

o use

t e 1. · e

to

,e critics

1n

t ,e sens ,e

of ,c,on-

sta11tly

us ,ing their

judgment

on what ·is

before them.

What

i ·

called higl1er cr ·itici sm i.s,not

011ly

a

legitimate but

a necessar)

n1eth

1

od for

all

Christians ,, for by ·its use we ar,e,

able

to dis,cover

t he facts and

the · form of

the ·Old

Testament Scrip ,tures. Ou1·

hesitation, consequently, is not

int ,ended

to,ap

1

ply

to the method,

but to , wha t is believed to be an

illegitimate,

unscientific, ,and

ttnhistorical use of

it.

In fact, we base our objections

to

much

modern

·criticism

of the Old Testament on what

we

reg ,ard as

a proper use of a true higher criticism.

I.

IS TH -E TESTIMONY OF NINETEEN CENTURIES OF

CHRISTIA

HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE OF NO ACCOUNT

IN THIS QUESTION?

For nearly eighteen centuries

these

modern views of the

Old Testament were

not heard

of. Yet this is not to be

accounted

for

b

1

y

the

absence of

intellectua ·I power and .scholar

ship in the

1

Church. Men like Origen, Jerome, Augustine,

Thomas Aquinas, Erasmus, , Calv ·in,. Luther,

Melancthon,

to

say

nothing of

the English

Puritans

and other

_divines

of the

sevente ,enth century , were not intellectually weak or inert,

nor --



•

ld Testament Criticis1n a·nd 1Viu Testament .Christianity

7

were they w4olly void of critical acu,men

wit~

reference to

Ho]y

Scripture. Yet

'they,

and the

whole Chttr ·ch with them,

never hesitated to accept the view of the Old

Testament

which

11.adcome down to th em, not only as a heritage fro

1

m Judai m,

but

as endorse

1

d by thie apo

1

st l,es. Omitting all reference

to

1

0t11·

Lord,

it

is not

open

to question that

th ,e views of St. Paul

a11d

St..

Peter

and St, John

a,bout t·he Old

T

1

estament w

1

e·re th ·e

vie,vs

1

of

the whol ,e Christian

Church until the

end

of the

eighteenth

century.

And, making every possible allowance for

the

lack of historical spirit and

of modern

critical methods ,

are we to

suppose that

the

whole Churcl1 for

centuries

never

exercis

1

ed its mind ,o.n such sub,jects ,as

the contents;history,

.and

authority of the Old

Te sta1nent? · . ·

Besides, this is a matt

1

er wh ich cannot b,e de

1

ci1ded

by intel

lectual criticism

alone.

Scripti1re

appeals

to conscience,

heart

and will, as

we,ll

as

to mind ; and the

Christian

consciousne

1

ss,

•

the

accumulated spiritual

experience of the

body of

Christ,

is

not t,o, be lightly

regar ·ded,

mitch le,ss set

aside,

unless

it

is

pr

1

oved to

be unwarranted by fact ,.

While we do not

say

that

'''what

is

new is

not true,

the

novelty

of

these modern critica]

views [ sh.ould

g.iv,e us

pause before we virtually set aside the

spiritual instinct of

centurie s

of Christian experience. ·

2. DOES THE NEW CRITICISM READILY AGREE WITH THE HIS-

TORICAL POSITI ·ON OF THE JEWISH NATION?

The Jewish nation is a fact in history , an

1

d its record is

given to us

in the

Old Testament ..

There is no

contemporary ·

literature to

checl< the

account

there

given, and

archaeology

affords us assis .tance on points of '

detail

only, not for any long

1

0r continttous p,eriod ,. This rec,ord of

Jewish

history

can be

proved to have remained the same for many centuries. Yet much

of modern criticism is compelled to reconstruct the his·tory of

the Jews on

several

important

points.

It involves, for ins,tance

a very different idea of the character of

the earliest

form of

Jewish religion from that seen in

the

Old Te,st.am

1

ent

as

it nqw

•

•



8

The undamentals

tands; its views of the patriarchs are largely different from

the conceptions fou11d on the face of the Old Testament nar-

rative ;

its

views of Moses and David are essentially altered

from what we have before us in the Old Testament.

Now what is there in Jewish history to support all this re-

construc tion? Absolutely nothing . We see through the centuries

the great outstanding objective fact of the Jewish nat'ion, and

the Old Testament is at once the means and the record of their

national life. It rose with them, grew with them, and

it is to

the Jews alone we can look for the earliest testimony to the

Old Testament canon.

In face · of these facts, it is bare truth to say that the

·fundame ntal positions of modern Old Testament criticism

are utte:rly incompatible with the historic growth and position

of the Jewish people. Are we not right, therefore, to pause

before we accep~ thi s subjective reconstruction of history? Let

a~yone read Wellhausen's article on Israel in the Encyclo-

paedia Britannica, anc. then ask himself whether he recognize s

at all therein the story as given in the Old Testament.

3.

ARE 'FHE RESULTS OF THE MODERN VIEW OF THE OLD TESTA -

MENT REALLY ESTABLISHED?

It

is sometimes said that modern criticism is no longer a

matter of hypothesis ; it has entered the domain of fact s.

Principal George Adam Smith has gone so far as to say that

modern criticism has won its war against the traditional

theories. It only remains to fix the amount of the indemnity.

But is this really so? Can we assert that the results of modern

criticism are established facts? Indeed Dr. Smith has himself

admitted, since writing the above words, that there are ques-

tions still open which were supposed to be settled and closed

twenty years ago.

In the first place, is the P~.cessive literary analysi s of the

Pentateuch at all probable or even thinkable on literary

grounds? Let anyone work through a section of Genesis as



•

•

•

given

by Dr. Drive1·

in his '·I ntroducti

1

on'',

and see whether

such a ,complex co1nbin,ation

0

1

£ autho rs is at\ all likely, or

whether,

even

if

likely, the

variou s

auth ,ors can now ·be dis

tinguished? ·

Is

no,t the

v-11ole

method far

to

1

0

purely subjective

tlo

be p1·obable and reli able?

F'urther, the critics are not agreed as· to the number of

d.0

cum

1

ents, , or as to

the

portion ,s to be ass .igne ,d to ,

ea

1

ch

auth ,o:-.

A simple

instance

of

tl1is

may be given. It is not

so

many years

ago when cr,itic·is:m w·as

content

to

say

that

I .sa.

,40-66, though

not

by

Isai ,ah·, was the worl< of one author, an unknown

proph

1

e·t of the Exile. But the most recent writers like Duhm,

Mac£ adyen and Wade consider these chapters to be the work of

•

two writers, and that the whole Boole of Is aiah (:from three

author~)

-did not r

1

eceive

it .s

present

form

until long aft .er

the

return from

the

Exile.

Tl1en.,

th

1

se

differences

in liter11·y analy·,is

inv·olv

1e

di.ff·er-

ences of interpretation and differences of d.ate, character, and

meaning of particular parts of the Old Testament. To prove

tl1is,. we ask attention to the following extracts from a review

of a work on Genesis by Pr

1

ofess,or Gunkel of Be1-1in.

a;'l1e

revie\\1 is by Professo ,r Andrew 1-Iarper of Melbourne, and

appeared in

the ''Critical

Review'' for January, 1902. Profes

sor Harper's own position would, we imagine, be rightly char•

acterized as generally favorable to

the

moderate positiOn of

the .critical movement. Hi s comments on Gunket ·ts book are,

therefore, . all

the

m

1

ore notewortl1y and

si,gnifi

1

cant.

''It will change the wl1ole

d~rection

of

the

conflict as

to

the

early books of the P

1

entatet1ch and Ieacl

it

int,o mo

1

re fruitful

1

directions,

for

it

has raised the

f

unda1nental

question whether

th,e narratives in

1

Genesis at·e

11ot

f,ar older t.l1an the authors of

tl1e

documents marked

J~

. P., a11d whether they are

not

faithful witnesses to the religion of Israel before prophetic

t

. '' ''H. 1 . ·11 . b 1

mes. - - ·1s ,cone us1on w1 , 111 many resp

1

ects, ,e we come to

tl1osewho have felt how incredible some of the ass

1

11mptions

of

th

1

e Kuenen-Wellhaus .en slchool of

1

cri·tic.s

are.''

•



10

The F Undanientals

It will be obvious at a glance what an upsetting of current

conceptions in regard to the history of religion must follow if

, it be accepted. · ·

They are sufficient, if made good, to upset the whole ~f

the current reconstructions of the religion of Israel. To ·most

readers it

will be seen that he has in large part made them

good.

There can be no doubt that his book most skillfully begin s

a healthy and much-needed reaction. It should, therefore, ·be

read and welcomed by all students of the Old Te stamen t whose

. d

min s are open.

In view of Gunkel's position thus endorsed by Professor

Harper, is it fair to claim victory for the modern sr itical theo

ries of the Old Testament? When an able scholar like Pro

fessor Harper can speak of a new work as sufficient to upset

the whole of the current recon structions. of the religion of

Israel,

it

is surely premature to speak even in a .moment of

rhetorical enthusiasm, as Dr. George Adc\m Smith does, of.

victory and indemnity. Dr. Smith himself now admits

that Gunkel has overturned the Wellhausen theory of the

patriarchal narratives. And the same scholar has told us that

distinction in the use of the nan1e for God is too precarious

as the basis of arguments for distinctions of sources . For

ourselves we heartily endorse the words of an American

scholar when he says :

We are certain that there will be no final settlement of

Biblical questions on the basis of the higher criticism that is

now commonly called by that name. Many specific teaching s

of the system will doubtless abide. But so far forth as it goes

upon the asswnption that statements of fact in the Scripture s

are pretty generally false, so far forth it is incapable of estab

lishing genuinely permanent result s. * Sir W. Robertson

*Dr. G. A. Smith, Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the

Old Testament ,

p.

35.

Dr. Willis J. Beecher, in The Bible Student

and Teacher , January, 1904.



•

Old Testament Criticism and New T stament Christianity 11

Nicoll, editor of the ''B ,ritish W eek],y ''

rema ,rked

1

quite

recent'ly

that the '''assu ,red results'' seem to be vanishing, that no on,e

really

knows what

they

are. ·

4. IS THE POSIT 'I0

1

N 0

1

F M

1

0D ,ERN CRITICISM REALLY COMP~TIBLE ·

WITH A BELIEF IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AS A

. . · DIVINE REVELATION ?

•

The problem before us is not m

1

erely literary, nor only his

torical; it is essentially religious, ,and the whole matter resolves

it,se],f

into ,

one ,

qu,est ,ion, Is the

Otd

'Test ,a111ent

the

recor

1

d

0

1

f

a

Divine revelation? This is the ultimate problem. It is admit

ted by b

1

oth sides to be almost impossib

1

le to

minimize

the

difference s be,tween the traditional and the modern views ef

the Old, Testatne ,nt. As a reviewer of n,,. George Adam

Smit ,1's

book,

''Modern

Criticism and the Preaching

of

_he

Old

T'estament'', rightly

says: · .

''The difference , is immense; ,

they

involve different con .- .

•

ce:ptions of tl1e r

1

elation of Go

1

d t

1

0 the .

wo1 fl

d ; different views

as

to

the , cour ,se of ,Israel's his

1

tory

1

the process of

revelation~

and the natur 1 of inspir .ation. We cannot be 'lifted _f·rom the

old to the n1w pos1tio11by the influence o,f a charming

Iit,erary

sty le, or

by

the force of the most enthusiastic eloquence.'' '*

In view

1

0£

this fundamental difference, the

question

of the

trustworthiness of the Old T

1

estament becomes a,cute and

· press1n,g.

,In Ord1r

to test this fairly and thoroughly,

l1.t u.s

,examine some of the statetnents made on behalf of ' the modern

•

Vle\V. ·

We may

consider first the i-ise and progress

of

religion in ·

Isr ,a,el. Dr.

G.

A. Sm~th

say·s:

' 'I t is, pla ,in,

then,

'tha't to what

ever heights th ,e

reli,gion

of Israel afterwards rose, it remained

before the age of the grea .t prophets not only similar to, but in

all respects above-m

1

entioned id,entical with, the general Semitie

religio ,n; which wasl not a monotheis ,m, but a

,polyt,heism

with

an opportunity for .monotheism at the heart of

it,

each

tribe

.

*''American Jour~aJ of Theology , Vol: VI., p.

114.

•

•

•



• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

12

•

Tlie Funda ie itals

•

being attached to one god, as to their

particu ·lar

Lord and

..

F athe r.·'

1

*

Consider·

wI·1at

is mean .t

by

tl1e

phr lase,

'' in

all

respects

· abo,ve·-mention

1

ed

identical

with the

general Semiti·c religiont''

•

as

appli,ed

to the re.ligi

1

011

of

Isr ,ael

p

1

.revious to the

eigl1th. c

1

en•

tury

Bl.

C.

Can

this.

view be

fai1·ly deduced

from

th,e

Old

Testament as we n

1

ow

ha,re it.?

,Still more, is su,ch ·

a view

conceivable in the

light

of the several precedin ,g centuries of

God's special dealings with Israel? '\\'herein, on

this

assump

tion, consisted the uniq11eness of Is1·ael

f

ro1n

the

·time

of

Abraham

to

the

eig~1~11century · Br

C.?

We

may next take. the cha·racte ·r

of

the narratives

of

Gene

.sis. Th ,e real question

at

1ssu

1

e is the

hi.storic.al character.

Mod-

em criticis1n regar cls, the

alc count

in Genesi.s as

largel,y mythical

· ,and

legendary.

Yet

it is

certain

that the Jews

of the later

centuries

acc ep ttdd

the se

patriarchs

as

veritable

personages,

•

and the incidents associated

with

th~m as genuine history. ~t.

P·aul

and the

r,

ther New Testa1nent writers assuredly held

·the

sa111e

v·iew,.

If, t'h,en,

tl1

ey

are not

hi.st,orical,

su·rely

the

tru ·ths

empha sized .

by proph ,ets

1

and ap,os.tles

fro1n

the· ,patriarchal

stories

,are ,so

·far

\veakened .in th

1

eir

su.p

1

ports

Tak e,

,a,gain, th.e

l

1

egislatio11

which

in

the Pentateuch

is a.s

sociated with Moses, and almost invariably in.troduced

by

the

phr ase, ''The ·

Loi·d

sp.ake unto

Moses.'

1

Modern criticism

1·egards

this legislation as

unknown untiJ tl1e

Exile ,

or a

thou- .

sand years after the time of Moses. Is it

1ea·tty possible

to

accep

1

t

this asl

s.atisfactory? Ar

1

we to

.suppose

that ''The Lord .

spak~

to Moses'' is onl.y

.a well-known liter ,ary

d,evice intended

to

·invest

the

u~·te1·ance

with

greater

importance

,and

more

,solemn

sanction?

Thi ,s position,

together with

the general .ly

.

accepted view of

1nodern criticism

about the invention of Deu-

teronomy in the days of· Josiah ,[ can11ot 'be regarded as in

accordance with bis

1

torial f'act

or ethical

principle.

Canon D

1

river and Dr. G~A. Smith, it is true, strongly assert

*"Modern Criticism:',

p.

130

•



•

•

•

..

0

1

ld Testa1nentCritici.s1n nd J.¥,w T estament Christianity 13

•

•

tlie compatibility of the new views with a belief in the

Divine

auth ,ority of the Old T·es.tament, and s,o far as they themselves

· are concerned we of cour s,e accept

their

stateme ·nts

e~

animo.

· But we wi,sh they

woul,d

,give

us

more clearly and definitely

than they

ha,~e

yet

done, the g1.

ounds

on

which

this compati·

b,ility may 'b,e said to re,st. To deny historicity , to correct date ,s

· by.

hundreds of years, to

reverse judgments

on which

a nation

has rested for

centuries, to trave ·rse

views

which l1ave been

the spiritual

sustenance of miilions,

and

the11

to

say that

all

this

is

consistent

with

the O ld

Testament being regar ,ded

as a

Divine

reyelation, ,

i,s, at least puzzlin ,g, and does not

afford

mental or moral satisfaction to many who do not dream of

•

questioning the bona fide S of scholars

\\?ho·

hold the

views

now

· criticized.

T he

extremes

to

which D·r. Cheyne has gone seem

t ) many the logical

0

1

utc,ome of

tl1e

principles with

which

mod ...

ern critic.ism, even of a

moderate type,

starts.

Facilis

descens·i,s

AV1e1 no

1

and ·we

sho1ild

lik

1

e to be shown the solid an-d logical

l1alting -place where those who refuse to go ,vith Cheyne think

tl1at

they and

we can sta .nd.

Sir W. Robe1·tson Nic

1

oll, commenting March 12, 1903, on a

sp

1

eech delivere ,d by ·the th

1

en Prime Minister of Great Br itain

· ( Mr.

Balfour) in

connection with

tiie

Bible

Society s Cen

tenary, made the following significant. remarks : 1 he immedi-

ate re~ults

of

critirisn1 are

in

a high

degree

disturbing. So

f.ar

· tl1ey have scarcel~,

been

understood

by the

average Christian.

But tl1e plain man who has been used to r·eceive everything in

the Bible. as a

veritable

Word Of Go

1

d

,cannot fa.ii

to

be

per

plexed,

and

deeply perplexed, wl1enhe is

told

that mucl1of

the

Old Testament and tl1e

New

is

unhis ·toric

1

al, and

when

he

1

is

asked to

accept the

statement tl1at

God reveals Himself by myth

and legend as well as by the truth, of fact •. Mr . Balfoltr must

surely

know that many of the

higher

critics hav

1

e c~t,sed

to

be

believers., More

t han twenty years

ago the presen t writer,

walking with Julius Wellhausen in the quaint streets of

Greifs,vald,

ventttred

to

asl{ him wl1ether,

if his

views

we1·e

l

1'

•

,

•

•

f

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

1·4

•

Tlie

Funda1n,ental.s

a,c,cepted,, the Bible co,uld

r,etain

its

pla,.ce in

the estimation of

the common people. 'I cannot see how that js possible,' was

the sad reply .''

It

is no mere question of how we may use the

01d

T,esta

ment for preaching, ·

or how

much is

left for use after 'the

critical views are accepted. But even o,t1r· preaching · will 'lack

•

a great deal of the note of c

1

ertitude. If we are to regard ,cer-

tain b,iographies as t1nhi,storical,

it

will not be ea,sy t

1

0

draw les

sons for con.duct, and

if

the

his,tor ,y

is

largely

leg,en

1

dary,

our

deductions about God's government and providence must be

essentially weal<ened. But the one. point

to

be faced is the

historic credibility of those parts of the Old 'Testament ques

tioned

by

modern criticism, and the historical and religious

value of th

1

e documents of ·tl1e Pentateuch. Meanwhile, we

ask

to

ha11ecle·ar , p·roof of th ,e comp

1

atihili ,ty

of the modern

views with

the

acc,eptance

of

the

01,d

Testament ,

as

the

record

of

a

Divine revelation. ·

5.

IS MODERN

CRITICISM BAS

1

ED ON A.

SOUND PHILOSOPHY SUCH

AS C.IlRI 1STIANS CAN ACCEPT?

••

•

~t

the

f

oundatio

1

n

of much mode ,rn thought is the philos ,o

phy

known as Idealism, ·w·hich, as

often .

int ,erp,rete

1

d, involves

,a

theory of the univers ,e that find,s no room for supernatura .1 i,n

terpositions

of

ainy kind.

The

great law of

the

univer ,se,

including the

physical,

mental, and moral

realms,

is said to

be ·

evolution, and though this doubtless pres

1

upposes an original

Creator, jt does not, on the theory now before us,, permit of

any subs.equent direct

intervention

of God during ·the process

of develop,men·t. This general

philosophical

princ Jlle

applied

to

1

histo ·ry

ha,s assur ,edly

influenced, jf it has

not al1nost

mould.ed,,

•

a

grea ,t

<leaI of

mod

1

ern c.riti.cism of the Old. Test ,ament.

It i.s

not urged that all wh

1

0

accept even the position of a moderate

criticism, ,go the full lepgth of th ,e extreme evolutionary

theory ; but there can be no reasonable do·tibt tha .t mo,st of the _



•

.

evolutio

1

nary theory of all l1istory which tends to minimize Di-

vine inte ·rven ·tion in the affairs of the pe,ople of I .srael. It i.s

certainly correct to say that the presupposition

of

much pres- .

ent-day

critical

reasoning

is a denial of

the supernatural, and

especially of the p·redictive eie1nent in prophecy.

As to the th

1

eory of

evolution

·reg.arded as a.

process

,o,f un·in

terrupted

differentiation

of

existences, under purely natural

laws, and withot1t an)' Divi11e ntervention, , it will suffice to say

that

it

is

''not

proven ·,

in

the

sphere

of

natural science,

while in the real111sof history and l.iteratu .re it is palpably

false.

The

r ·e,cords of

history

and

1

0f literature reveal from

time to titne

the

great

fact

and factor of

personality,

the

reality of

person .al p

ower, and tl1is dete ·rminative

ele·m

1

ent

has

a

peculiar way 1f setti ·ng at naught all idealistic theories of a

purely ,natu .ral a.nd ur1if01·mprog1·e.ss

·in

his,to,·y a,nd let·ters ,. Th,e

lite1·ature

of today

is

not necessarily

higher

than that

pro

duce ·d in the p,ast; the history of the I.a.st ,centu ·ry is n

1

0,t in ev ,ery

way and alwa ,ys superio ,r to that of its predecessors. Even a

~'natur,alistic'' wri ·ter like Pro

1

fesso1· Pe1·cy Gardner testi .fie s to

the fact

and

forc ,e

of

perso ,na 'lity in

the

follo\ving remarkabl ,e

terms:

''There is, in fact, a great force in histo

1

ry

which is not, so

fa1· as we can judge, evolutional, a11d he law of which is vef)·

l1a1~dto trace the force of personality · and

chara

1

cter.'' Ancl

quite apart from such instan ,ces of personality as

have

arisen

·from

ti·me

t

1

0 time

through the

centu1·ies,

there is

1

on,e

Personal

ity

who has not yet been accounted for

by any

theory

of

evolu~

tion

the Person

of

Jesus

.of

Nazareth.

There

a1·e

sufficient

data in

current

Old

Testament criticism

to wjarran ·t the .statement that i.t proceeds from presuppo .siti

1

ons

..

concerning

the origins

of

history,

religion, and the Bible,

,vhich, in their essence, are subversive of belief in a Divi.ne

revelation. And such being the case, we naturally look with

0

rave suspicion

on results

derived

from so unsound a

philo-

ophical basis. ·



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

..

•

16

•

The Fund aniental s

•

•

1

6·.. CAN PURELY NATURAf..1I ,STI

1

C PREMI :SE,S B,E ACCE rPTED WITH-

0 1UT COMING TO, PURELY NATURALISTIC CON ,CLUSIONS?

. I{uenen

and

W

e llhausen are ·

.ardmi,ttedly

accep

1

ted as,

r11a:stersby

our -1eading

Old

Tes ·ta1nent higher c1~itics in Eng~

land,

Sco tl a.nd,

and America, .and the 1·esults o·f their literar y

analysis of the

Pentateuch

are generally regarded as conclusive

· by their f()]toWers. On tl1e basis of this ~iterary dissectio n,

•

certain

conclus ·ions a·re

fo1·med .as

to

the chara

1

cter an

1

d

growth

of

Old

Testament

·religion, an

1

d,

as

a

res ttlt,

the

hist iory

of

t.he

Jews is

reconstructed.

The Book

of De11teronomy

is

said to

b,e.

1nainly,

if

not

·entirely,

a

pi;oduct.

of

·the reign

of

Josiah,

the

accounts of the tabernacle

an ,d worshi .p

are

of

exilic date;

monotheism

i11

Isra ,el was of late d.ate, and was the outcome

,of a growth from

po,lytheism;

and th,e present Book

of

Gene

sis reflects ·tl1e tho11ghts of

the

tin1e

of it s

composition

or com

pi.lation

in

or

nea1·

th ,e

elate

of

the

Exile.

Now it is kn ,own

tl1at

Kuenen

and

We l lhausen deny

the

supernatural element in

the Old

Testa1nen t.

This is

the p ,re

supposition

of

their

entire position. .

Will

anyo11e say

that it

does not materially affect their · conclu s,ions P And is there any

•

· saf·e or logical halting-g ·rouqd for those who accept S·O

many

of their premises? The extreme subjec tivity of Canon

Cheyne

ought not to be a surpri se to any who accept the main princi

p]es of modern higher criticism ;

it

is part of the logical out

come of the general po,sition. W ,e gladly distinguish between

-

-

the extremists and the 0

1

ther

schol .ars

who S·ee no incompati-

bility

between the acceptance of

many

of the literary and his

torical

principles

of

Kuenen and W ellhausen an:d a

belief

in

t.l1e

Divine

sou rce and authority of

tl1e

Old Testamente

But

'

we are bound

to add tl1at

th ·e ttnsatisfying

element in

tl1e

writings of moderate men like

Canon

Driver

and

]; rincipa~

· George Adam

Smith

is that, while

accepting so

n1uch of the

naturalism of the German schoo

1

l, they do not give us any

clea1~ assura11ce of t he ·t1·ength of the

fou·ndation

on which



•

•

'

, .

Old

Testame it

Criticism nd New Testament Christianity 17

•

•

they rest and ask -us to rest. The tendency of their position

is certain ly towards a mini1nizing of th

1

e

s,uper11atural

in the

1

0 1d

Te stament. · . ·. ·

. Take, as one instance , the Messian ic element . In sp

1

te

•

of the universal belief of

J

,:vs and Christians in a person~·1

· Messiah, a belief derived

in

the

first

place solely from the:

•

Old Testament, and supported

fo ,r

Christians b,y the New,

modern criticism will not allow much cl,ear and undo

1

ubter

predicti on of

Him ..

Insight

into existing

conditions is

read.il.Y

granted

to th

1

e prophets

1

,

but they

are not

al.lowed

to have

h.a,d

much

foresight

into futt1re conditions connected with

the

Messiah.

Yet

Isaiah's glowing words remain, and demand

a fair, full exegesi s such as

they

do not get from many

modern scho .lar s~ Dr. , James We lls, of Glasgow, wrote in

the: ~'British Week1y', so1ne time ago of tl1e new

critici s111

n

thi s point:

''T he fea·r of p

1

red icti

1

0 11

in the

prope,r

sense

,of

the term

is ever hef

ore

its eyes.

It gladly

enlarge s on fore-shadowings,

a

1noral

historical

growth which reach

1

es its, culmination in

Christ; and anticip ,ation s

1

0£ the Spirit of Christ; but its

tendency is always to minimize the prophetic element

in . the

Old Test .ament~''

Ano ther example of t}1e te11dency of

moder11

criticism to

minimize and explain away th e

supernatural element

may be

give11from a book entitled, 'The Theology and Ethics of the

Hebrews,'' by Dr. Archibald Du ff, Professor in the Yorkshire

College, Brad£ ord., 'Thi s is

l1is·

.account

0

1

£

Moses, at the burn

ing bush:

' 'He was shepherding his sheep among the red granite

mountains. • • • The man

sat

at dawn by the stream, and

watched the fiery rock s. Yonder gleamed the level sunlight

ac1~oss the low growth. E,ach spine glistened against the

rising sun. The man wa s a poet , one fit for inspiration. He

felt that the dreams of his soul we re

tl1e

whisperings of his

•

•

•



•

•

I

•

•

18

\

( p. 6.) This, at least, is, no·t t·he pr1ma f acie impre ssion

derived f'rom the account g·iven in 'Exod ·us .

•

One

more

illustratio ,n

may

·be,

given

of modern

critic al

methods of dealing with narratives of the Old

Testan1en t

•

which were evidently intended to b,e regarded as historical .

J,n the ''Internationa .1 Critical Comm.entary'' ,on

Numbe.rs,,

Dr..

I

G B. Gr ,ay, of M,ansfield College, Oxford, thus writes on

what he terms ' 't he prie stly section of t·l1e ·book'' ·: .

''For the

hist'?ry

of the Mo saic age the whole

sectio11

is

valueless. '''The historical imp1ession given

by

(P) of

the Mosaic a.ge is .altog ,ether unl1istorical , and much of th e

detail . . . can • . . • be demon str .ated to be entirely

unreal, or at least untru

1

e of th

1

e age in question.'' ''Thi s

history

·is,

fictiti ,ous,.''

These state1nents at once set

as,ide

the history containe d

in more than th ree-qttarters o.f the

whole

Book

of

Numbet· 's,

while as to the rest Dr. Gray 's verdict is

by

no means r,eas,sur

ing, and he clearly does not po,ssess mucl1 confidence in. even

tl1e small quant .ity that escapes his cond,emnation. The bra z.en

serpent is, said to be an inv,ention o,n the part o·f some

''wl 10

• •

had come unde ·r the higher proph

1

eti

1

c te.achi,ng'' be£ ore He ze-

kiah, and is meant '''to controve rt

tl1e

po,pular belie·f·,,

in

th e

l1ealing power of the serpent by ascribing, it to Jehovah. A

t

1

0 the story

1

0£ Ba.laam, Dr. Gray wrotes: .

''It may, indeed, contain other hi.storical features, such

as the name , o,f Balak, who may hav

1

e been an actual kin ,g of

Moab; but no mean .s at pre sent ex is,t for dis,tinguishing any

further between ·the historical or legendary elements and

those w·hich are · supp.lied by the creative facu ·tty a·nd

tl1

re.ligi,ous feeling of the writers.'' .

What . is any ordinary earnest Chri stian to make of all

these

St,ateme,nts?

The ,

writer

of th.e

Book o·f

Numbers evi

d,ently c,ompo sed what professes to b

1

e histo ·ry, and what he

meant to b,e read as history, and yet according to D,r. ·Gray



the

Ch.ri.stian

Church

will re,qui1·e

very much mo

1

re

convin

1

cing

proofs before they can accept the critical position, and it

does no,t

faci:l,i.tate

our

ac.cept,ance

,o,f this

wbol.esale

proc ,ess

of invention

to. be

told

that it

is due to

'~the

creative fac111ty

and the ·r·eligious

feeling

of the

writers.

- As to the fact that so

many

of our British

and

American

''higl1er critics'' al e fir·m b.e]ieve·rs ·in the D'ivi·n.e

authority

of

the Old Testa1nent,

and

of a

Divi11e

revelation

embodied in

it,

we cannot but fee l

the

£,orce of

tl1e

words of the

late

Dr ..

W,. H . Green, ,of

Princeton:

''They who

have

themselves been

tho ,roughly

grounded

in the Christian

faith

may, by

a

happy

inc.ottsistency, hold fast

their

o·Id convictions, while

admitting

p,rincip ,les, rnetl1ods, a·nd conclusions that are logically .at war

with

them.

But

who can

be surpri s,ed if

others

shall with

stricter logic c·arry what h,as been th.us commended to them t<;>

its

legitimate conclusions

?''''

•

7. C'AN WE OVERL,OO,I{ THE EVIDENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGY?

•

It is well

k110

1

wn that during the last sixty

years

a vast

number of archaeological

dis.coveries

have been made in

Egypt,1 P'alestine ., Babylonia,

and Assyria.

Many of these

have

shed remarkable

Jight on

the histo rical feat ur es _of the

Ol

1

ci

Testament. A number of persons a·nd pe.riod.s have been

illttminated

by

these discoveries and are now seen with a

clearness which was befor ·e i1npos.sible.

. Now it is a .

simple

and yet

stri king

fact

that

not one of

these

di,sc,ovieries

during the whole of

this

tirn

1

e has given

any

support to the

distinctive featqr ·es

and

principles ,

of the highe.r

critical position, while, on the other hand, many of them have

afforded abundant

confirmation

of the traditional

and

con

s,ervative view of the Old

Testament.

.

Let

us

1

consider a

few

of

t'hese discoveries. Only

a little

over forty years a,go the cons

1

ervative '''Speaker's C01µ-

mentary'' actually

had to

take into consideration .the critical

arguments

t 'hen.

so

prevalent in

favor

of

the la.te

invention



. -

•

•

,

20

•

The Funlla nentals

..

of wr ,iting. This is

an

,argt1m

1

ent

whicl1

is

never

heard now

. . in critical circ'les. The change of attack is 1nost striking.

•

While fo

1

rty o,r

fifty

years ago

it

was argued that

Moses

cottld not

possibly

have had

sufficient

learning t

1

0 write the

Pentateuch, now it is argued as the resu lt of th.ese modern

discoveries [ that

11e w

1

ould have been

altogetl1er behind his

1

contempo1 . ries

if

l1e

l1ad

,no·t

bee,n able

to

write. Again, the

Babylonian [story of the flood agrees in 1on,g sections with

the account in

Ge,n,esis,, ,and

it

is, known

that the

Babylonian

version was in existence for ages before the , dates

assigned .

to

the

Gen ,e.sis

narrative

by the ·critical s,chool~ Pro

1

fessor

Sayce rightly calls

1

this a cr·ucia l test

1

0£ the

criti ,cal

positio

1

n,,

Th ,e historicity of the kings mentioned in Genes ·is 14 was

once seriously ques tione

1

d by

criticis ,n1,

but th .is is im.possible

today, for their

histo1·ical

character has been p,rov,ed beyo

1

nd

all question, and, in p,articular,

-t

is now known that the

A1nrapl1el of that cl1apte1·

sl

the H,amn1,urabi 0

1

£ the Monuments

. and a contempor ,ary

with Abraham .. T h

1

e

puzz 'ling

story of

Sar ,ah and

Ha ,gar

is a]so now seen to be in exact agr

1

eement

with ·Babylonian custom. Th

1

e11 again, the Egypt of Joseph

and Moses is tr ue to tl1e s1nallest details of the life of the

•

Egypt of that day

and

is

altogethe1·

different

from t'he

very

•

di·ff

erent

Egypt

of

later ages. Sargo

1

n, wl10 for

centu 't 'ies wa ,s

only

known

from

th ,e

one reference

to him in Isa.

20 :1, is

nqw

seen to hav

1

e been

0

1

lle: of

the most

important

kings of A,s

syria. An .d th ,e Aramaic 'language of Daniel and Ezra,

which

has so often be,e11 acct.1sed of 1ate.ness, is proved to be in

exact accor ;d with t'he Arama ·i,c

0

1

f

that

age,

as

sh,ov..n

by

the

Papyri discovered at

Elephan tine in

Egypt.

Now these, and ot.hers

like

tl1,en1,, are . tangible pr

1

oofs

w'hich can be verified by ordina ,ry pe,ople. Hebrew philology

is

beyond.

mo:st of us and is too su·bject ive for any convincing

argument to be based upon it, bu't 3:rch.aeology

1

0fI

1

ers an ob

jective method of putting historical theories ·t

1

0 the t·est. . --



•

t

•

•

Old .Testament

Criti c·i sm

and New

Testa1:nent

Chr1;stianity 1

•

•

m

1

en,t is tha 't a number of leading ar

1

cl1aeologists \vho were

fo r1nerly in hearty agreement with the critical school, have

now abandoned this view and oppose

it.

As Sir Wil 'liam

Robertson Nic,o l ha .s forcibly said : ''The significant

iact

is that the great first-han d archaeologists as a rule do not .

j

trust the higher criticism. This means a great deal more

•

than can be put on paper to account for their doubt. It

means that they are

living in

an atmosphe1·e where argu

ments ·that flourish ,outside do not thrive.'' '

Profess .or

Fl inder s Petrie, the

great Eg-yptologist,

uttered

these words not long

ago:

' ' I have come to the conclusion

that there is a far mor ,e solid bas,is tl1an seems to he sup-

_posed by many critics . . . • I have not the slightest .

doubt that contemporary documents give a truly solid founda

tion

fo

1

·1~tl1e reco,rds1

contai ·ned in the

Pentateuch. ,) · . .

The

essential point is that some of these critical people support

from an a priori

basis instead

of wri ting

upon ascertained

facts. We should remember that writing at tl1e time of ttiie

Ex

1

odus was

as familiar as i,t

is

now. . • ,, Tl1e fac 't is

that it is hopeless for these people by means merely of v:erbal

criticism to succeed iq. solving al,l

1

difficu.lti,es that

,arise.' · ,

•

ARE THE VIEWS OF MODERN

CRITICISM CONSISTENT WITH

. THE

WITNESS

OF OUR LORD,

TO

TiiE

OLD

TESTAMENT?

The Christian Church

approacl1,es

the Old

Tes·tament

1nainly

and

predominantly

£1·omthe

standpoint

of th~ resur·

rection O'f ,c ·hrist,. We natural :ly ·inquire ·what our Ma .ster

thought of

the Old 1'"'estament,

for if

it comes

to

us

·\Vith

His authority, and we can discover His view of it, we

ot1gbt

to l

be satisfied .

..

. In the days of our Lord's life on earth one press ,ing ,ques

tion was, ''What think ye of the Christ?'' Another was,

W h t · ·

a

ts

written

,in

thie

Law

?

H

1

ow

·re,adest thou?''

Th

1

se

questions

are still

being raised

in

one £Orm

or another, and

•



•

•

22

•

•

cent ,ers'', as they have well

been cal1ed

are Christ and the

Bible. .

The

two proble.ms,

r,eally re,solve

themslv ,es into ,

1

0

1

ne,

f'or

Christ and

th.e

Bibl.e are . inseparable. If we follow ·Christ,

He will

teach

us o.f

the Bible;

and

if we

study our

Bible,

it

will

point us to

c ·hrist.

Each is called the Word o·f Go

1

d.

Let us,

firs,t

o·f a11, 'be

qttite

1

clear

as

to

,our

meaning

of

our Lord .as ''The w ·ord of God. ''In the beginning was

tl1e Word.'' A

word

is an oral or visible

expr ,es.sion

0

1

f

an

invisible

thought.

The thought needs the

word

for its ex

JJression,

and

the word is

intended

to represent the

thought

-

accurately, even if not completely. We cannot in any degree

be sure of · the thought unless we can

be

sure

o·f

the

wor ·d.

Our Lord as the W ,ord, there£ ore, , is the perso ,nal and visible

expression of

the invisible God. (John 14; Heb. 1 :3.) We

believe that He is

a11

accurate

''expression''

of

God,

and

that

as, the Word He re,,eals God ·and ,c,011veys Go,d'S: Will to us

in

such

a way

as

to be

inerrant

and infallible. As

the

In

eamate Word He is infa.llible.

•

•

He

came, among other things, , to bear witness to

the

truth

(John 18 :37),

and

it is a

necessary outcome of this

purpose

tha .t He should be.ar infallible

witn ,ess.

He came to reveal

God and God's will, and this implies and requires special

1,nowledge. It demands that every assertion of His be true.

The Divine know]edge did not, because it could not, undergo

any change

by

the Incarnation. He

continued

to subsist in

the form

of

God even

while

He existed

in

the

fo,rm of

man.

(Phil .

2

:6. See

Dr. Gifford's

''The

Incarnation.'')

· In view of this position, we belie,re

that,

as Bishop Elli-

.

cott says (''Christus Comprobator'') we have a right to make

this

~ppeal

to the testimony of Christ to the Old Testament .

•

The place it occupied

in

His )ife

and ministry is

suffi.cie:nt

warrant . for referring to His use of it. It

is

well known

that,

as

far as the Old Testament

canon is

concerned, oitt



•

Old Testament Criticistn and New Testa1nent Ch1ristianity

23

•

.

true of th

1

e Old Testament as a whole, is surety

tru .e

of these

parts to which our .Lord specific,ally ·refe rred.

Let

us be

clear,

however, as

to w·hat

we mean in making

this appeal. We do, no,t for an instant inten ,d thereby to

clos.e all possible cr·iticism ·of the Old Testament. T·here

are

~umbers

of questions

quite untouched by

anything our

Lord said, and there is consequently ampl ,e scope for

sober·,

necessary, and valuable criticism. But what we ·do say is,

. that

anything

in t.he Old Te :stament st.ated by our Lo

1

rd .as

a fac·t, or imp

1

lied as a fact, is, or ought to be,. t·hereby closed

for those who , hold Christ to be infallible. Criticism can do

anything · that ·is not

i·ncomp,ati'ble with

the st,atem ·ents of

our

Lord;

but where Christ has spoken, surely ''the matter

•

•

1s clo,s,ed.·'

_ at, then, is ou1·Lord's general view of the

Old

Testa

ment? There is, no doubt that His Old ·Te .stament was

practicaJ·ty, if no,t actually, th e s.ame a,s ottrs, and that He

regarded it as of Divine auth

1

ority,

as

the final court of ap

peal for a]] questiOns <..-onnected with it. The

way

in

which

He quotes it shows

tl1is.

To the Lord Jesus the Old Testa

ment was authoritative an

1

d final, because Divine ..

No one can go through the

Gospels

without

being

im-

pressed with the deep rever ·ence of our Lord for the Old

Testament, and with His constarit use of it in all matters of

religious

thought and lif e. His question, ''Have

ye

never

read?''

His

as.sertion, ''It

is_ written,'' His

testimony, ''Ye

earch the Scriptures (R. V), are plainly indicative of His

•

view o,f the Divine authority of the Old Testament as we

have

·i·t.

He sets His seal to ·its historicity and its rev

1

ela

tion of God. He supplements, but never supplants it. He

.a.mplifies

and modifi .es, but

never nt1llifies it. He fulfiJ.ls, i ..e.

fills full, but never makes void .

This general view is confirmed by His d

1

etailed references

·to the O·ld 1''estamen ·t. Co,nsi,de·r Hi ,s te,stimo

1

nie·s to ·the p·er-

•



•

..

•

•

24

•

•

Ther ,e is

scar ,cely a. historical boo·k,

from

Genesis to

2 .

Chr 1onicles ., to which our Lord

docs not

ref

er;

while

it

i.

perhap s sig·ni.fi,cant

that

His

te stim ,ony

includ ,es

references to

every book of the Pentateuch, to Isaiah, to Jonah, to ·Daniel,

and to

miracle .s the ,

very

parts mo,,st called

in qu

1

esti,on

today .

Above all,

it

is

surely

of

the

deepest moment

that at

I-Iis

te1np·tation

He

s.hould

use

thr ,ee tin1es as the Wor ,d,

of God

the

book

about

which

there

has,

perhaps,

been most

contrqver sy

0

1

f

all. ·

Again, therefore, we say that everything to

which

Chris t

can be sa·i,d, on any h

1

onest

inte1·pretati.on, to have

referred

or which He used as a fact, is thereby sanctioned and sealed

· by

th ,e authority of our Infal lible Lor ,d.

''D

1

omint1s locu·tus

est; causa

finita

est. · ·

Nor

can ·

this position

be

turned

by the

statement

th,at

Christ

simply

ad ,opted

the

beliefs

of

His day

Without

neces

sar ily

sancti ,oning

them as, correct.

1

0f this there is

n

1

ot

the

slightest

proof·, but very n1uch to the contrary.

On

some

of

the most . impo i'tant

sub,jec·ts

1

0f

His

day

He went ,directly

against prevailing opinion. His teaching ab,out God,

about

righteousne ·ss,

about the Messia h,

abo11t

tradition,

ab9ut th e

Sabbath,

about

the

Samaritans, ab,out

women,

about

divorce ,

about the

b.aptism

of

John, w·ere diametrically

opposed to

that of the time. And

this opposition

was, deliberately

gr\0L1nded on the Old Testament which our Lor

1

d ch,arge ,d th

1

em

with

mis.interp1-eting.

The

one

and

only

question

of difference

between Him and

tl1e

Jews

as to

the Old Testament

was

tl1at of

interpret~tion. Not

a vest ige

of pr ,oof

can

be adduc ,ed

that He and they

differe .d

at

al,l

in

their gen .eral view

of its

•

]1istorical

charact ·er or

Divine atitho ,1·ity. If

the

.cu1·rent

Jewish

views

were

wrong,

can we think

our

Lord would

have been silent on a

matter

of such moment,

about

a

bo,ok

.

which

He cite,s

or alludes to ,over

four

hundred

times,

and

which He

made

His constant

topic in

'teachi·ng

,concerning

Himself? If th

1

e

Jews

were wrong, Jesus

either

kn

1

ew it,



•

•

0 ,ld Testament Criti cis1nand N eu Testament C,hristiianity 25

or He did not. If He knew it, why did He not correct them

as in s:o many otl1er land

1

detailed instances? If I-le did not

lcnow

it

but I

,vill not finish.

Nor can t,his witness t

1

0 the Old T

1

estament be met b y

asserting that the limitation of our Lord s earthly life kept

Him within current

views

of the Old Testament which ne,ed

not ha,ve

be,en true views. This statement

ign,o,res

the ·

es

sential force of His personal

clai1n

to be the Word.

Qn m ore

,than

one o,ccasion

our Lord

claimed

to

speak

from God,

_and

that everything He said

had the Divine

war:

rant. Let us notice

careft1lly

what this

involves.

It is

some

ti:mes s,ai

1

d, that our Lord s kno

1

wledg e ,was limited , and tha ,t

He lived here as man, not as

God.

Suppose we grant t11is

for argument s sake. · Very well; ·as man He live,.d in God

an

1

d on God, a11d He claimed that everything He said a11tl

did was fr om God and thr

1

ough God. If,

then,

the limita-

•

t1ons were f ro m God,

,so

also were the, ul·te,rances; and, as

God s warrant

was cJaimed for

,every

one of these, they are

the1 . :fore

Divine and infallible. (John 5 :19; 5 :30; 7:13;

8 :26; ·12 :49; 14 :24; 17 :8.) Even though we grant to the

full a theory that wilt compel us to accept a temporary disuse

1

0

1

r non-us e lolf

the

£,u11ctions of

Deity

in

th

1

e ·

Per ,so11

of

our

Lord, yet tl1e words actually uttered as man are claimed

to be from God, , and the ref ore we hold them to

be

inf allibl ,e.

We rest, therefore, upon our Lord s personal claim to say

all and do all

by

th~ Fat her, from the Father, for the Fathe:ti.

· The ,r,e is,Iof course,, no

questio ·11

of partia l knowl

1

dge af t,er

the res·urrection,

when our Lord

was

manifestly

free

from

all limitations

of

earthly conditions. Yet it was after His

resurrection

also that

He

set Hi s seal to

t he Q,ld

Testament.

(Luke 24:44.) .

We co,nclud,e, t,ha t o,ur Lor ,d s pos

1

itive statements on

tl1e,

subject of the Old Testament are not to

be

rejected without

charging Him with error. .If, on these points, on which we

..

•



•

•

,

•

,

26

The undanientats

•

what real com£ort can we have in accepting His higher teacl1-

. ing, where verification is

itnpo,ssible ?

We believe we are on

absolutely

safe gro ,und when

we say

that

what the Old Testa

ment was to our

.Lor

1

d,

it

mttst

b1 .and shall be to us.

•

•

•

CONCLUSION

I

•

•

We ask a car·efu] ,consideratio ·n of thes.e eight inquiries.

Taken separately, they carry ,veight, but taken together the y

have a cumttlative effect,. and should be seriously pondered

by all who

are

seek.ing

to know

the truth

on.

this

momentou s ·

subject. ·

We:may b

1

e perfectly sure that no criticism of

the

Old Tes

tament

will

ever be

a,ccep,ted by

the

Christian Church

as

a

.

whole,

whi ·ch

does not fu ll,y

satisfy

the f,ollowin,g

·conditi .ons:

· 1. It

·must

admit in

all

its as.su·mptions, . and take

fully

intor

considerat ion, the super n.atural element which differen -

tiates the Bible from all other books. ·

2. , It

must

be in

k,eepin.g

witl1

the enlightened spiritual

ex-

perience of the

saints

of God in all ages, and make an effectual

appeal to the piety , and spirit ual perception of those who

know

by

personal experience the power of the

Holy Ghost.

3.

It must

be

historically in

line

with the g enercrl tradi

tion

of Jewish history

and

the unique

position

of the

Hebrew

nation through the centuries.

4~ It :must be in unison with

that

,apostolic concep

1

tion ,of

the authority and inspiration of the Old Testament,

which

is so manif es,t

in the

New

Te stament.

Sf Above all, it must be in accordance with the universal

belie£ of the

Cl1ri:stian

Church

in

.our Lor

1

d s, infallibility as a

.Teacher~

and as the Word made flesh.

If and when

mo,dern higher

1

critici .sm can satisfy th,ese

requirements, it will not merely be accepted, but

will

com

mand

the u.niversal,

Jo,yal,

a nd even

e.nthus1asti

1

c

adhesion

of

all Christians. Until then, we wait, and also maintain our



•

•

•

•

CHAPTER II

•

BY AN ,OCCUPANT Q,F THE , PEW

•

, Perhaps the most re1narkable

movement

in philosophic

thought that has occurred in any age was the rise and general ·

acceptan ,c,e by sci

1

entific circles . of the evo,]utionary theory ,as

p1~opounded

by Dar\vjn,

H1J,x]ey

and Spencer. It

w,as

remark

able that men of science, wl1ose peculiar boast it is that th.ey

deal only with estab lished facts, should have so readily de

parted from this rule and

accepted

a system . based upon

hypothesis only,. and which was; and is still after the lapse of

forty

years, without

a single

kncwn

fact to support

it.

Even

when allowance is made for the well-known

eagerness of

ma,ny sc,ientists to do away wi,th a,l]

dualism, ,

w'hich was Mr.

Darwin's aim,

if

was still remarkable that men of trained

in

tellect should have so promptly accepted at face value his two

principal works,

in which the expression, ''we

may well

sup

pose,, occurs over eight hundre .d tim ,es, as a basis for the argu

ment.

P'ure

suppos ,ition

ma,y·

answer as a

f,ounda·tion

for

f

a,n

cif ul sketches 1ike those of Jules Verne'~; but as ground .upon

,vhich

to base

a sober scientific

argument it appeais

to the

average man as l·ittle le,ss

·th lan

farci ,c,al. Why i't d'id not so

appear to the scient ific mind, the scientific

mind

may

perhaps

be ·able to explain. We

frankly

confess our

inability

to do so.

Still

1nore remarkable was the

fact

that so

manr

theolog-

•

1

ans and Christian 111inistcrsadopted the new philosophy and

were so ready to give up large portions of Holy Scripture beM

cause they could not be reconciled with it; inventing, as .a

~From ''Hera .]d and P'resbyt :e,r,,'' N'1,vember 22, 1911,

Ci~cio

n.ati, 0. We repr .int this excell ,ent paper as the remarkab ,le utter

ance of a Christian layman on

a most

important subject. Ed.

•



•

•

..

•

•

•

•

28,

salve to conscience the doctrine that

''the

Bible was not in-

tended to teach science'', one of

those half-truths

that are

in.ore

misleading than

a

downright untruth.

In

this . way tl1e sto,ry of creation as given in Genesis w1s

set aside,

an ,d the whole boo ,k dis,credited ..

As Christ

cot1ld

not by any logical possibility be made a product of evolution

without an absolute denial of His

supernatural

birth and

His

Divine claims, a11dthe new birth, or creation, for man in Him

was open

t

1

0

the

same

objection,

th ·ese

trutl1s were either

ob-

scured, minimized, or totally neglect

1

ed .and even

1

denie ,d. To

such lengths were some .of the sworn

''defenders

of

the

faith

once delivered to the saints'' ready to go in order

to

avoid

being considered as hopelessly '' unscientific'' and ''behind the

ti1nes in scholar ship.

That

was twenty years ago or more.

But strange st of all is th ,e fact that a

few of

these

minis

ters 1

ar 'e still clinging

to tl1e ''gosp ,el

of

dirt,' · as

Carlyle

ap,tly

styled

it,

and are referring to it in a

w,ay

that indicates , a

belief on their part that such

reference is

still

evidence

of

•

up-to-date scholarship.

As early as 1889 P rofe ssor Virchow, of Berlin, admittedly

the ablest antbropologi s't of modern times, when summing up

the

results

of

inve stigations of this subject b

1

y himself and

other leading scientist s, covering a

per,iod

of twe11ty yea1·s,

declared: '.In

vain have the

I.inks which

should

bind

man

to

•

the monkey been sought; not a single one is there

to

show.

Th ·e so-called

proanth1·opos, who

should

exhibit this

link,

has

not been found. · No really learned man asserts that he has

•

seen him. · . . · .

P·erh,aps

some one may have seen him

in a dre.am,, but when awake he will never be ab1e to say that

he

has approach

1

ed him. Even the hope

of soon

discovering

. him

has departed ;

it

is hardJy

spo,ken of.''

Sl1ortly befor ,e

bis death, some ten years later, in an address before the Inter-

•

national Medical Society, he spoke to

the

same effect, and



•

Evol utia1iisni in the Pitlpit

29

•

•

in total , ail,ure. The middle link has not been found ,and

U

1

ever

will b

e. ,,

•

•

That

the

Darwinian

theory of

descent

has

in the realms of

nature not ,a

single fact to confirm it is the rmequivocal testi

mony

of men as

distinguish ,ed in

their

resp ,ective departments

of ~cie~1tific

esearch,

a,s

Dr,. N.

S. Sl1aler

iof

Ha ,rvard

U

niver@

sity; Dr. Etheiidge, fossiologist of the

British Museum;

Prof.

L. S. Beale, of King's College, London; Prof. Fleischmann,

of Erlangen, and others. .

Says Dr. Etheridge: ''Nine-tenths

of

the talk of evolu

tionists is sl1eer nonsense, not founded on observation

and

wholly unsupported

by

fact. This museum is full

of

proofs,

of the utter falsity of their

views."

Professor

Beale asserts:

''There is no evidence that man has descended from, or is, or

Was, in

any

way specially

related to, any other

organism in .

n,a·tur ,e

thi,ou.gh

ev,oli1tion

or

by a11y oth

1

er process. In sup- ·

• •

port of all naturalistic conjectures con

1

ce1·0ing man's origin,

there is not at tl1is time a

shadow

of scientific

evidence.''

Professor Fleischmann sums up his estimate of the Dar

winian

th.eory of

the

descent of

man by affirming

that

''it

has

in the realms of nature not a single

fact

to

confirm

it. It · s

noit the result of scientific r

1

esearch, ·

but

purely the

pr ,oduct

of the

illlagination."

E,"en Pr

1

ofessor Haeckel admits i11 his

1

old age

that he

among all his c,ontemporarie s stands alone. ''Mos,t modern

,t,

·111vestigators,'' h,e co,nf

ess

1

es,

'~ha,re

con1e

to

th

1

e

c,011clusion

that the doctrine of evolution, and

particularly

Darwinianis1n~

•

18

an error arid can not he maintained.'' Touching l1is las,

i·e ..ffirmation of his

natu1·alistic

views, Dr.

A.

C. Dixon tell

tts

that

a scholarly man in Geneva said to him at the time

that

it was ''the

11oteof the

dying

swan,'

1

and Haeckel the

'~only

scientific man of eminence in Germany today who be

lieves in Darwinian evolution.''

Several · notable books bearing on this subject have ap

•

•



•

•

30

The F1ndamentals

published by ScribnersJ en,titled,

''No l

S·truggle for , Existence;

No

N·atural

Selection,'' p·resents

an

array

o:f

facts in

s.upport

of

t'be

two assertion s

made in

this title,

and against

ev,olution,

whic 'h must carry conviction to any unprejudiced mind. An·

other to the

same

effect is by Prof.

L.

T.

Tow·11send, ntitled,

' 'Collaps

1

e of · Evolution.'' Still anothe .r, and we believe an

epoch-marking book, is from th

1

e· pen ,of

Prof.

E. Dennert,

'Ph, D., recently published in Germany, and entitled, ' 'At

t'he

D,cath

Bed

of

Darwinism. ·' ' A

perusal

of

this,

book

''leaves

no room for douh

1

t,''

1

as asserted in the preface

of

the Amer

ican

edition, ''about

the decadence of t he, Darwinian theory

in th

1

e highest ·

scientific

circles of Ger1nany. · And ou.ts,'de

of

Germany the same sentiment is shared generally

by

the lead

ers of scientific tl1ought.'' .

Thu s w·e see that, on the t estimo ,ny .of ·the great majority

o·f

the

ablest

of

its one -tim ,e leading advocates, the

·evolutio,n·

ary theo1·y is ·in artic·ulo mortis. Nay, more, it is ·a ready dead,

since the spirit ( t'he theory of natural selection) has long

since departed. Some of

its

f rjends

may

si·t about

the

r,e-

.. mains

i·ntentiy

·watching for some signs of · re11ewed

Jj,f

e, but

they watch

in

vain.

And

yet

there are

·ministe·rs

of the

Gospel

who, dis-

•

crediting the Bible r1arrative of

creation,

are Still basing argu-

ments upon the Darwini .an theory of the

origin

of

species ;

glib

1

ly ref 'e1ring to the time ,·when our ancest0

1

r·s we,re dwell

ers in t1·ees,'' and to their own ''desce ·nt fr

1

om monkeys·, tad~

poles and fis'h,'' ''a much higher conceptio·n of man's origin,'' '

accor ·ding

to

their refined tas ·te, than is that given in Gen

1

esis.

At, or a little before, the beginning of the decade just ended

this might have

p.assed

for

learned

talk about

t'h.e

''settled

re~

suits

of science''; but

today, amo

1

ng those

1

who

are

1

rea,lly

abreast o·f'

the movement of scientific thought,

it ·is

regarded

as merely echoing

in

this

g·enera,tion

the

al·ways

unp·roved and

now properly rejected speculations

1

0f

a dead and gone

ge11efa



•

Evolittionis 11i n tlie Pitlpit

31

That amo,ng tho.se who mourn the

passing

of

evolution

t·11ereare some naturalists and iothers who clin,g to

it,

as said

by

Dr •. Goette,

the

eminent

Str3.sburg zoologist, ·

simply be

cause it

seems

to funiish

,a

much-desired mechanical explana-

t1on of purp:olsive, adapta ,tions, i.s not su·rpris.ing, since it

leaves

them

nothing but . the

hated alternative of

accepting

G·enesis with its personal God and creative acts ..

But when

we

c

1

onsider

that .the evolutionary

theory was

conce:ived in a.gno,sticislmJ and

born and

nt1r·tur ,ed in

i

1

nfide.lity;

that it is the backbone

of the

des ,tructive higher criticis1n

which has so viciou sly assailed both the integrity and authority

of the Scriptures; that it utterly fails in explaining what

Genesis makes so clear those trem iendous f ac.ts in huma,11

history a11d human nature, the pre senc ,e of ,evil and its

attend

ant suffering; that it off er·s notl1ing but a n

1

egative reply to

that

supreme que stion of the ages, I£ a

man die,

shall he

live again? that i·t, in £act, substitutes for a personal God

an infinite and eternal Ene1·gy which is without

moral

quaJ

ities or

positive

attributes, is

not wise, or .

good,

or merciful

or

j·ust; canniot lo

ve, or

hate,,

r·eward

1

or

punish ;

th,at it

1

de:nies

the personhlity of God and

man,

and presents them, together

with nature, as under

a

process of evolution which has

neither

beginning nor end ; and regards man as being simply a passing

form

of this universal Energy,

and

thus without free .

will,

moral responsibility, , or

immo1tality, it

becomes evident

to

every intelligent layman that .such a system can have no pos

sible

points of

contact with Christianity. He

may

well be

pardo ·ned

if

he views

witl1

a.stonishment ministers

of

·tl1e

~ospel still clinging to it, and harbors a doubt of either their

sincerity or sanity. · . .

· · If it he said that most ministers who accept evolution do

so only

in its

milder form,

the

supernaturalistic which permits

of belief in a personal God,

but

claims that evolution is His

method of working, man 3.nd nature being products of it, it



•

I

•

•

32

naturalistic, necessitates ·the giving up

1

0f the account in

Genes,is., an,d

gen

1

eral,ly carries wit 'h it

a

belief ' that th,e

1

Bible

is

but a

his,tory

of'

th,e

evolution

of

the

religious

id,ea,

an1d

n,ot

what it everywhere claims to be, a Divine and supernatural

re~elation. Moreover,

it

is tha,t part of the system which

they

I

accept

(the , origin

of· specie.s,)

whi.ch has quietly ·

b,ut fir1nl

y

seen labeled and shelved as mer ,ely one of the

past

phases

of

. philosophic thought.

To

hold to

it

still is to subject

them-

selves to doubts in the

minds of

their

hearers

as

those

ex

pressed in r

1

egard ·to

the , 'hol,ders

of the naturalistic v_e,w

We are not

contending that ther

1

e

is

not a

sphere

in which

the law of

evolution

as

propound

1

ed by Mr.

Spencer is

oper

ative, On the contr ,ary,

w

1

e believe there i,s ; but as

said

by

Philip 1

Ma,uro,

it

is

''entirely

confin,ed

to

1

the

sphere of

th,e

activities of fallen man.'' It is a most

significant fact that

it

is from

this sphere

alo.ne

that Mr~ Spencer draws all his

ill.ust ,rati,ons, an

1

f

o:r

th,e

simple

relason t hat

1

0

1

t,side

of it in

all

God's great

universe,

so .far

as known, t.here is

not a

scintil1a

of

evidence that

the law

of

e\·olution is, or ever has been,

in

operation. This fact has been

tl1e

stumbling

stone

of the evo~

lutionists f t1om

h

1

e first.

All

Mr. Spencer's pompous ph1·ase~

ology about a primitive homo ,geneous mas ,s passing in

1

endless

,cycles

from the

''in1perceptible

to the

perceptible, and

back

again from

the

perceptible

to

tl1e imperceptible;'' and

f 1,.or

''indeterminate unif ,ormi ,ty to

deter1ninate

mult ·if'ormity, ' has

•

no more foundation in

actual

fact

than an

air c.astie or Gulli-

ver's

travels. ·

The limi,ts of this , arti ,cle for bid further ref ,erence to the

i,n,teresting ,fact-

evidence of

wl1ich is ,superabundant

and

convincing that

the

law of evolution is strictly confined to

the sphere of

human activities, save to note tl1at it

is

not,

as

so ·ma,ny :sup

1

pos ,e, a '·natural

law,', but i,s, to borrow a·

term

. from

D~. H'.

Bush,n,ell, one of ' '

1

'u11nature~''' It is the law of

h11man progrf',SSapart from

God, and under

tl1e

leadership of



•

•

33

•

If, as ·so111eas

ert

the clergyme11\Vho accepted the ·evolu

tionary theory were driven to it by fear of ridicule, or of not

being

thought

abreast

of

the

trend

of

moder11

thought,

it

•

was ·not

only cowardly on

their part, but grossly inconsistent

with their Christian profess ion. For e:ven a partial investiga

tion of the subject ·must have made clear to them that evolu-

• I _ _ l • 11,

t1on1smand

Christia11ity

are,

ess111tially, intensely ,antagon1s,t1c.

The pulpit efforts

of

some ministers

at reconciling

them would

be laughable from a logical standpoint were the issues involved

not so

serious and

the

effects

upon so1ne

of

their

unthinking

hearers not so deplorable. Certainly, schola1·shipcan no longer

be

pleaded as an excuse for clinging to Darwini sm ;

and,

in

the interest

of

common honesty, these men ought to either

drop their materiali sm or leave tl1e Cl1ristian pt1lpit. .

Among the surprises that await the layman who would

info1·m

himself on this

subject

is

the

fact

that

much

that

was

advanced

by

the leaders, including Mr.

Darwin himself,

in

suppiort o,f tl1e evolut~onary hypothes :is was

m,erely

tentative.

It was only the sma ller fry, the tninnow s and gudgeons, that

were cocksure of its truth, and

wl10

gor ,ged tl1e u,nwholesom~

food.

This may

be affirmed with

equa] truth of

a large part

of what is taught

by

the ablest of the higher critics • . Nor

is

the

reason for it hard to find. It becomes apparent imme·

diately one perceives how weak, unsatisfactory and illusive

tl1e evide11ceis that they offer in support of their destructive

theories ; evidence so insufficient and even trivial that, as said ·

by Sir Robert Anderso11,

it would be laughed

out

of any

cour t in Christen

1

dom. ·

The

layman, coming

to a

knowledge of this

fact,-

finds

his first feeling to be one of astonishment that men calling

themselves Christians can on grounds so frivolous repudiate

large parts of Scripture, and deliberately sow the seed of

unf aith in tl1e 111inds nd hearts of thou sands of their hea1·ers .

This is apt to be followed by one of indign~tion at ,the 101,v

•

•



•

•

--- ~

•

•

•

•

34

The Fundamentals

•

•

•

mining the faith of the Cl1urch while accepting its pay. For

it

is noticeable that however great

tl1eir

1

change . of

attitt1cle

toward the

Scriptures

and

tl1e

doctrinal

standards

of

the

churches they are supposed to s

1

erve

1nay

be, no change is

ever

perceptible

in the attitude of these

gentlemen toward

the

acceptance of the salaries paid

by

the se

church

1

es.

And

this

despite the fact

that, accorcling

to their

ow11

witness of

them-

elves, tl1eir strong point is the

po ssess ion a11d

preaching of

a very superior ,quality

of ethics (

?) .

Indeed,

in li,stening to

them,

one ca11

hardly escaPe the

co11viction that

righteoitsnes

Jlersona1 · and civic, . wa s a

thing

almost

un~no,¥n before their .

advent ·

Certainly no one can

bla1ne

the

ordinary

individual who,

unskilled ·

in

the intellectual

subleties and plausible

sophistries

by which thes ,e

gentJe,men

seek to

just ,ify

their course,

finds

a feeling akin to

disgust

taking

possssion of

hin1

as

he listens

to th ,eir

talk

abqut

being governed

solely by

,a desire for

truth , in

their action ,s in tl1i,s. matter, and of

the

tenfold ·

greater

comfort, plea sure

and profit

they

derive from re,ad

ing their polychron1e Bibles; all of which, to his

untrained

anel practical mind, sounds like unmitigate ,d

pharisaical

cant.

It is like a man who, having take11 a \tvayall the foundation

t1nder

his,

l1ot1se

sa,~e

a· fe\\~

slencler prop s, lies down

in

it

de

c1a1·ing that he

doe s

o with a sense of security a.nd peace to,

which

he

had been a

stranger

b

1

ef ,ore.

Apparently the wild guesswork of a profligate and infidel

like Astruc, o·r

the

equally wild

pl1ilologicaJ

spectt1ations of

a skep tic like Welll1au sen, have 1nore weight with thes ,e S1el,,

e1·s

after

truth

than

has

the

thus , saith

the Lord

Jehovah

of the inspired propl1et , or the

testimqny

of

tl1e

Son of

God, an,d of His apostles. Moreov er, they s,,em to

coimpletely

ignore, and ·

to be utterly unable

to

te st ify from personal ex

perience to,

the

rege11e1·ati11g

ow ,er

of

the Holy

Spiri t

work

ing upon men s hea1·ts th r

1

ough the w·ord.

I



•

•

•

•

Evo/1tt ionis1nin

the Pulpit

35

•

•

had the courage of their convictions, and sense of honor

e11ot1gho co1npel

them

to

leave ·the

Christian

Church,

takit1g

with them those of their flocks who th.ink like

tl1em

and

,vish

to follow, for

they may

be

sure that

the pretty

little

amenities

of mo·rality and sociol,ogy which they have substituted for the

Gospel of regeneration can never

take

its place, or lead a ·

i11g1e o

t1]·

o·ut of

the

death and

darl<ness

of sin i11to the

life

and light tl1at

are

to be

found

in Christ

alon.e.

Meanwhile, a few naturalists, clothed in sackcloth, ma1·

sit

about

the

death

bed of

Materialism

as

mourners,

a11d

in

despair of

finding anytl1ing

else ·

to

fi11 he

niche in their temple

of lies left

vacant

by the removal

of their idol, may

on occa

s.i.on galvanize the 1~emains nto an

appea1·ance

of life. Thei1·

·clerical sympathizers~ too, 1nay ref use to read the deatl1 bul

letin already issued, or

to take

part in

t~

obsequies.

Never- .

theless, there can be no

reasonable doubt

in

any

inte11igent

1nind that Darwinism so far as it relates to man s origi11and

that of species in genera] is dead ; and a11who believe in a

personal God and

in

a

Divine revelation

may say

of

itt para

pl1rasing

Cusl1i s

answer

to King David: The philosophic

enemies o,f our Lord and

Ki11g,

and all of the isms that rise

against His ·tr11th, be as this dead ism,

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

I

•

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

· CHAPTER III

•

>

•

· DECADENCE OF

DARWINISM

Y REV, H ENRY H. BEACH,

GRAND JUNCTION,

COLORADO

•

( Copyright, 1912, by

He11ry

H. Beach,)

•

•

•

•

I

•

This paper is not a disct1ssion

of

variations tying

withi 11

. the boundaries of

heredity ;

nor do we remember tl1at tl1e

Hebrew and

Greek Scriptures reveal

anything

on

that

sub-

ject; nor do we thinlc that it can be rationally discussed unti1

species and genus a.re defined. .

· Failure to condition spontaneous generation by sterilized

l1ay tea,, and a chronic inability to discover the missing link

have shaken the popularity of Darwinism.

Will

it recover?

Or

is

it

f

a:lling

into a

fixed condition of innocuous d.esuetude?

•

As a purely academic qt1est ion, who cares whether a

protoplastic cell, o,r an a1noeba, or a11 ascidian larva, was

his primordial progenitor? It does not grip us~ It is doubtful

. whether any purely academic question ever grips anybody.

But

the issue

between Darwinistn

and mankind is 11ot a

•

purely academic qttestion. ·

Half his life

1

Cl1a1·le Darwin was af rai

1

d of t.he re·p1·01cl1es

of Christia11s.,

I ·t \\1as something like t·he fear felt by anotl1er

Charles, of the reproacI1es of the Huguenots were he to

1

1

ons1nt

to

the assassination o,f

Coligny.

He

ref

1

ers

to it in

tl1e Introdu ,ction to the Descent of Man :

During

many

years I collected notes

on

the

origin ancl

descent of man,

wit ·hout

any intention

of

publislting

011

the

subject, but rather

with

the determination not to

publish ;

as I ·

thought

that

I should

thus

add to the

prejudice s

against

my· views~ ·

At the end of the book he says : I am a ware that the l

I

conclusion ..

arrived

at in this worl{ wi]I be

denominated

by



•

•

•

Decadence o f

Darwi1iisnz

37

Some as highly irreligious ; bui he ,vho denounces them is

bo4nd to show why

it

is 1nore irreligious

to explain

the

origin of man as a distinct speci,es

by

descent fro1n some

lowly

form

througl1

the Jaws of variation

and

nat11ral

selec

tion, than to explain the birth of the individual thiough the

laws of ·ordinary reproduction.

He confessed his fear by protesting his innocence: ''I

hal'e done

notl1ing· only

explained . a choice between two

theories of

bringing

man into the world''. This way of

puttii:ig

it is .characteristic. I-le

often

refers t,o traversing the doctrine

of successive creations, as, the sum of his

offending.

rfhe

Prestidigitator calls special attention to one hand while be

works the trick with the ,

othe·r.

His apprehensions were

•

not altogeth

er groundless.

Pr

1

ofessor Haeckel was braver,

or,

mo·re

rash,

,vhen

lie

styl

ed

the

''Descent of Man'' as

''anti-Genesis'';

,vith

equal

truth and moderation he might have added,

anti-John,

anti

Hebrews and anti-Christ. The point to pierce the busi~e

and bosoms of men is a denial of the integrity and reliability

of tl1e

Word

of

God. We cannot depend on

the

Bible

to

show us ''how to go · to heaven'' if

it

misleads us as to ''how

tl1e heavens go'' regarding the origin, nature, . descent and

destiny of brutes and men, Darwinists

have

been

diggi11g

at

the foundations of society

and

souls ; and their powers

of ·

endurance are a

matter

of some mom

ent.

We venture to differentiate life and if we ,go too fat· a1·e

sure to be corrected : ·

l.

Vegetable life is

the

su1n of the forces which pervade

2. Brute life is the st.1m of the forces which pervade

conscious an,d thinks.

3. Huma ,n life is the u n o·f the f,orces whi,cl1 perva(le

•



•

•

•

•

38

The Fu idamentals

•

•

•

It is logical to assu1ne, until disp .roved, that these three

kinds of life t.ouch ea

1

ch otl1er, but n,ever merge. They · as ··

sociate as intimately as air and light, but are as ·far from

passing ·

fro1m

plants to brutes and from brutes to

men

as

i 'rom no

1

.-·being to being. ''By f1itl1 we

u11derstan,d

the age,s

to be set in order by the saying of God, in regard to the

. things ,

seen

n,ot

haying come out .

o,f

the 'things manif 'es

1

t''

(Heb. 11 :3). ·

. He who would

overtl1row Biblical

Christianity

e,xpect ,s

to t.ake the initiative. H

1

e· recognizes . that

there

is al,vays a

p~esutnption in favor of an existing institution; and has

always , been ,swift

t

1

0 open the battle,

. Professor

I-Iuxley,

in his article

on

1

evolution,

in the ninth

edition of th

1

e Britannica, has ably brou ,ght together th ie argu

ments for Darwinis1n; and we will foll ·ow his order.

GROWTI-I

•

Given a nucleated cell, and Darwinists have watcl1ed

the

•

process of generation from its beginning to birth, ''with the

best optical instruments' ·,. There have bee11 two theories.

The first theory is that

nothi 11g

new is, p1·oduced i11 the living

world; the

germs

f

ronri which

all

or·ganis1ns

have

developed

l1ave contained in miniatu1·e, and passed ort do,vn through

success i·ve generati .0

1

ns, a]l the e.ssenti .al organs of adults. To

get anything out of anything it mu st first be in it. This

is archaic. The ,second tl1eory is that evolution i,s progressive;

it results from so111etl1i11gn11ate in tl1ings, dynamic and pan

theistic. This

is

up to date.

All tha't

the

Dar ,wit1ists,

''witl,

th~ be.st

opt .ical

i11str11

1nents' ', have actually seen is g1·owth; b11t they have inf erred

a whole pantheon. Na.tural selectio n is tl1e s,upreme demiurge ;

•

exual selectio ,n an

1

d vari ,atio11 are su·bordinates. A 'billion

years ago there was

a

God, but He

immediately

disappeared.

I ·t wa,s 'Oe,c,essary to

1

l1ave Him then, to b,r·idge the g11lf be- 1



•

Dec adence of Darwinism

39

•

•

they called

it

evolution,

thinking

perhaps the

naa.1e might

prove ·useful, but we t·1~st not t ,o be b,lame

1

d for pref

1

erring

gro~th, for evolution is something of

a

harlequin, having

turned a complete

somersault

within a, hundred

y,ears ,

w hi]e

g1·owth. is univ ,ersally ac,l<:nowledged to

be a charac·ter

of

vegetable,

a11imal,

and

hwnan life.

In additio .n

to ,

finding

nat ,t1ral

g1·0

1

wth,

P·rof ·essor H11xley

claims the discovery of a te nde11cy

to assume a

definite

living

f9rtn .

This of

course

is ridicttlous. The sun rises

wi,th·

sufficient

regula ,rit.Y to

b,eco111e

a

striking phenomen on,

and we have discovered tend.en,cy

towards sunri ,se·s. Specu

lation is ·invoked ., bu.t speculation died with the great god

Pan when Jesus was

born.

Scientific observations are dumb,

excep ·t to

say

that .a·11God s c1·eatu1. s are fear

fully

an

1

d won-

der£ ully made. · .

LIKEN E:SSE,S ..

•

It

is settled

that low adult forms and embry,os

o,f higl1er

order

are

st1·iking1y· a1ike. An

embryonic reptile ·

passes

througl1 tl1e transformations of a fish~ and a man in tl1e

•

germ cannot be distinguished from any other mam~al. Here

' '

tl1eDarwinist

d.rops

his g,lass

and

j·u1nps at

tl1e

conclusi

1

on

that

all

creati ·ons, even vegetable s, are con, a11guined

brother s.

His microscope has failed him

and he

has forgotten the

ardent

astrono1ner who Saw ,strange tJuadr ttpeds in t he moon, until

he discovered the mouse nest in the telescope. Tl1e appar~

ent1y :si111ilarce]l,s a1,.e diff,eren,t. · The ,ottticome proves it.

One is ,a butterfly

and

the other

is

a whale.

In ,deed, Oscar

Hertwig

110,v

claims to ha·ve found the diffe1~ence s of tl1e ·

denozt ement in the cells themselves. Bttt it 1loes not matt

1

er.

Tl1e Darwinist has mistaken liken ess for proof of parentage ;

a,s

a

ma,tter of f a

1

ct

it

nev

1

er

prove s it.

P,arentage is 1nore

lil<:ely o .prove likeness. In either case the origin must first

be established and then the likene ss may illustrate

it.

- But recurring to the

differentiation

of

lif

1

e, as our

Maker

•

•

•

•



•

•

I

40

The

Fitnda1ne1itals

•

•

an

1

d

1

0n brutes . consciousne~s and thought, a11d on all of us

that which preserve ,s out·

bodies

from deca.y and

causes

them

•

to gro-w:,it seems natural that, in tl1e holy of

holies

of

His

laboratory, He has constructed us with similar characte ·rs,

tt·anscie11tor

p,errnan ,ent. ·

But

the very

nomenclatut

1

e of evolution h.as

bee·n.

seduced

and C0

1

rrt1pted. Rever ·sion and

1

ru

1

diment must be

laid

a.w.ay

with phlogiston and caloric .. Tl1ere are no retreatin .gs

. or abortions in the D

1

ivine

eco11omy,

but God adjusts every

feature · to present and future conditions, ·and causes all to

march regu larly forward in the grand procession of

e·t·ernal

progr ·ess. .

But wh)i, it may he asked, are so

many

creatures b,tiilt on

the same plan

las,

for instance,

vertebrates?

The answer is

axio1natic.

The whole creation

is

divided into

vertebrata

•

and

invertebrata

becattse there 1nust in the nature of things,

be at

leas.t tWo

classes ; ,or boundless monotony or an eternal

•

1011eliness. But wl1y s,o ma11y

v,er tebrates?

Bec.ause t l1er

1

e

caln be but 0

1

ne

best

of a clas.s .and vertebr .ates are h

1

est. The

number redounds to the glory _of God, not the glory of evolu

tion~ This is kind

1

ergarten inst1--uction, but some seem to

•

•

1ntSS Jt.

• •

•

· But we st1bmi t a b·roade1· ·generalization. The whole

univers

1

e bears a

fa·mily

re seinb,lance. It is tl1e warm touch

of the M~ ·er,, and. His i1niver sal style.. Li,ght is truth, and

darkne ,ss is error. I-Ioli11essis pu1·itJ ,

and

sin is dirt . Phys•

icaJ birtl1 and g1·owth,

decay

and deatl1, typif y sp,i1·itual birth

and growth, decay and

1

death.

T,vo pictures hang side b

1

y

si

1

cle.

1

The

subjects

1

diff,er greatly

and

they differ ·in

size. Ffl1e

larger is

th

1

e

Dom ,es of th,e

Y

1

osemit

1

e

and . the

sma.1Ier Sun set

in.

California .

But

they

see.in strangely

alike.

The smaller must have

evolved

from

the larger.

So,me

Mahatma, an adept of

·the

Himalayas,

a·bte

,

I



•

-

•

•

Decade ice of DatAwinism

41

•

•

Nature ''s limit 'less netw ork of types and.

s,ymbols

and

resem blances is wondro us 1y beauti f ttl. It wakens the spi1it

of poe.tiy in the soul, but an

abse11t-m1nded

dreamer has gazed

and forgotten himself ., and is lost in a labyrinth of vagaries.

Darwinists have been turning the world over searching for

•

a co,mm,on fatherhood, b·ut th iey have found a 1ommo·n maker-

l1ood. An

Italian a

Dr. Barrago gave his book the title,

''Man, made : in the imag ·e of God, was also made in the

'

image of

an

ape'', and Mr. Darwin refers to it without dis-

approval, and the

bla sphem y

is

logical.

Darwinism degrades

· God and man. ,

RUDIMEN ·Ts

•

The Darwinian notion of rudime11ts is that they are

abortive reversions to ancestral types. erever one oi the

cult has heard of anything nearly or rem

1

otely

Ii.ke

rudiments,

or insta nce, Stanley Hall on rhythm , beati ng waves, ancestraJ

fish and dancing particul ar ly outside the bounds of heredity,

•

•

it

h.as

been grist

for

their mill. And yet they ha.rdly know '

Whe1e to · put the se st1·uctur es. If they claim

that ·

they are

absolt1teJy

useless

they

p

1

lace ·them ot1ts,ide the sce>peof natural

selection; and

if,

on

tl1e

other hand, they admit that they

se1ve

so1ne purpose ·

they admit

t11at

God may l1ave

1nade

t'hen,. Hux-

ley f

e]t the difficulty when he confessed ·

''It is almos t impossible to prove that

any

strttcture,

110,v

lever rudiment .ary,. is useless ; that _s. to say, that it plays no

part what ,ever in the economy; a11d if it is in the sli,ghtest

degree useful there is no rea son why, on the hypothesis of

direct creation, it should not have been. created.'' (Britan-

nica, Art. on E volution.) ·

May we add ·th ·at if Mr.

I-Iuxley

an ,d

Mr. Darwin

and I

and ·you have £ailed to discover the use of anytl1ing, ''there

is no ·reason why it should not have been

created''?

We

remember that 'We have not even defined life; that the most

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

42

•

know as little of its essence as of that of .matter. We may

as well be, modest .

Accepting

then the

dictum of

Professor Huxley

tl1a11

whom n,o one has ever been better qualified that it is almost

imposs,ible, to prov ,e the useless11ess of rudiments, we p,ass

the subject with the remarl< that, like lilcenesses, they are

a signet of the Almighty an

1

d a badge of His creatures

-not

ne,cessari],y of kinship, but of remoter 1·el1t io

1

ns. Tirie r e a,re

some

men

who

need

the

evidence of their

own

rudimentary

mammae to prove to them

that

they

belong to

the same race

wi th their

Wives

,a·n

1

d sl10

t1ld

,enclure

th

1

e s,ame

hardship s

and

do a little more work,

SELE CTIONS

•

Sexual selection, as the nan1,e

implie ,s,

is concerned witl1

pairing and reproduct ·ion;

bt1t

the Darwinian end in view,

like that of natural selecti ,on, is evolution. But

sexual

S

1

elec

tion fails to

1

discrimin .ate,

an,d

turn ,s out

degene-rat ,ion.

Fe1·al

and

unrege ,nerate

sexua l selec,tio,n is 1no1·e lust than love.

From hares to elephants wild tl1ings are blinded by jealoltsy

and ,cr ,azed by heat. Lil<:e the Jukes

family,

th,ey

drop their

young

by

the

highway.

We

do1nesticate

brutes

.and

plants

,ancl, with great care and skill, breed them for improved

po

1

ints; b

1

t we so,on tir1 and then d

1

ogs beco,me patial1s., cats

turn

vagabond s,,

potatoes

gro

1

w

small,

and

horses

,are

not

wo1·th catcl1ing and breaking. Cultivated apples never repeat

the ,ir p,arent trees ,, but nine l1un

1

dred and nine ty-nine

ti1nes

out of a

tl1ousand sit1k far

below

them. The loves

of tl1e

pla11ts ,

as Darwin s

whimsical

grandfather

called

them, are

disreputable, and even, to

thi s ci·vilized

day,

ht11nan

beings

•

need

to

be

re,str a,ine,d by

law

to

prevent

the1n fro1n C

ontracting

unhealthful alliances.

Wirien

th e

string

breaks the kite fall s~

Ages before the

tin1e

when Mr. Dar,vin drea,m,e

1

d that

in the din1 obscurity of the pas ·t we can se e that the early

progenitor of all the vertebr t must

have been

an aquatic

animal, provid

1

ed with

branchiae,

with the two Sexes

united

in



•

•

Decade

ncc

of Darwinism

43

the same

individu ,al, with the

most importa11t or.gans

of

~he

body (

such as

brain

and heart) i1np

erf ectly

or not at

all

developed, and an

animal

'more like tl1e

larvae

of the

existing

mari~e

scidiatts

tl1a11

any other known

fot·tn'', God

macle

one

prot~plastic

ce11and disappeared. That cell

was a

vege

table, and, as all cells

are

,microscopic,

i11visible. It

was

also

hermaphroditic. It contained hairs and

rootlets, nuclei and

-nuclPo]i,

mother

stars

ana daughter stars,

grot1ping, advanc

ing

and

retreati11g',

as

if

dan cing quadrilles. And,

as the

story goes, tl1is one cell has be

1

en the father

and

motl1er

o·f

all living creatu1·es. Natural selection, aided

only by

sexttal

selection and accid ·ent, has evolved the .m,

b y

almost imper

ceptible

degrees.

E,vid.ently Da1·win and Wallace

follow ,ed

what they

thoL1gl1t

the line of least

resistance in

introducing

God before the

first living

ge1.

m,

for, other1A

ise,

there must have been

degene

ration to

.satisfy

present con,ditions ,.

Bttt

was

it no,t

an error

in

anothf

r

regard?

While

they were in

the

business

of

tllaking

gods,

it would have bee11

easy

to

have

allowed for~

thre~ne for plants, . one for brutes,

and

one

for

men.

-iobody was

looking.

They

migl1t.

have done

it, but,

as

it is,

tl1ere is a

dead lift at each

beginni11g.

' 'We

may

feel

sure,'' explain s

l\lfr.

Darwin,

''that

any

vari- ·

ation in the least degree .injuriou s ,¥,ould

be

rigidly

destroye 1.

This preservation of favorabJe iridividual

differences

and

variations, and ·the de,struction of tl1ose w'hicl1 are inj'11riotts,

I ha,,e called natural

selection

or the surviv~al of the fittest.

Variations neither

usefttl

nor

injuriou s \.vould

not

be affected

by

natu1.. 1

selectio11

and would be left

either

a flt1ctuating

eleme11t,

as

perhap s

we see in

certai n

polymorphic specie s,

or would

ultimately

become

fixed,

o,ving to

the natt11·e

of

· the

organism and

the nature

of

the

conditions''.

(''Origin

of

Species/' Vol. I, page 121.) Natural selection is

destrttc

tion and

pre 'servation. All

' 'injuriou s' '

differences and

varia- ·



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

44

•

•

parts

preserved. N

atu ,ral death is th

1

e means o:f cl.es,truction;

· and generation, of

preservation, The favorable

alw,ays

· prove the stronger,

tl1e injurious

th

1

e

weaker ,.

Alth ,ough

sweetest

graces

and most resplendent virtues of

the

highest

type of · man

ar·e product ,s of natur ,al

S

ele·ction,

the,y a re

co·n-

ditioned promiscuously on l{illing the other fellow

and

pro -

•

1

creating

o,ne s

kin.cl.

The :killing

is ,done by acts of·

Goid ,

as express

companies

phr .ase

it, and

by hatred, envy, anger,

avarice, .sel.fishness, In the strugg ·e

for , e:xistence the ,

s·tronger

gloat over

the

s.lain while

poverty

of

spirit, meekness,

mercy

and

peace

1

die, unhonored a11dunsung.

B;y

these means

every

kind of organic being will eventually

gain

the

summit

of

finitud

1

e. It js imm

1

oral.

Professor Huxley make s a notable concession to truth and

s,anity when he says :

It

1s quite conceivable that every species tends to pr0r

duce

varieties of a limited nt1mber

,and

kind,

and

th,at

th·e

effect of natural selection is

t.o fav .or the

development of

so1ne

o~ th,ese,

while

·it op

1

po ses

the

·developm:ent

of

1

others

· along their

predetermined

lines

,of

modification. (Britan

njca.

Evolt

1

etion.

Taking

the

P1.

f ess

1

or s

la11guage

as ac-

. curate, he surrenders natt1ral selec·tion.

We

were

tau .ght

t l1at, it

wasl

as

·rcliabl

1

,as

gravitation, but if

we get

the

notion

that some species improve, some

are stationary

and some

deterior .ate, a,greeably with

heredity

and

env·i1·onm

1

ent,

we

have no further use for

it. To

sum up tl1e

case

for natural

•

selection:

( 1) It is, poor n1orals. A theory of· nature must be

id·eal

t

1

0

be

t1,.ue.

Natural

s

1

el

1

ection

is a

s,cheme

for the sur,.

•

vival of

the p,assionate and

the

violent, the destruction of

the

weak and

defe·11sel.es.s.,

To be true, b

1

lack

must

be white, and

¥.rrong must be right, and God an I van the

terrible ..

(2) l t,s as sumptions ar ,e f a lse,. It is fa1s

1

e

t·t1at

unlimited

attenuation of

the

steps

of

the

process,

and unlimited ·time for

•



•

Decade1ice of Dar lv~nisrn

45

•

·Po

sible. ''Attenuation'' and ''t ime ' iVouldhave been but con-

•

ditions, not causes. They could prove 11othing.

It

is false

that in

tl1e struggle

for

existence the ''fittest''

survive.

The

''fittest'' is

an

ambigt.1ousword.

With

natural

selection it means

the

strongest and best armed.

They

do

not surv ive ; they degenerate and expire.

They

who bear.

arrns challenge attack. This providence may be penal or car-

r,ective.

It

is

false

that

man is

derived from

a

brute

and a br ute

from a vegetable. One of the forces

of

human life makes

for .

a recognition of God

arid

a consciousness ' of sin against

liim. This was not unfolded fro1n anthrol)oid apes, for

it

•

is

not in them. Brutes

are

distinguished from plants

by

self-consCiousness, and this was not developed ·from · plants,

for

it

is not in them.

•

(3) Natural selection is self~contradictory and impo s-

sible. Fifty years ago, Alfred Russel Wallace devised the

Scheme and wrote Charle s Darwin about it. Mr.

Datwin

PUblisl1ed

the plan. He afterwards refers

to

Mr • .Wallace

as having ''an innate genius for s.olvi11gdifficulties'' . . · (E>es--......

cent, p. 344.) rfwo years ago Mr. Wallace, in an address

at

tl1e

Dar\vin anniversary, before tl1e Royal Institution in

Lo11don, ref

erring

to

Professor

Haeckel

said :

. ''These unavailing efforts seem to lead us to the irr~sist

ible

conclusio11

that beyond and above all terrestrial agencies,

~ere is some great source of energy and guidance, which

1

n unknown ways pervades every form of organized life,

and

Which

,,re

ourselves are the ulti.mate and for,eordained out-

con1e''. ·

l

1

Tl1us an author of

the theo1·y, hin1self , a,dn1its

the

cont1·a

diction of claiming a

''selection', and denying

a selector.

n ,ISTRIBUTION

•

. The Darwinists assutne that because certain creatures live

tl<>wn limited areas, like the loth in South Amer.ica

ancl

•

•

•

..

•

•

•

•



•

•

46

The

Fundament ·als

the ornithorynchus in Au stralia and Tasma11ia,

they

have

reached their pre sent abodes by

evolution

through fishes.

Let him

asst1me

it, but

we

beg for mercy to the man

on

the

street who sl1rinl<s from that 1n,ode of tran spor tati on and

believes tl1at they migl1t have been created in \Ve stern Asia,

dispersed by various possi ble means, wherever climati~ and

otl1er

c6ndit ·ion.s

we1·e favo1--b,le;

and

st1ffered

exti11ction,

ex

cep t

,vl1er,e we:

find .

them ; 01 . that tl1ey might have be·en cr,eated

where they are. . The ra·pid extinction of the Amer·ican b·i .on·

suggests the

p,os.sibility

of

extinction,

as a

factor of the

pr:oce.ss.

•

•

GE0

1

LOGICAL SUCCESS ION

1

•

Professor

Huxley addu ,ces only

one

more

argument-

successive geo]ogical forms. It must , he remarks,

suffice

in this place, to say that tl1e successive f 0

1

·rms of

the

Equine

1

type

have

be-en

fully worked

O·Ut,

w·h,ile

those

of

nearly

rail

the o·ther

ex:i.sting

types of Ungula ,te mammal .s and of

the

I

C arnivora have bee11

n,early

as

1

•

clos,el,y

fol1,ow·ed t hrough . the

Te1,.iary deposits . We l1ave a 1nisty re ·membrance of hav

ing met that Equus before,

and, somehow, ass,ociate l1im

with

po is asinoruni. Tl1e Professo ·r ·hangs his case ·On the

term successive succe ssive geological forms,. . He

con

fuses

it

with

sin1ilar ,

bu·t neither

is

o,ffensive.

Fossils and

Jiving forms belong in th

1

e same ·cat ,egory, but a radical dif

fe1~e11ceetw ,een successive £01·msbreaks the chain of evo-

lution.

If

the ungulate f os.sils are like living forms ., we

greet tl1en1 las old f riend .s, if unlik

1

we beg ·an intr ,oduction.

In either event

i·t

i.: not Darwinism, bu·t Don Ql1ixote at~

ta

1

cking

another wind .mill.

The actual origina ·tio11 of

1na11,

brute .s and p,lants,

from

one simple sit and lo,vest for111 of organic life, by natural

a11d Godless selections a11d varia tions , is the essence of Dar

\vinis1n. It is aclmitted and t1nclisputed

tl1at it

was first

definitely elaborated by Cl1arles R. Darwin, an ·d it stands or

..

fall s with Darwi11 expe1·iments and arguments, and the)

1

are



•

•

ecadence of Da1 tvi1i1~sni

47

•

•

n.1arvelouslyunscientific. Loui Agassiz, Lord Kelvin, and

Dr. Virchow 'having passed on, the outloo lc for experimental

cience

l1as been

look ing

dark; but suddenly

the

light is

breaking. Professor Gaston Bo11nier, of the Sorbonne, M.

de Cyon, and other . , l1ave ju st truck a th ri lling chord and

cientific Europe is awakening. Criticising

Mr

Dar,vin in

Poit1'*et

Co1itre

le Darwi,1iisme,

1\1.

,onnier says:

''Tl1e illustrious natur alist had no idea of the experi

n1 ntal method,'' and

l1e

adds tl1at he was imaginative and

careless in

l1is

observations. In

corroboration

of

this passing

by tl1e spilce-horn deer, tl1e aquatic bear and tl1e worn-off

l1uman tail, wl1ich all who are

familiar

with ''The Descent

of Man will recall t.ake,

fO·r i11sta11ce,

the following:

•

'' ome naturalists have maintained that all variation s

are

onnected with the act of sex ual reproduction ; but this is

ertainly an

error;

for I l1ave given, in another work, a

long

list of sporti ng p,lants, as they are called

by

gardeners ; that

is, of plants which have sttdde nly produced a single bud

with a new and some ti1ne widely different character from

that

of

the other buds

011 the ame

J)lant. These bud varia-

• •

t1ons,

as they may be called, can be propagated by grafts,

offsets, etc., and sometimes,

by

seed.'' (''Origin of Species,

Vol. I, p. 35.)

How could Mr. Darwin know that the seed from which

tl1e tree of the strange bud had grown had not been pollenized,

any number of generations previously, by the strange strain?

What would happen if vegetable and animal atavism not a

•

teversion t-0 ancestral type ,

but

latent generation, the wakinu

ancl

appearing

of a

strain as old,

it

may

be, as

the race,

improved or damaged, even to, the extent of freaks or

nonstrosities

should

be found to

accord with all

k11own

facts of the case, and to answer the hard questions for . whicli

Darwinism was devised?

Surely

the progression of

a

char

acter

beneatl1

tl1e surf

ace,

whether for one

year

or a

n1illion

- -as the temper of a father 11otdiscernib]e in a son bttt en1erDi~



I

•

•

•

48

•

ing ir1 a grandson is as credible as reversion under

Similar

· conditions. Backing up

is

hardly

in harmony

with the

twen-

•

•

•

ti,eth

century. · ·

Tl1e

teaching

of

Darwinism, as

an approved science,

to

the

cl1ildren

and youth of the

schools

of the world is the

most deplorable feature of the whole

wretched

propaganda.

It

would

be difficult

to

fix

the

re sponsi bility of it.

D3.rwin

himself hesitated. Virchow · trie

1

d, nobly,

to

protect tl1e

primary schools of Germany. The burden of his lecture at

Munich is througho

1

ut a

caut .ion

against

eva ,ding

the

di stinc

tion between the

problematical and

the

proven ;

they

a1·e not

on the

same ·evid ,ential level.

H

1

e

woul.

d

tea,cht , he

said,

· evolution,

if it were only proven;

·it

is, as,

yet·, in the hypo-

thetical stage;

the audience ought to be . warned that

the

speculative is

only

the

possible,

no,t

actual

truth; that

it be

longs

to the region

of

belief, and riot

to

that

of

demonstration.

As long as a problem continues in the speculative stage,

it

·Would be mi.schievous t

1

0 teach it i11 ou·r school.s.

We o·ttgl1t

not to

represent our

conjecture as a

certainty, nor our hypo

thesis as

a

doctrine. I-Iaeclcel, al,vays rash,

a.dvocated,

it.

As

tl1e;y

struggled, somebody lighted the fire ·. It was like

the burning

of

the temple at Jerusalem.

Titus ·

had is..uecl

an order to spare it, but a Roman

s,oldier ·

threw a .blazing

torch into a small window and tl1e w·hoie structure \Vas in

flames. It

was like the revenge

of the Pied Piper;of Hamlin

Town. It was Racl11elweeping for he1·

childrent and she

1

wo11ld

not

be comfo

1

rted,

because

they were not .

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

CHAPTER I

•

PAU L'S TESTIM

1

0NY TO THE DO,CTRINE OF

SIN

•

BY PROFESSOR

F.

AS. B. WILLIAMSJ B. D.,

PH. D• ,

L ~

UTHWESTERN BAPTIST TH EOLOGI CAL SEMINARY, FORT

WORT.H,

TEXAS

•

Theodore Parker once sai,d : ''I seldom use the word

•

. in. The Christian doctrine of

sin

is

the

devil's own. I hate

it utterly''. His view of sin shaped his views as to the

person · of Christ, atonement, and salvation . . In fact, the sin

question is back of one's theology, soteriology, sociology,

evange lism, and ethics. One cannot hold a Scriptural view

of

God

and the plan of salvation without having a Scriptural

idea of sin. One cannot

proc laim

a true theory

of society

unless he, se,es the h.einousn,es ,of sin and its relation to all

ocial ills and disorders. No

man can

be a

su,coessful New

Testament evangeJ.i,st publi shing the Go,spel as ''the powei·

of

God

unto salvation to every one that .believeth'', unless he

has a:n adequate conception

Of

the e11ormityof sin. Nor can a

. rnan ho'ld a consistent theory of

ethics

or liv,e up

to the

highest

tandard ,of

morality,

unless h is gripped with a keen sense

of sin' s seductive nature. ·

SIN A FACT I

:r

fIUMAN HI 'fORY

•

Paul has an exten sive vocabulary · of tertn denoting sin

or sins., In the Epistle to the Roman s, wl1e1·e he elaborate ..

his

doctrine

of

sin,

he

use

ten

general

terms

for

si11

1. ·Apo.p-rla. (l1amartia), 58 times

in

all, 43 in Ro1nans,

t11ising of the tnark, in as, a principle . 2. .ApGprqµ o

(hamarteema), twice,

sin

as an act. 3. llo.pJ./3an1.~

11ara-

basis), five times, tra11sgression, literally walking along by

the line but not exactly according to it. 4. llgp,/.1 °°'~

•

•

•

•



.

•

•

•

50

•

-(paraptoma), 15 times, literally a

falling,

lapse, deviation from

truth and uprightne ss (Thayer), translated

''trespass''

in

R.V. 5,.

·~8iKla (

adikia), 12 times, unrighteousne ss. 6.

JAat{3eut, ( asebeia), four times, ungodlines s, lacl<:of reverence

for God.

7. Avoµla

(anomia), lawles,sness, six time s.

8.

1

Ax.o.8cipala.

akatharsia), nine times,

uncleanness,

]ack of

purity. 9. IlapaKo:, (parakoee), twice, disobedience. 10.

IIAdV11

planee), fo

1

ur times, \'1andering, error.

Besides

these

general term s

f

o·r

sin

Paul uses,

many

specific

terms for various sins,, 21 of the_ge ei11g oun d in ·the cate.gory

of

Ro ,m. 1 :29-31. Twenty -one equals

thr

1

ee times

seven

,and

seems to express the idea of completeness

i11

sin reached by

the,

Gentil,es. It is

literally true

tha ·t

Pau·t

u,se:s S

1

cores of

terms denoting and describing variOus personal sins, sensual,

social, ethical, and religious. Is this not an

unmistakable

lex-

ical eviden.ce that the Apostle to the Gentiles

believed

in

sin

as a fact in ht1man history ?

Again, in all Paul's leading

epistles

he

deals with

sin in

the abstract or with sins

i11

the concrete. In Romans 1 :18-

3

:20, he diScusses the

f

ailµre of botl1 Jews and Gentiles to

attain righteou sness. Thes·e cl1apters constitute the most

graphic and

comprehensive

descripti9n of sin

found

in

Bib

lical, Greek, Roman,

or any,

literatur e. It

is

so

true

to

the

facts in

l1eathen life toda,y

tl1at modern

heathen

often ac

cuse Ch·ristian

miss,ionar ·ies

o·f w1·iting it a,fter they have

'ha1d

per sonal knowledge of their life and conduct .

In 1 Corintl1ians, gross sins are dealt witl1 envy, strife,

divisions, incest, litigation, adultery, fornication, drunkenne ·ss,

covetousn ,ess, ido'latry,

1

etc. In 2 Corinthi ,ans, some of the

same sins are condemned. In Galatians, he implies the failu1·e

of man to attain righteousnes ,s in mai11taining the thesis that

· no man is ,ju,s,t.ified by the

1

deeds of the law, bu- any man

may be j'ustified by simple faith in Cl11·ist esus (2 ·:14ff), a11d

mentions

the works

of

the flesh, ''forni

1

cation, uncleanness,



Paul s Testimony to the Doctrine of Sin 51

recognizes that his readers were ' once dead in trespasses

and sins (2 : 1), and exhorts them to lay aside certain sins

(4 :25:ff). In Colossians, he does the same. In Philippians,

he says less about sin, or sins, but in 3 :3-9 he tells his ex

perience of failure to attain righteou sness with all his

ad

vantages of birth, training, culture, and circumstances. In

the pastoral epistles, he rebukes certain sins with

no

uncertain

voice.

PAUL'S EXPERIENCE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL PROOF TO . HIM OF

HIS DOCTRINE OF SIN

Paul was a Pharisee. Righteousne .ss, or right relation

with God, was his religious goal. As a Phar isee he felt that

he

could and must , in himself, achieve righteousness

by

keep

ing the whole written and oral law. This kind of (sup

posable) righteousne ss he afterward describes and re

pudiates. For we are the circumcision, who worship by the

Spirit

of

God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no con

fidence in the flesh : though n1yself might have confidence_

even in the flesh : circumci sed the eighth day, of the stock

of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews;

as touching zeal, persecuting the church; as touching the

.righteou sness which is in the law, blameless. Howbeit, what

things were gain to me, these have counted loss for Christ.

Yea, verily, and count all things to be loss for the excellency

of the knowledgt of Christ Je sus my Lord; for whom

suffered

the

loss of all things and do count them but refuse,

that may gain Chri st and be found in Him, not having a

righteou sness of mine own, even that which is of the law,

but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness

Which is from God

by

faith (Phil. 3 :3-9, Am. Rev.).

His

experience as a Pharisee in trying to work out a

righteousness of his own showed him to be a moral and

religious failure. This experience he reflected in Rom.

7

:7-25

(So Origen, Tertullian , Chrysostom, Theodoret, and most



•

•

•

•

•

•

52

Tlie F·unda11ietitals

•

•

modern New ·Testament scholars, though Augustine and a

few

modern N e,w

T

es·ta.ment

.scholars think th ·e

p

1

a.ssag

1

e·

ref

errs

•

· to the experience of · a Christian). '' Sin, finding occasion

thr ough

the

c

1

onunand1n

1

ent, 'beguiled

me

and

through it

slew

me . .• • • that through the conunandment sin might be-

• •

come'' (be shown to be) ''exceeding sinful.. For we know

hat , the

la,w

is

S,piritttal :·

but I am carnal, 1S

1

0·l

1

d under sin~

For that which I do I kn

1

6w not; for not what I wlould, that

·do

I

practise;

but

wl1at

I

hat e, that

I do . . .

Wretched

man that I am who shall deliver me out of the body of this

death r I thank God through Je s·us Christ our Lord . So

we

see,

tl1at

P'aul by his

experience

with

the

l:aw

wa.s

led

to

. ee that .

'"in

him ,

that is, i11

l1is flesl1, dwelt

no ,

good th ing; ''

that in bi~ mep-ibers is the sin principle enslaving him so

that

he

''is sold

und er .sin'', that

is,

under

the sway of this

sin

prin ,ciple.

He tl1ought ihe

law

could help

him to

be

righteou .s. All it could

,do w·ra,s

to S1how him his

helpless iness

as a sinner and drive hi1n in l1is d

1

espair to Christ as his

only Rescuer ''out of th e body 0£ this death''. All the

righteousness he could

achieve was

insufficient. Orily

God's

o\vn righteousness, given through faith

in

Christ Jesus,

could

sati sfy

the co,nscience o,f the awakened

sinner

or

be ac~eptable

to

God.

•

THE ORIGIN OF SIN

The apostle does not discuss the larger

problem,

th.e origin .

of sin in God's rnor·al universe. Whence

and how

did sin

originally enter the n1oral universe ? Paul does not under

take to

solve

this

problem.

Only

the r'elative

and

temporal

origin of sin, it s entrance into the human race on earth, not

its· absolute a11d ultimate ource , engages the thought of Paul~

But what is his

testimony

asl to

how and

wh

1

en sin

entered

. the human rac

1

e? TT·he class·ic pass

1

age

1

0n the sourrce o,f

human sin is Rom. 5 :12-21. Let us

1

C0

1

nside·r it. Pau .1 testifies

that

sin entered our ra

1

ce

in and

through the disobedience · of



Paitl s Testim on,y to the D octrine of S in

53

in prin ciple] entered into the world, and death

by sin;

and so death passed

unto

all

men,

for that all sinned . • ·

as

throu gh one tr espass the jud gment came unto all

men

to

conden1nation • • for as through the one man's dis

obedience

1nan y

were made sinners ( Rom. S : 12, 18, 19).

In thi s parall elism between

Ada1n

and Christ, Pau l is seek

ing to show,

by

contrast, the excellence of grace and the

tran scendent blessednes s of the justified man in Christ H e

is not prim'arily discussing the origin of human

sin.

But

that does not depreciate his testimony. The fact that it is

an incidental and

not

a studied

testin1ony

makes

it

all the

more trustworthy and convincing.

Nor is Paul here simply voicing the thought of his unin

spired fellow-countrymen as to the entrance of sin into our

race. Dr. Ed ersheim says : So far as their opinions can

be gathered from their writ ings, the great doctrines of orig

inal sin and the sin£ulness of our whole nature were not

held by the ancient Rabbis . * Weber thu s summarized the

Jewish

view .

as expre ssed in the Talmud: By the Fall

man came under a curse, is guilty of death, and his right

relation to God is rendered difficult. More than this cannot

he said. Sin., to which the bent and leaning had alre ady

been planted by creation, had become a fact, 'the

evil

im

pulse' ( cor malignum, 4 E s. 3 :21) gained the mastery over

mankind, who can only resist it

by

the greate st effort s ; be

fore the Fall it had power over him, but no such ascendency .

t

The reader is referred to Wi sd. 2 :23ff, Eccl us. 25 :24 ( 33) ,

4 E s. 3 :7 21ff, Apoc. Baruch 17 3, 54 :15, 19, as expression s

of the Jewi sh view of the entrance of sin into the world and

the relation of Adam to the race in the transmission of

guilt.

One of these passages, Ecclu s. 25 :24 ( 33) the sin of the race

is traced back to Eve: from a woman was the beginn ing

of sin .

Life and Ti mes of Je sus the 1\1:ss iah , l. 165.

t Altsyn . T heo]., p . 216.



•

•

•

•

• •

54

•

The, Fundamentals

••

..

Observe tliat Paul goes beyond th,a statement of any un-

inspired

Jewisli writers ·

1.

In assertitig

tliat

A ,dam and not Eve is the

one

througli

whom sin e1itered into tltterace.

·

2 .

That, in some sense, when A dam

,sinned, all sinned',,

and in /itS

Sinii,ing

'a[l

fi.Jere 1fftadeJJ 1<a1 £CTT(t° 7aciv, S1:oo,d

down or constituted)

sinners:,~

(Rom.

5 :19). The ap,o,stle

here means

1

1

doubtless, ..l1,at all tl1e race was seminally in

.Ldam as its progenitor, and that Adam by the process of

heredity l1anded down to

1

his descendants

a de,p,raved

nature.

If e can scarcely mean that each . individual was actually in

pe1·son in

A,dam. If A

1

dam had 11otsinned and thus dep ,raved

and

cor t~pted

the fountain head of

the

race, the race itself

wottld not h,ave been the heir of sin and the reaper of its

fruits, , sorrow, pain, and deatl1.

3. That in

the

int1

1

oduction of sin into

thle

race by

,its

p,rogenitor the race itself was rendered lielpless to extricail e

itaelf from sin

a11d

de a,th. T'l1is th,e a,p

1

ost1e asserts

over anid

,over again and has a'lrea dy demonstrated be£ ore he

r,eaches,

the paralle lism betw

1

een Adam and Chri ,st. ''That every

mouth may be stopped and all the world brought under tl1e

judginent

of

God''; ''because by the works of the

law

shall

no flesh be justifi ,ed in I-Iis sight'' ( 3 :19, 20). ·

T'I-IE 'ESSEN

1

CE

AND

1

NATURE

OF

SIN

T11is brings us to ask, What constituted the essence or

core 0

1

£

sin, as Paul saw

it?

Modern evolutionists emphasize

• •

tl1e

ttpward tendency

of

al1 things, and

so

sin 1s regarded by

· them as merely

a step

in the

upwa1·d

progr ·ess

of

tl1e

ra

1

ce ;

that is,

sin

is ''good

in:~he making''. Christian

Scientists

go

st ill farther a,nd regard a'll pain and evil as merely imaginarJ

creatio ns Of abnonnai 1ninds.

~=

There is no actual evil, no

real pain, say they. Does either of these views find endorse-

1nent in Paul? It

mt1st

be noted that Patti nowhere gives

•



Paul's ·Testitttony to the Doctrine of Sin

55

. t

•

•

a fonnal definition of sin~

But by

studying the terms

mostly

011

l1is pen we can detern1ine

his idea

of

si11.

He

uses

mostly

tl1e noun

dµ,apTla.

(hamartia),

58

times, from the

verb

Oµ.apTC:.vtu

hamartano), to miss the mark, to sin. To miss

what mark?

In

,classica·t Greek

it

means ''to mi,ss an

aim'',

''to err ' .in judgment or op,inion''. Witli Paul to sin

is

1

to

miss the

,ma,rk ETHICALLY an.d RELIGIOUSLY. Two, other

wo,rds use,d

by

Pa .ul s,h,ow u"s wh,at the ma,rk missed is :

d,8:1elB (

adikia

)1

unr ,ighteousness,

lack

of

conformity

tq

the will of

God; 1avoµla (an ,om.ia.),

,lawless ,nes ,s, failure to

act or live a

1

ccording

to

the

sta11dard.

of God's

Jaw.

So the

tnark missed is the Divine law .

Ilap0;{3aot,;

(parabasis),

transgression, emphasizes the same idea, failure to measure ,

up to the line of rigl1teousness laid down in th

1

e law.

On th-e

otlter hand,

si11 is

not mere.Zy

a

negation.

1t

is a.

Positive

qitality. It

is

a

'~fall''

(ITap 1rTwµa,

15

times).

This

is

graphica ·11y illustrated by P

1

au'l in

h:is desc ,ription O·f

- _he

Gentile

world's id

1

olatry, sensuality,

an

1

d

imm,orality

(Rom.

1 :1

1

8-32)

1

. ,

First, they

knew Go1d,

fo

1

r

I-le

taugl1t them

about

Himself

in

nature

,at1d in

c

1

ons,ci

1

ence (

1

:1,9,

20). Second1y,

t11ey ref used to

wors,hip

H im

as

Go1d,,

or

to

giv,e

thanks to

Iiim as

tl1e

Giv

1

er of

lall

good things (

1 :21) ,. Thirdly,

they

bega.n to

worship the creature ratl1,er than the Creator, then

gave

themselves

up to

idolatry

in a

descending scale,

wor

shipping

first human images, then those

of

birds,

then

those

of beasts

and

repti1es (1

:22-25). Fourthly,

this

wrong

idea

of

God

and

false relation to

Hi111

degraded

tl1em

into the

grossest sensuality and blackest immorality ( 1 :26-32). Is

tl1is progress of the ra

1

e·? If S·O, it is pr1ogress in th le un-

·f,olding, 0

1

f sin's cumulative po,w

1

er, and that

wl1ere

l1t1man

philosophy and culture were doing their utmost to stem the

ti,de of vice an

1

d

,cont,1·ibute to the advance .me,nt of human

government, thought, art, and ethics in the Roman Empire

-where flourished Heilenistic

c,ultt11Ne.

But Pau ,1 was convinced

J



I

•

•

,

56

•

illumined and led as he was by the Divine Spirit, that the

sin principl ,e in men was not an upward . but a downwa1·d

tend ,ency,. a·nd

tl1at in

spite of all the,

philo,sophies, and

aJ.l,

culture and ethics, t·O train men in the upward way, i11tel

Ject.ually, aesthetically, sociall,y, and 1norally, ,s,till tl1ey were

•

•

carri ,ed on dow.n deeper and deeper in v·ice a.s, the,y forgot .

God and followed out the trend of their own thoughts and

desires .

That is,

if

sin

is a

link in

the

chain

of·

man's evolu- .

tion~ Pau ·1 would say it was a d.ow11ward and not an. upw,a·rd

step i11 tl1e long road of man's , development.

Let 11s ook at ano

1

th,er term ltsed by Paul to express God's

atti ·tude towa;rd sin.

'This

is

·the, t

1

er ·111

''w~ath'' ( JPY~),

occurring

20

times in Paul,s epistles~:. Thayer defines, this,

term thus : ''That in God which stands oppose,d

·to

ma·n's

disobedienc

1

e,

1

obduracy,

and sin, and

ma.nifests itsel·f in p·u.nish

ing

the

same.''t

That is,

sin

is

diametri.cally

opposite

to

the

eletne,it of holin.ess and righteoU-Sness tt

1

God s character,

and so

God' '.s rig·h·teous

character

r·evolts

at ·sin in ma·n an·d.

manifests this revulsion by punishing sin. This manifesta

tion of the Divine displeasure ,at s,in is n,ot spasmodic or ar- ·

bitrary. It

is the

natura .l

expressio

1

n

1

0£

a character that

loves

right and goodness. Because he does approve and love rigllt

and goodnes.s., He .must disapprove and hat

1

e unrigh teo.us11es

and evil. Tl1e spo,ntaaeous

expression

of this attitude , of

God's chafacter toward sin is '',vrath''. How l1einous and

eno1·mous

sin must be, if the loving an ,d gra,cions

God., in

whon1 Patti believe:s, thu .s hates and punis,hes it .Its nature

•

must be the opposite of those highe st attributes of , holi-

ness, righteousness, , love. . ·

Ta .ke another term used by Pau1,

v1r 8,1eo~

hupodikos),

guilty (R ,01n. 3 :19). Thayer thus defines this term: ''Unde1·

judgm ,en·t, one who ha.s, lost his suit; with la

dative

of p11·-

*This count follows Mot11to11and Geden, Concordance

Greek Testament) and excltt

1

des

I-Ieb.

fr ,om

Paul's epistles.

Gre:,k English Lexicon to New T ,estament ..



•

•

•

I

57

•

on, debtor to

one, owing

atisfaction '.*

111

his passage it

· · is used with the dative of God (Oe.~) and

so ''all

the

world''

is

declared by

Patti

to

be

''uncler

;udgment of

God,

having lost its suit with God, owing satisfaction to God''

(and, it being

in1plied, not able

to render satisfaction to

l='J:i1n).

This

passage in1plies that

tlze

essence

.of sin

is

guilt .

Man by sin

is

under iudg1nent , under sentence .

He has come i,ito coi.irt with God, is found ta have broken

God s lazv,

a,id

so

·is

guilty a11d liable

t

1

p

1

unishme11t.

A sec

ondary

element in sin

is

implied in thi s term, the

helplessnes

of man in

in,

''owing

satisfaction

to God'', but not able to

render

it. ·

It must be noted that Pa itl thinks of

this

guilt as

havit1,g

l)lFFERENT DEGREES

accordi11,go the

light

against which

the

s-inner sins

(Rom. 2 :12-14). The Gentile

sins without

the

law,

that

is,

without

knowing

the

requiremen .ts of the

written ·

law, and

so

he perishes

without

the

law,

that

is,

without tl1e

severity specially provided for the transgressor in the written

law.

But

tl1e Jew,

who sin aaainst

the superior light of

Written 1·evelation, hall recei ve tl1e more severe penalty

Prescribed in the

written

law. 111ne11 are guilty of breaking

God's law,

b11t

the

di,ffe,rent

1·eal1ns of

law affot' d

different

?egrees of tight, and so

the

various transgressors are guilty

in

varying degree s, just a. there are different degrees

of mur

der

and 1nanslaughter,

accordino,

to the circumstance:-

and

m.otives

of tho se

guilty. . .

Paitl uses the term .sin to express three · phases of sin:

F1asT_.

he sin

principle,

or

sin in

the

abstr.oct.

He

.11ses

the. term more

of

ten in·

this

sense

than in

any other,. He

~ften personifies the

sin

principle, doubtless

because

l1e

be

lieves in the per sonal

Satan.

SECONDLY, by

i1nplicatioti

he

teaches

that man

is in

a state

of sin.

(Rom.

S

:18,

19.)

''All

lllen

unto ,condem11atio·n ' n1eans

that me11

are,

in a

state

af

condemnation guilty

of l)real<:inr.T

od's law,

and

therefore

\



•

•

,

•

•

,

58

The

Funda1nen,tals

•

-

worthy of punishment. ''Made sinners' · signifies that man's

nature is essentially .sinfu l, and so man

may

be said to be

· u11der

the sin principle, or in

1

the state of sin (

though

this

phrase, in the state of sin, does not occur in Paul, bttt

first in theologians of a later age).

THIRDLY,

Paul uses

.several terms for sin which signify acts of sin. I-Iere he

views

it in the c

1

on

1

crete ,. Men forget

1

God, hate God, lie, stea l,

l,.:ill,coinmit adultery, hate parents, love self, etc., etc. In thi ··

sense he .sees the

st·r·ean1

of hun1an conduct which

is

only the

expression of the sin principle. .

RELATION OF THE LAW TO SIN

•

Does the law produce sin? Is the law sinful in that it

causes men to sin? Not at all, asserts Paul. ''What shall

we say then? Is the law sin?

God

forbid. Howbeit, I had

not

known sin, except through the

law:

for · I had not known

£oveting,

excep ,t

the

law

had said,

Thou

shalt not covet ; but

sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the command·

ment all manner of coveting; for apart from the law sin is

dead'',

etc., etc.

(Rom. 7 :7-14, R. V.)

Tl1e

following point

see1n

clearly expressed in this passage:

I.

The law is not the

real caus e

of man s

sin.

Not even

its severest demands

can be

charged with causing man's sin.

2. This

is

true,

because

th.e law is

essentially

holy,

righteous,

good ;

holy in

the

double sense

of

being

a

separate

order o,f being and conduct ordained by God and also requir

ing holiness, o,r the following of this separate order of being

· and conduct ; righteous in the sense of being the expression

of God's will and the standard of man's thoughts and ac~

. tions; good in the sense that

it

is ordained for benevolent

ends. It is also called ''spiritual'' in the sense that it

was

given

through God's Spirit

and

conduces to

spirit11ality

if

obeyed from the

right

n1otive.

·

3. B Ut this holy and righteous, good and spi1·it1.tal,aw



. Paul~ Testfmon.y to

the Doct~ine of Sin

59

•

•

with the tenth commandment. He

would

not

have

co·veted

· if tl1e law l1ad not s,aid,1Thou shalt no

1

covet. T'he

Greek

'¥ford for

''0

1

ccasion'' (

df/,opµ~)

means

literally

''a base

of operatio .ns'' (Thayer). The sin principle makes the com-

1nand of God its headquarter ,s for a life-long can1paign of

struggle .in man, urgin ,g 11im to evil actions and deterring

him from good ones. There is something in man which re

volts f ron1 doi11g the thing demanded and inclines

him

to

do the thing

forbidden. . Hence,

the sin

principle,

using

this

tendency in man, and so, malcing the la

W

the

base

of

its ·

opera tions, becomes the ''occasion', to sinning.

•

4.

The

law

sho,ws the sinfulness of sin-shows

it

to

be

l1einous in its nature

and

deadly in

its

consequences. l' his

is what Paul intim.ated in Rom. 5 20 when he

said, ''the

law

ca1ne

in

besides

that the trespass might

abound''.

~he

lc1w

sho,ws

men

that

they

are failures in the matter

of achiev-

i11grighteousness ,,

5. Tlie law thus NEGATIVELY p·r1epar·e~ the way for

lead.,

i~g men to Christ as

tlieir only Rescuer. ''Wretched man

tl1at

I

am

I

Who shall deliver me out of the

body

of this

death? I thank

God

throtlgh Jesus Christ our Lord'' (Rom.

7 :24,

25).

The apostle was driven to despair as he

plunged

headlong into persecution and its enormous sins, but when he

1·eached the 1en.id of

his

own s,tre11gth h·e

looke.d up

and ac.-

cepted

delivera11ce

fr

1

01n th

1

e

risen

Christ. · ·

.

REI ..ATION OF THE FLESH TO S,IN

Pau l often uses

tl1e

te·rm ''flesh''

1.u p~) in co·ntr ,ast

With

the tern1 spirit . In

this

sense

flesh, according

to

Thayer,

111eans 'mere I1un1annatu1·e, the earthly natt1re of ·n1an apart

from · Divine

influence;

and tl1eref

ore

prone to sin and op

J)osed t·o God' ''. He rega1·ds the flesh ( occurring 84 times) as

the seat of the ·

sin prinCiple.

''In me, that ·is, in

my

flesh,

dwelleth no good thing'' (Rom. 7 :18). He d.oes not mean

to

deny

that sin as a gu.ilty

act rests on tl1e human will.

f-Ie



•

•

I

•

•

•

60

TJie

Fitndamentals

•

•

· always takes for granted hutnan freedom to choose. Yet

he

regards the

lower

nature

of

man

(his

sarx)

as the element

of weakne ss

and

c,orruption i.n

man, which furnishes a

fie.Id

for the oPeration of the sin principle. The law is the

1

BASE

of operations

(occasion),

but the flesh

is

the open FIELD

where the sin principle operates.

This

sin principle drags

the

higher man ( called ''the inner

man'', Rom.

7 :22, ''the

mind, or reason1 voii~ 7 :25,

or

more usually,

the

spirit)

down in,to the realm of

the

flesh and through the pass .ions,

appetites,

etc. (

Gal. 5 :16, Eph. 2 :3), Iea.ds

tl1e

whole man

•

•

into thoughts, acts,

and Courses

of

si11. . . ·

But we must hasten to

say

tliat ,Paul

does

not adopt the

Platonic lliew that matte r is, evil per se.

Paul does no.t think

of man's physical

structure as

being in itself sinful and his

spirit;

or soul, in itself as holy.

He

merely emphasizes the

serfdom of man under the sway of

the

sin principle on ac-

c,onnt of the weakness )of l1ur,1an flesh. Nor d,oes Pai l claiin

· that human reaso

1

n is fr 1e from sin because it app,-oves tJie

l aw of God. His expre ssion (Ro1n.

7

:25) ''I of myself witl1

•

the mind

[reason]

indeed serve [am

slave to]

tl1e law of

God

;

but

with the flesh the law

of sin'',

only emphasizes

the

· £act

of

struggle in man ;

that

the higher nature does ap-

prove the requirements of God's

law, though

it

cannot meet

those demands because of

the

slaver ,y of his lower nature

1

flesh) to tl1e sin principle. .

I

•

THE

CONSEQ

1

UENCES OF SIN

a:'his

point needs no prolonged discussion.

Paul

thinks of

death, with its train of antecedents, sorrow, pain and all kinds

.

of suffering, as the co,nsequence of sin.

This

means physical

as well as spiritual death, and the . latter ( separation of man

from

fellowship with God)

is

of prime

import

to

Paul. We

need

not

bring Paul into conflict with the claims of modern

natural scientists,

that

man

would have suffered phy sical

death had Adam never sinned.

The

only man that scientists



•

•

•

Paul s Testi11io11yo the Doctri1ieof

in 61

•

..

k110

1

w is the mortal

man descended from

Adam

who sinned.

The ref ore

they

cannot

logically assert

that man would

have

di,ed had Adam not sinned. Nor need we saj' that

Baul's

cosmic

view

of ·sin, namely,

that the

entrance of the sin

principle into human life by Adam vitiated the wl1olecosmos,

that because of sin ''the

whole ·

creation groaneth and travailetl1

together in pain

until

now''

(Rom.

7

:22), is unscientific.

He here merely asserted

the

great fact that all cosmic

life,

plant,

animal,

and

human,

has

been

made to suffer

because

of the presence of sin

in

man. Who can

doubt it?

See

Rom. S :12-14, 21; 6 :21; 7 :1,Q; 8 :19-25; Eph. 2 :1, etc .

•

THE UNIVERSALITY OF SIN

Paul regards

every

man as a

guilty sinner, however

great

may be his natural

or cultural advantages. He felt that he

had

the

greatest advantages

'fin

the flesh''

to

attain righteous-

•

. ness ( Phil. 3 :3-9), but he had miserably failed ( Rom.

7

:24).

Ther ,efore

all

men have fai,led

(Rom.

1 :18.-2

:29). , But

he is

not satisfied

with

a

mere experiential demonstration of

the

universality o:f

sin.

He likewi se bases

it

on

the

dictum of ·

Scripture (Rom. 3 :9-20). More than that he studied the

facts of hu ,man life, both Jewish and Gentil,e, and so by tl1e

inductive method is led

by the Spirit to declare ''by

the

,vorks , of the law

sl1all

no flesh be justified in f-Iis sight''

•

(Rom. 3

:20); ''All have

sinned

and

are coming short of

the

glory of God'' (Rom. 3 :23).

THE PERSISTENCE OF TI-IE SIN PRINCIPLE

· In Gal. 5:17, 18, Paul tells the Galatian Chri stians that

''tl1e

flesh

lusteth

against

the Spirit,

a11d

the Spirit

against

the

flesh;

for

these are

cont1·ary

the one

to

the otl1er,

that

ye

may

not

do the

things

that ye

would''. Lightfoot

says:

''It is

an

appeal

to their

own consciousness: Have

you

not

evidence of these two opposing principles in your own

hearts ?''*

The

Galati,an

Christians are

exhorted ta ''walk

•

•

•

•



•

•

•

•

62

•

•

•

•

in ,the Spirit'' and let not the sin p

1

rinciple, which is not ut-

terly ·

vanq .uished in

the

flesh at

regeneration,

prevlail and

cover them ·in

def

eat and shame . This same pe1sistence of

the sin principl .e is describe

1

d in R

1

om.

1

8 :5-,9, w.here he surely

is describing the experience of believers. Then in Phil.

3

12·

14, he

allu,desl to

his

0 1wt1

Christian exp ·erience 'thu s: ''1

count not tha .t I have already obtainecl ; or am already made

perfect;

b

1

ut I

p

1

res 1 on if so

be that I

n1ay

lay hold

on tl1at

for which

also

I was laid hold on by Chris

1

t

.Jesus ,.

Bre ·thren,

I

lc,ount not

myself

yet

to

have laid l1old. . •

I

press on

toward . the .goal unto the prize

1

of

t.he

high calling of

1

God

in Christ Jesus''. Paul knew by experience that · the old

•

sin

principle still

pursued

h.im

and

that

011 .account o·f the

weaknes :s of th

1

e flesh he had not reached the ''goal'' '

of

prac

tical

righteousnes ,,.

Even

in

his old age ( 1 Tim. 1

:15)1 l 1e

br ,eaks

fortl1

in the co11sciousness of · his own

enormous

in

herent sinf ttlness: ''Faithful is tl1e

saying, a

1

n

1

d wort}1y , of all

acc

1

ept·ation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save

sinners; of

whom

am chief . Every Greek scl10Iar

kn.ows

that :in tl1e last clause, . ''I am'', both pronoun and verb being

exp ,res .sed an

1

d their ,order inv,erted, is emphatic. .Sin pu1·sued

the

great

and consecrated

apostle

·even .

down

·to

gray

hairs.

Sin is a

Napoleo11

c

1

onducting : his disturbing, destructive, and

death

hring1ng campaigns

e.v,en in

the Ch.ristian's lif

1

e. W,e

tnay, by the , grac~ of God and the help 0

1

f the Spirit, make

hin1 pris ,oner on E lba, but he will escape an

1

d continue till

life's latest breath to distract

our

minds

land

def eat our

h1oliest ,amb

1

.itions, Bu.t this . N apoleo11 ·in tl1e realm of our

religious ex.perience ·, like the Napo 'leon in .the

experie ,nce

of

Eu1·0pean kings and nation s,, shal l

1neet

his Wat

1

erloo .

•

•

•

S,IN FINALLY VANQUISHED IN CHRIST JESUS

•

Paul

has

thi.s

thought of conquest in 1nind

in

that unique

pa ssage, Rom.

S.

:12-21.

.The

conquest

o·f sin b

1

y

grace in



•

•

•

Pa

1

ul,s

Testi,,,.atty to the

Doctrine

of

.Sin ,

63

handed down

by Adam

to

his

posterity. ''But

,vhere sin

abounded, grace abounded more exteedingly, that as sin

reigne,,d in

d

1

eath,

even so might

grace reign through

righteous- ·

ness un .to eternal life thr ,ough Jesus .Christ our Lord''. Tl1is

is the

apostle's

prean of

triumph as

he draws ·

the last

pen

str

1

ok,e in describ .ing the blesse .dness

1

0£ t.he justified man.

The first historic conquest of sin in

1

Christ was His con

ceptio11 without sin; tho·ugh born of a sinful woman, he.r

sinf'u] natur ·e

wa.s

not handed

down

to

Hi1n.

Tl1en

followed

victory after victory in those thirty silent years in which

He never

yielded

to a

singl·e

sinful

jmpulse; in

the wilderness

Stn1gg·le ·when in tha·t s·upren1e m,oment

He

sai

1

d, Get thee

hence, Satan; on Calvary when I-Ie meekly submitted to

the sufferings of lluman sin, in which submission He showecl

Himself above sin; , in the resurrection when deat ·h was de

feated an

1

d driven

f1·om

his own battle field,

the

grave,

while

fI .e

as the

Son of God arose

in triump1ri

and in

forty

days·

1

afte ,rwa1·d s,at down o·n the right l1and of the Father, to send

to

men the Spirit to apply

and

enforce His mediatorial work.

Then this conquest of

sin is

persona,lize ll n each believer.

At regeneration

the sin

principle is subdued by the Spirit in

·Christ · and the D

1

ivi:ne

nature

.so

im·planted

as

to

gu.arante

1

e

the complete conquest of sin. In the life of co11secration and

service th ie sin principle g o·e is down in defeat st.ep

by

step,

until in death whose sting is sin,. the believer triumphs in

1

Christ on the

last fie·l,d; he f

e

1

els. 1ri0

sting and

knows

the

strif 'e with the sin monst

1

er is, forever passed, and in

1

exul~

tatio ,n ·h·e receives . an al)

undant ent·ranc.e''

to the

ki11gdotn

of

gl

1

ory,

a,s

Paul trit1mphantly

r

1

eceived

it.

(Phil. 1

:21,

23;

2 Tin1. 4

:6-8.),

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

,,.

•

•

•

•

TI-IE S,CIENCE 0

1

F

CON\7ERSION

BY REV. H.

M.

SYDENSTRICKER., . PH ..

D.,

WEST POINT, MISSISSIPPI

1.

THE CASE STATED

•

•

•

•

•

.

•

The

penetration of scientific i11vestigation

into

the

erst

while unknown

regio11s

of

things

is one of the

wonders

of

the

age. All departments of creation are yielding up their secrets

to the searching eye of science. .

The ·causes of things are being sought

after,

not only in

the natural world, but in all realms as well, so that things

may

be brought more certainly and directly under the human will.

The

unseen

operations

by

which powerful

results

are

produced

are forced to yield and tell their secrets. New powers are

discovered in all

realms of investigation and subdued as

never

before to the service of man. Practically

everything is

reduced to science, and men are learning the how and tl1e

wberef

ore

of things physical, mental and spiritual. The better

these

things

are understood,

the more completely are we the

masters of ·the world for whOse subjection man was com-

missioned. ·

Now our inquiry is whether the

conversi on of

the human

souls

-the

divinely

wrought

new birth

lies

within

the

range

of scientific investigation. Can the operations of the Divine

•

forces and the divinely appointed means for the conversion of

•

a s,oul be

ma,de

to

1

yield.

to

s:cientific

research, so

that

we

can

produce results with the same degree of

certainty

as does . he

chemist in

his

laboratory? -Do the laws

of

cause

and

effect

operate

in

the spiritual realm as in the natural world, and can ·

we apply spiritual means and causes with the same degree of

•

certainty as in physical things

?

Can we get out of the rea lm

•



•

The cien~e of ~onversion

65

of the uncertain and the vague in worki11g with hu1nan souls

and operate with absolt1te assurance of adequate and satis-

• •

factory

nesults

? .

In this

greatest

of all woiks, and

wliich

is practically com

mitt ,ed to man, has God leit us to absolute uncentainties as to

•

•

results? Is it not true that if the divinely ordained m,eans be

•

•

properly used the results can be obtained with the same scien-

tific certainty as in other thin.gs, and results also whieh are in

no sense spurious but the actual effect of efficient and properly

app

1

lied eauses

?

Are

not the

p,1·0mis,es

of

God

absolute,

and

do

not

many ,incidents

in the work and ,hist,ory of

tli,e

Church

demonstrate t1iat tne conversion of souls was the .direct result

of God-appointed and mall-applied means thereto, operated by:

purely scientific methods, althougl11he workers

had no

thought

of science in their work? Are we not b0und to obey s

laws in all scientifi~ operations in the physical world,

and

must

we not

scientifically Obey

His laws in

tl1e

higher

realm of

His

•

domain?

·2. THE Cl\SlE DIAGNOSED

•

A careful diagnosis of t:he case under consideration ·may

help us towards a scientific answer to our investigation. Eo

know the patient, and especially to know precisely the nature

of the disease, is of

printe

i1nportance

in the

successful

treat

ment of it. Otherwise, all treat1nent is mere gue~s-work.

Our

subject

in

this

inquiry is a degenerate human soul.

:Degenerate me~1ing an in het·ent u.n1·ighteousnessana an

innate

corruption that has

affected

every

fiber

and facul~y of the

human soul.

This

total depravity does not mean that man is

actually

and practically

as

mean

as

he is capable

of being,

but

it means that the total man is depraved in all of his parts, and

that he is born in that condition. .

.

rhis native degeneracy is of a twofold nature: First, it is a .

legal condemnation Clescending to every hu~an seul · froffl a

.

.

Justly condemned ancestry who represented and stood for tile

whole race in the government of (iod under tl1e

covenant of

•

•

,.



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

The Sc·ie1ice of

Coiiversi on

67

into a

real

child of God~ Not merely a son

of God, but an

actually born child, so that

by

birth he

becomes

an

heir

of God

and a joint-heir

with

Christ to a

heavenly

inheritan~e.

That the Divine power is sufficient fo,r s,uch an achievement

is not to be questioned for a

1noment.

But does the work fall

witl1in the range of scientific

investigation

and are the methods

to be used strictly scientific? Is the Divine method in applying

complete salvation to this

awfully

degenerate soul

really

scien-

tific? Is it supposable

that

God is

less

scientific

in

this the

Yer}r gr ,eatest

0

1

£

all His works . than He is in the lesser

tl1ings

in His gover .nment? Does I-Ie wo,rk by one set of laws in

the

natural

world, and

by

different laws, or no laws

at all,

in

tl1e

higher spiritual realm?

But j f

God is s,cientific if the conversion of the human

soul

is accomplished

by

scien,tific

methods ·

i't

fol ows

that the

Work is best do·ne when

1

done

by

God's meth

1

ods, if indeed

it

can be done at all in any oth ,er way. And if

1

Go,d's method is

s,cientific, l1as He a,dequately

revealed

to us, Hi .s metl1od

so

that

it

can be

certainly

and

successfully

used b.Yus

as

His , workers?

.

And if this reve 'lation is mad,e to us we dare not depart from

God's method,

whatever o,ther metl1ods

may be

sugg,ested.

For,

if

we depart ,from

tl1e

methods ,God has

given and

b,y

which

God Hiinself works,

ou,r

,;vork will b

1

e a failure entirely

01· the

resuJts will be inadequate and

spurious.

•

•

4. THE I\1EANS DISC

1

0VERED

God's proposition being stated and His metl1ods bei11g

scie·ntific, ·we must next discover the 1neans by \vhich the ,vork

is to be

accomplished. Let it

bre

remembered that in all things

pertaining to

man in both te1nporal and spiritual

matters

God

Wot"k by means, and

ust.1ally

through human agencies.

Bttt in the work of converting the human soul it is evident

that the means .are twofoldr First~ those means applied direct

•

•

•

•

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

168

•

•

\

•

•

on the part of

I

to

the soul from within ; and

second,

those

means applied from without through the senses by human

agencies and instrumentalities. It is a fact, however. that even

the means used directly on the part of God are at least in.part

applied through human agencies; so that the conversion . of

adult souls, so far as we are able to see, is ordinarily through

human inst1·umentali,ties.

Hence the means by whicl1 the l1uman soul is converted, or

•

born .into the

family

of' God, are :

( 1) The Divi11e Spirit, wl1ich is the alone Divine Agent,

and without wl1ich no soul, of infant or a,dult, can ever p,ass

from spiritual death to spiritual life. This Divine Spirit

operates how and where He pleases and with or without means

and ,agencies. .

. (2) The Word of God, which is the sword of the Spirit,

reaching and quickening men's souls through

the

reasoning

-

.

and

emotional

faculties_

The

Word

is

effectual

0

1

nly as

.accom-

panied

by

the quickening power of the Spirit, while at the

same time it may be variously applied externally. ·

•

( 3) The benign

influence

of Christians, demonstrating

the reality and power and blessedness o,f the new life ,in tb.e

sottl

of the

1

conve .rted

man. ·

•

( 4) Real prayer, by which the regenerate .soul brings the

: unregenerate to the very feet of the Divine Saviour and

insistently implore s the Div·ine grace. ·

This faith is an absolute confidence in the ability of God and

in His purpose to acco,mplish

tI1e

work thro ,ugh the means then·

being

used, whenever the

conditions

thereto

ar~

complied

witl1. There can be no true faitl1 when the available means are

•

not used a'n

1

d the kno

1

w11 condit ,io

1

ns not complied with .

•

•

5.

THE MEANS APPLIED

Here is

where

the scienc

1

e of ·conversion is

es,pec,ially mani



•

•

•

The

Scie ice

of Conversion

69

•

•

God s

way

is always scientific, and all things are best done

when we adhere most closely to God s ~

me ,thods.

The conver

sion of tl1e human soul is no excep tion to this rule.

We

can .

convert men most success£ ully when we adhere strictly to the

•

Divine science of

the worl{. ·

Our

f

ailttres are no ·doubt largely

due to our not complying with God s ways of doing the wo

1

rk.

We adhere strictly to

God s

la,v s in

growing

our crops.

1 11e Seed is first placed where the do

1

r1nant

lif

1

e powers a1·e

aroused and the seed caused to germinate. Af te1·wards follow

the blade, the stalk and

··he

mature

fruit.

No

l1uma11

power

01·

,visdom can

cl1ange

this

law

of

germination

and

.g1·owth.

So

•

tl1e

human soul being spiritually dea ,d is incapable

of

doing

a11ything toward s an awakening to a new life; ,

and

being als,o

• •

unable even to

will

to do su ,ch a

thing, it

is ·quite

evident that

the very

first th ·ing

essen ·tial is the direct applicati

1

on

of

the

1

life

givi11g power of

the

Divine

Spirit to the dormant soul. Thi s

life~giving touch prepares the soul for the effectual applic:ition

of all the

othe ·r

appo,int

1

ed means by which the

soul

is brought

into the realities and fullness of the new life~ But o,rdin ·ar

ily, if not

always,

the applicatio ·n

0

1

£. the

life-giving

,Sp·irit

tl1rough

httma n

agencies

is

in

answer to prayer somehow and

so111ewl1e1·e.

May it not

be true

that every soul born into the

l .ingdom of God is in ansvver to the sttp

1

plication of some

•

earne

t

1

Christian whos

1

e heart is as large

las

humanity

ai1d

Wl1os1 prayer

touches

every lost sot1l of man.

I-Ie11ce prayer is scientifically the first means and

the

p1·ime f01.

e

to

be applied

by the

tru

1

e Chr :istian

in pr ·oducing

the

conve1·sion

of a human soul. It is perfectly certain

that

nothing can be effectively done until · the Spirit is applied,

and the Spiri t is ordinarily given in a11swer to prayer -

tl1at

i , the quickening Spirit tl1at arouses the soul and prepares it

f

01·

tl1e

effectual application

of

other divinely

appo .inted

niean . We question

wl1ether

the Spirit

is

ever given with

out prayer where prayer is available, as in all otl1er ·things

human agencies are required when available.

•

•

•

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

70

•

The

Fundamenta ls

•

I

•

•

· Sec-0nd to the

Spirit's

work, and along with it, is the ap·

. plication of the Word by which th

1

e soul of the hearer is

reached through

the

intellect, the reasoning

f

acuities being

I

· ar ,ous ,ed,

and through

them

the

appeal of

the G

1

ospel

is

farced

into the newly awakened conscience. Here all the

_?Owers

of

elo,quence and

reason and per:sua sion come into full play

and

are mad

1

e effectual in ·turning the eyes of the awak 1ened soul

to

the

cros s.

· Next, the awakened soul now becomes co-o,perative with

the

Divine

Spirit, and

with the

W

1

01·d and

wit'h ot,her external

means, and the result is belief in ·the Word on the

part

of

the aroused soul, and through the receivin ,g of the

word

there follows an actual, , per so,nal, livi ,ng faith . in the Christ

set

forth .

in

the Gosp ,el,

fo

1

llowed b,y outward confession,

ob,edience

and Chri ,sti,an service. ·

. Hence

the scientific order

of the

application

of the means

for the conversion .of a soul is : The prayer of the Church

and the Chri stian

worl<:r for

the applicatio ,n of the quickening

•

Spirit on the part of Go,d. The preaching of the Word and

the us

1

e o,f other ex te rnal , means. The r

1

espons ,iv

1

e and

CrOP

operative and receptive act of the sinner, no ,w made willing

by the Spirit ' of God. And th ,e whol,,y personal act of · fai ,th

· in Christ on the part

of the 'sinner

by

which

he

actually

receives by his o,wn volition the Saviour as set befo ,re hifl1,

confesses Him and become,s obedi

1

en't to H im as his Lord ,an1d

M,aste,r.,

6.

'TH E

C'ONDI'TIONS

IMPOS ED

•

•

•

•

. In al

1

l sci,entific

ope1ation1

the re are condit ions that

mu,st

be

complied with, otherwi se

the

re sttlt s

ar

1

e

ei.tl1

er

spurious ,

or disa strous. T,hi,s account s

f

01· the vast number o·f sp

1

ur,ious

conver sions and lapses in the

ch ttr cl1es.

Un scrup

1

ulous and

igno,rant men seeking after a display of nu mber s use all

· sorts

of

device s in all sorts of ways to prod t.1ce ap

1

par ,ent con

version s Just as well migh ,t the che ,mi st go into his labo,ratory

a11dhrow together any and all

sor ,ts

of chemicals

and

expect



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

The Science of

Co iversion

71

correct and scientific r

esults. Correct results might acci-

•

dentally follow, but the almost inevitable results would be

poisons a11d explosions. Is not

the

same true

in

the un- ·

scriptural and unscientific methods used by

many

who pose

as expert conversionists in so many of the pseu o revivals

now so muc·h in

vo

gu.e

?

•

The co

1

nditions imposed f

01· tl1e

true co

1

nversion of souls

are both philosophic and scientific, and at the same time

supr

emely

gracious

and

benevolent, ever looking to the

highest good

of

all concerned, both to the soul that is being

save,d and the worker through

who-m

the

results

are accom-

plished. .

These conditions are imposed by God

Himself.

Hence He

· becomes responsible for tl1e results when the conditions are

•

real_y

fulfilled on

our p,art.

The

results

may not

alway s

he as we

may

calculate or

desi1·e,

but

they . wilt alway s

cor

respond to the Il1ean.s as

used.

I These conditio

1

ns ar

1

e twofold. On . the p

1

art of tl1e

1

Cht·is,-

tian worker in applying God s . means for the

salvation

of

men in God s ways. The danger here is in applying all

sorts of human means in any way whatever so as to

obtain

apparent results. Often we blame God directly or indirectly

for the poverty

and chara ,c·ter of the

results,

when

as a tnatter

of fact we have nev,er complied with ·God s conditions, which

are always natural, reasonable and scientific.

Second, ,on the part of tl1e sinner thes,e co·nditio11s apply,

b

ecause although

he is spiritually dead,

he

is.

intellectually

alive and morally a free agent, and

hence

respo

nsible

for l1is

conduct, including his unbelief and his r

eje ,ction of Christ as ·

his Saviour. He is respons ,ible for the opportunities

placed

before hitn, and consequently he is responsible for the con

ditions God has imposed for tl1e salvation of his sot1l. No

man,

in any

Gospel land at

least,

can truthfully a·nd con

sciintiously claim that he has

fully

met God s conditions for ·

his salvation and that God has rejected him, or that the results ·

•

•

•



•

\

,

72

. he

F

u dat ie itals

•

•

•

.,

have not

been

adequat e and sci

1

entific: On tl1e other

hand,

no

Christian wor·ker ha,s a right to the God-promised results

u11tilhe has met the God-imp

1

ose

1

d conditions. A partial use

.of means ,, used in an

indiffet·ent

way

for

only a

limited

time,

is not scientific and is n.o~ meeting God s con

1

ditions. Tqis

i

true not only in the work of acttial soul-saving, but .

in

the

Christian life

as we,11. .

•

•

•

•

7

THE RESULTS OBTAINED

.The

re ,sults

obt ,ained

in the

conv

1

ersion

of

a 11t1man

soul

ai·e

equally scientific with

the means

used

thereto.

The primary result is a

neV\r

1nan. Not an old man macte

over, but ,a n.ew man,, pos.sessed of a

new

life and endowed

.

with

new an

1

d enlarged possibilities. A

.man with

,a ne,v

vision both of this

life

and

of

th,e

etern,al future.

A

1nan

•

inspired with a

ne,v

l1ope,

the

flukes .of

which

are

strttck

•

into the very thro ,ne o,f Go,d and wh.ich is a positive and

inaliena .b le tit le

to

an

inheritance

in

l1eaven,.

A man With

a positive perso11al

faith

in Chris,t..

A

faitl1

that

mak,es

•

Cl1rist

hi,s personal

possession

with

all

tl1at. Cl1rist is

and

,all

that He has and all that I-Ie has

1

done.

A man whose whole

,,-

.

l,ife is, reve .rsed

fro1n

the

s,ervice

,0

1

f

sin and self t·o

the · kind

and willing serv ice of

,Christ

as his

new

Master.

·That such a man

is

the

scientific

1·esult o,f

the means that

, have been app,lied goes withottt argt1ment. It ,is only

in

har

mony

with

the

gr·eat

law·s of

God that g

1

overn His kingdom

fro .m the com.bination of the most minute

chemi

1

cal atoms

.

to the swi11gof the sp,heres in His boundless universe,

First

of

all, life prodt1ces

lif

1

e o,f its

own

kind. · Hence

the life-giving touch of the D~vine Spirit impart s life of its

own kind to tl1e d,01·mant

sottl

a,n

1

d it become-s the

living

son

of

God,,

T .his result is as,

manife ,stly scient,ific

as can

be

found

in

all

nature.

The immortal

soul

already exists en

dowed

with

all

tl1e po,ssibilities of

a finite being, but the

eternal

life is

the scientific res

1

ult of the life-giving touch



•

•

Tlie

se :etice

of

Con·version

73

•

of tl1.e Spirit of God~ It is in fact i1npossible that the result

be

otherwise. ·

Another result is the effect

produc

1

ed upon the will

of

the

convert. His will i,s renewed and is now in. h,armony with

tl1e Divine will,

a11d

t,hi s

i.s

produced by the action of the

Divine wil,l upon th

1

e

will of

the

sinner. Here again

the

Divine begets its likeness in the changed will of the con

ve1ted soul.

A

natural · and sci,entific result.

· Again, through the enlightening

and

persuading

power

of

the G~spel

t~e

sjnner 2s le,d to see the error of

his

way

and

the condition of his soul, and repentance of sins and faith

in Christ are . ·t ·he result. The man is outwardly con ,verted

and his whol1 life and service

revers 1,d. r11es,e

are again

the scient ,ific results of the

1nea11s

used accor ·ding to t:he

Divi~e order of things. That the se results do not always

follow the preaching of the

Word

may be largely due to

tl1·e fact

that

the means ,

ha,re been used amiss for the mere

•

grat .ification

of

the lust of the

worker, or

tha t

ot·her n,eces-

sary

means

have

been neglected, especially

prayer.

And the

•

reason wl1y so, many conversions are not genuine is due to

the fact that the.y

are

merely

exte1·nal

conversions, th

1

e result

,of

1

e·x·c·i·ting r,ant c,all

1

ed prea

1

ching the G.ospe·l, while pray

1

er

for the

i11ternal

wo ,rk

of

the

Spirit l1as

been

totally

ignored.

In tl1e

whole

process of

conversion

it is a fundamental

principle that

like begets

l~ke, and

means

produce

results

according

to, pu.r,ely

s,cientific

laws,, a,n,d if

the

·results ar

1

e

not scien tific they· are spu,rious, ,external and temporary. A

beautiful and

pointed

illust1·ation is

found

in

the

conversion

of tl1e

congregation

at

the house of Cornelius. The means

we1~e ,sed . th .ott.gh. unwittingly on thie part of men ,n the

scie11tific

order. Prayer, the Holy

Spirit,

the

·preached

Word; and the resu.lts were conversion,

confession

and Chris

tian service.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

-

•



•

•

•

,,

•

•

•

•

•

CHAPTER VI

•

THE

1D0

1

CTRINAL , VALUE

0

1

F THE FIRST CHAPTERS OF GENESIS ·

•

•

•

BY

THE

RE.V.

DYSON

HAGUE, M. A.

VICAR OF THE CHURCH OF .THE EPIPHANY; PROFESSOR OF LIT-

•

URGICS, WYCLIFFE COLLEGE, TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA

The Boo

1

k of · Genesis is. in

many

res

1

pects the most im

portant book in the Bible. It

is

of

the

first ·importance

be-·

cause it answers ., .not exha .ustively, but sufficiently, ·the funda

men .tal qu,estio.ns o,£ th

1

e h·uman mi11d. It contains the first

authoritative information

given

to

the race

concerning thes~

questions of everlasting

interest :

the

Bein.g

of God ; th<

origin of the universe; the creation of man ; the origin of

the

souI ; the

fact

of

revelation ;

the

introduction

of sin;

the

p1·omise of salvation; .the pri1nitive division of the

hum,an

race; the

purpose of

the elected

people;

the

pre liminary

part

in the program of Christianity. In

one

word,

in

this inspired ·

volume of beginnings, we have the satisfactory explanation of

all . he sin and misery and contradiction now in this world, _and

.. .

the reason of the scheme of

re·demption. .

· Or;,

to put it in an

1

other way. Tl1e Boo

1

k

of Gene,sis is

.

the

seed

in which the plant of God's W

1

ord is enfolded. It

is the

starting point

of God's

gradually-unfolded plan

of

the a·ges. Genesis is the .Plinth of 'the pillar of the Divine

revelation. It is the root of the tree of the inspired Scrip

tures. It is the source of the stream of the holy writings

of the Bible. If

the

base

of

the

pillar

is removed,

the

pillar ·

falls. If th,e root of the tr ·e

1

e is cut out, the tree

will wit.her

•

and die. If the fountain head of the stream is cut off, the

stream

will

<;lryttp.

The Bible

asl a

wh,ol,e

is lil<e a chain

l1anging upon

two staples. The Book

of · ,Genesis is

the one

staple; the Book of Revelation is the other. Take away

•

•

•



Doct1 i1zalValue of

First

Chapters of Genesis

7

•

•

•

either staple, the chain falls in confusion. If the first cl1ap

ters of Genesis are

unr ,eliable,, t~1e

revelation

o,f

the beginni11g

of the universe, the

0

1

rigin of the race, and

tl1e

reason of its

redemption are gone. , If the last cl1apters of Revela .tion are

displaced the consummation of all thi.ngs ·is unknown. 1£

•

you take away Genesis ., you have lost the explanation of

the first heaven, the first

earth,

the first Adam, and the ·fall.

·If you

take

away Revelation

you

have

lost the

completed trutl1

of the new heaven, and the new earth, man redeemed,

and the

se,con

1

d Adam , i.n P aradise

regai11ed.

Further: in the first chapters of the Book of Genesis,

you

h,ave the strong and sufficient foundation of the

Sltb

sequent developments of tl1e

kingdom

of God; the root-germ

,of all

Anthropology, . SoterioJogy,

Christology, Satanology, to

say nothing of the ancient and -modern prob ,lems of the mys

tery and culpability of sin,

tl1e

D·ivine ordinance of the

Lord s

Day,

the

unity

of the

race, and God s

establishment

of matrimony and

the

family life.

We assume from

the start

the I1istoricity of Genesis and

its Mosaic authorship. It was evidently accept .ed. by Ch.rist

the Infallible, our Lord and God, as historical, as one single ·

Cromposition, and

as the work .

of

Moses.

It wa,s (accepted

by .

Paul the inspired. It was accepted universally by the divinely

inspired leaders

of God s chosen people. ( S

1

ee Green

Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch. ) It has validated itself .

to

the universal

Cl1t1rch

h1. ugl1out the ages

by

its realism and

consistency, and

by wh,at

ha s bee11 inely termed its st1bjective

trutl1f

ttlness. We , postt1late especi .al1y

tI1e

historicity

of

the

first chapters. These are not only valuable, they

are

vital. .

They a1·e the esse·nce of G,en

1

esis. The Bo,ol<

1

of Genesis is

neither the work of a theori t or a tribal annalist.

It

is still

~ess the product of some anonymous compiler or co~pilers

in some unknowable era, of a serie s of myths, historic in form

httt. unhistoric in fact. Its op~ning is an apocalypse, a direct

revelation fro1n the God of al.I truth. Whether

it

was gi.ven

•

•

•

•



•

-

•

•

76

.

The undamentals

•

•

in a

vision

or

otherwise, it would be impossible to say.

But

it is possible, f not ·pr·o,bable, that the sam,e Lord God, who

revealed to His serv ,ant as he was, in the

Spirit

on

th.e

Lord s

Day, tl1e apoc,alypse ,of ·tl1e l1u1na11lyunknown and unknowable

events , of n1an s

history

which

will

transpire

wl1en

this

heaven

and this · earth have pas sed away, would also have r1vealed

to His s

1

ervant, b,eing in the

Spirit,

the apocalypse of the

hu1nanly unknowable and unkn,own events

which

transpired

bef o·re this ea,rth s histo ,ry b,egan. It has b,een ass

1

erted that

. the

beginning

,and the

en1d of things a1·e

both

absolute]y hid1en

from science. Sc,i ence has to do with phenomena. It is

whe .re

science

must . conf es,s its

impoten ,ce

that

revelation

steps

in, and, , with the

auth .ority

of God, reveals those tl1ings that

are above it. The begin11ing of G,enes,is, theref ,ore, is a,

diVinely

inspired narrative of the

evenis

deemed

necessary

•

by

God

to

establish

the

f oundatio ,ns for

tl1e

Divine . Law

in

the spl1ere of human life, a11d to set forth the relation be

tween the, o,mn.ipotent Creator and the man. who fell, and the

race that was to be redeemed by t he incarnat ,on of I-Iis Son.

· The

Gern1an ra ,tionalistic

idea,

whJr-~ has

passed

over into

thousands of more or , less orthodox Lhris ·tian tn inds, is that

these earliest chapters

embody

ancient traditions of the

Se1n

itic-orlental mind. Others go farther,

and not

only deny thern

io be the product of the i-evereqt and religious mind of the

Hebrew, but assert they were .

imply

oriental legend s not

born from abov,e and of God but born in the East, and prob-

•

ab1y in p,agan Babyloni ,a.

We would therefore postulate

tl1e

following propo

1

sitions :

l. The Book of Genesis has no doctrinal value if it is

n

1

ot authoritativ ,e.

2., The Book of

Gen,esis

is

not authoritative

if it

is not

true. For

if

it is not

histo,ry,

it is not reliable; and if

it is

not revelation, it

i s

not authorit ,ative. .

3,. The Boole 0

1

f Genesis is not true if it. is no,t f rotn

God.

For if it.

is n,ot from

God,

it

is

not

i,nspired;

and

if it

•



•

•

•

•

is not ins,pired, i t .Possess,es to 1:1s o

1

do

1

ctrinal value whatever .

4.. The . B

1

ook of

1

Ge11esisis not dire ,ct from God if it is

•

a

l1eter·o1

1

ene,ous

con1pilati

on

of

myt h

1

ol

0,gical

folkl

1

or,e

by

ttn-

kno\\ able writers ..

1

.5. If the Book of Genesi s is a legendary narr ,ative,

a11onymous, indefinitely er·roneotts, and the persons it de

scribed the mere mythical personifications of tribal genitts,

it is of .course not only non -authentic,

b·ecause

non -authen

ticate 1d,

but

an

insufficient

basi s

for

doctrine. The

resid11111n

of dubious truth, whicl1 might with varying degrees of consent

be extracted therefrom, could 11ever

be accepted as a founda-

•

tion for the superstructure o,f eternally trustwortl1y doctri ,ne,

fo

1

r it is an axiom that

tl1at

onl,y is of doctrin ,al value which

is

God s W ,ord.

Myt l1ical

and

legen ,dary

fi

1

ction, and S

1

till

l11ore,

1

err

1

on

1

eous a·nd 1nisleading t1·adit·io·n, are in·compa,tible

not only with the character

of

the

God of all truth, but with ·

the trt1tl1fulness, tr ·u.stw·ort hinesls, and ,absolute auth

1

0

1

rity of

th.e Wo ·1·d of

G,od. We

l1a.v,e

11ot ta lcen

for our credentials

cleverly invented myt hs . The

prin1a:ry

documents,.

if

there

W

1

1·esuch ,

were

C

1

llated and

revise

1

and re-written

by

Moses

by

inspiratio11 of God.

A

sentence in

Ma1·goli,outh s

Lines of Defence deserves

an atte11tive cons ,ideration today. We should have some op

portunity, said the Oxford profe ssor, of gauging the skill of

tho se 011 whose faith the old-fashioned . belief in the auth

1

en

ticity of Scripture has been abandoned . (p. 293.) One wou ld

perhaps prefet · to put the idea in thi s way. Our modern

Chri stians ,should have 1no1·e oppo·1·tunity not only of ap

praising the skill,

but of gauging also

the

spiritual qua lifi

~ations

0

1

£

a critical school that has been characterized

notori

ously

by

an

enthusiasm against the

miraculous,

~nd a precip ~

itate adoption of any conclusion from a rationalistic sottrce

which

1nilit,ates,

against the

historicity of Ge·nesis.

Christians are con

1

ceding too n1uchnowadays to the agnostic

scientist, and the rationalistic Hebraist, and are of ten to bla.me

-,

•



•

I

•

•

•

•

•

•

,I

8

The

Fiindamentals

if they a11

o·w

them to ,go out

1

0£

tl1eir

specific provinces without

•

protest. Their assumptions ought to be watc.hed ,vith the ut-

·most vigilance and ,jealousy.

(See

Gladston ,e,

Th ·e

Impreg•

nable Rock of Holy Scriptur

1

e, pp. 62-83.)

But

to resu1ne.

The Book of Genesis is the

foundation

on which the superstructure of the Scriptures rests.

The

•

foundation

1

of

the f

oun

1

dation is the firs,t tl11·ee

chap

1

ters,

which

form in themselves a co:mp,let

1

e monograph

af ·revelation. And

of this final substru

1

cture the first three verses of the first

·chapter are the foundation. .

In th ,e first verse of Genesis in words of superna ·tural gran•

deur, we have

a

revelation of God as ·the

first CS.Use,

he Crea·

·tor

of the

universe , the world and man.

The

glorious Be:ing

of God comes forth ,

without

,explanation, and without apol

1

ogy1

It

is a

I evelation of the one, personal, living,

God. There

·is in the

ancient

p

1

l1ilosop

1

hic

cosmogony no trace of

the

•

idea of su

1

ch

a Being, still less

of

suc·h

a

Creator, for all ot her

systems began and ended with pantheis

1

tic, materialist .ic, 1or

hyloz

1

oistic c,0

1

nce·ptions. TI1e

Divine

W:ord stands u11ique in

declaring the absolut,e idea of the· J,iving God, witho ,ut att etnpt

a·t de1nonstration. The spirituality, infinity, omnipotence, sanc

tity of the Divine Being, all

,µ

,germ lie here. Nay mote.

The later an

1

d more fully 1·evealed d.octrin·e of the

1

u·nity of

God in the Trinity may be s,ai

1

d to lie here in g

1

erm also,

and

the last and deepest revelation to be involv,ed in first and

foremost.

The fact of

God in the

first

o,f Genesis is 11otgiven

as a dedu ,ction of reason or a philos ,ophic

,g

1

eneralization . . It

is a revelation. It is a revelation of that primary truth which

•

· is received

by

the universal human mind as a truth that needs

no proof, and is incapable of i t, but which being receiv,ed, is

ve1·ified to the int,e11igent

mi11d

by an irr

1

esis,t·ible

f

orc

1

e not

•

only with ontological and cosmological, but wi·th teleological

and moral arguments. Here ,ve have in this first verse of

Genesis,, not only a postul,ate apart from Rev

1

elatio ,n, but tl1ree

1



•

•

•

•

•

11

Doctr·i ialValiec of

First

hapters of

Genesis

79

•

•

( 1) The Unity of God ; in contradictio ,n to all the poly

theisms and dualisms of ancient and modern pagan

philosopl1y.

(2) The Personality of God; in contradiction to

that

Pantheism whether materialistic or idealistic,

which

recognizes

God s imn1anence in the world, but denies His . transcendence.

For in all its

multitudi11ous

developments, pantheism. has this

•

peculiarity, that it denies the personality of God, and excludes

from the realm of lif-e the need

of

a

Mediator,

a

Sin-Bearer,

and

a

personal Saviour.

(3) The Omnipotence of God ; in contradiction, not ·

only to those debasing conceptions of the anthropomorphic dei

ties of the ancient world, but to all those man-made idols which

the millions of heathenism today adore. God made these starS .

and · suns,

wl1ich ma·n

in

his

1

infatuation fain

would

wor ,ship.

fh~s in contradiction to all human conceptiOns and hu

1nan

evoluti-ons,

there

stands forth

no

mere deistic

abstrac

tion, but the one, true, living and only God. He is named by

the name Elohim, the name of Divine Maj

1

esty, the Adorable

One, our Creator and Governor;

t11esame

God who in a few

Verses ·tater is

revealed

as

J hovah-Elol1im, Jehovah being the

Covenant name, .the God of

revela·tion

and grac

1

e, the Ev ,er ..

Existent

Lord, the

God

and

Fathe1·

of us all. (Green,

Unity

f

G

· 3·1 32 F B.b E ,,, 258 )

enes1s, pp.

1

, . ; _ ausset s 1 . _ ncy., p. .

,Qn ,e

1

0£ the

theories

of modernism is that

the

law

o,f

evo

lution can be traced through tl1e ible in the development of

the

i

1

dea of God. The develo pn1ent of tl1e idea of Go

1

d? Is

there

in the Scriptures any real

trace

of the development of the idea

of

God? There is .an expansive, and richer, and fuller revela

tion of the attributes and dealings and ways an,d workings of

God; but not of the idea of God. The God of Gen. 1 :1 is

. the God of Psa. 90; of Isa. 40 :28; of Heb. 1 :1 ; and Rev. 4 :11.

HJn the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Here in a sublime revelation is the doctrinal foundation of

the creation of the universe, and the co,ntradiction of the an ..

•

•

·

•

•



•

•

I

• •

•

•

80

, The

Funda11ientals

·,

•

•

cient and

n1odern

conceptions of the

eternity

of matter. God

•

only is eternal.

One can well

be]ieve

the

s,t,o.ry

of a Japanese

thin ,ke.r

who

took up a strange book, and with wonderment read the first

·senten~e: ''In the

begin11ing

God created the heaven and t·be'

e,arth.''

It struck

him

that

there was

mor.e pl1ilosophy

of a

theological character,

and

satisfying to the mind and sqt.1, in

tl1at .one

s,ente .nce than

in

.all the sacred

·books

of t'he orient.

Th ,at single sentence sep,arates th,e

Scriptures ,

from th

1

e

rest of human pro ,ductions.

The wis,est

philosophy of

the

an

ci1nts,

Platonic-Aristote~ian

or G11ostic,

nev,er reached the point

that the wor ,Jd was created by ·Go1d. in

tl1e

s

1

ense of

abs,ol1Jte

creation. In no cos,mogo,ny outside of the Bible is there a

record of the , idea

·tl1at

God created the heaven arid the earth,

as an effort of His

will ,

and

the

fiat o,f His eter .nal, self-ex-

..

istent Personality. ,

Ex niliilo nihi l

fit

The highest point

reached

by their philosop 'hical specul .ations

wa.s·

a

kind of

at:omi

1

c

theory ; of

cosmic

atom s and

germs , an,d

eggs po

1

s,se,ssed

of some inexplicable

forces

of

develo.pm,ent;

out of which

t'he

pr ,esent

cosm,os was throttgh long

ages evolved~

Matter

was

al1nost. universally b

1

elieved to

h.ave,

exist ,ed

·from

eternity.

The Bib

1

l.e teaches

that

the universe

was not

causa sui

or

a

· mere ·passive

evo·lutio11

a£ His nature, , nor

a

mere transition

from one forn1 o·f'

being

to,

another,

f'·o,m ·rton-being to being.

but that

it

was a, direct

Ct 'eation

of the pe,rsonal, living,

wo1·k

ing God, who

c1Aeated

ll things out of nothing,.

but

the fiat

of His will, and the in:strttmentality of the

eter,nal

Logos. In

glori .ous contrast t,o

a,gi1o_t,c

science with i.ts lamentable creed,

''I believe that behin ,d and

above

and around the

phenomena

of matter and force remain .s the unsolved my·stery of the uni -

verse,'' the

Chris ,tian

holds

forth .hi,s triump ·hant solution,, ''I

believe

that

iii the

beginning God created the h.eaven and

tl1e

•

earth.'' ·,(John 1; 1-3; Heb. 1 :1; C'ol. 1 :16, The first verse

,of t'he

Bib,Je

is

a proof

tl1a,t

the Bo,ok is

of

G

1

od.

•

•



•

,

•

And so with regard to the subsequent verses. Gene,sis

is

admittedly . not a

scientific

history. It

is a

narrative for man

lcind to show

that th.is

world was

made by God

for

the

habita

tion of man, and was

gradually

being fitted for

God s

chil

dren.

So in a series of successive creativ

1

e developments

from the

formless

chaos, containing in en1bryonic

conditi@n

all el

1

emental constituents, chemical and 1nechanical, air, earth,

fire,

and

water, the sublime process is recorded, according to

the Genesis narrative in tl1e fallowing order:

1. Th ,e creation

by

direct Divine act of

matter

in

its gas

eous, aqueous, terrestrial

and mineral

condition successively.

( Gen.

1

:1-10,; cf. Col. 1 :16;

Heb.

11

:3.) .

2. The

emergence

by

Divine creative

power

of the lowest

.

-

forms of sea and land

life ,.

(Gen. 1:11-13.)

3. The creation

by dir ,ect Divin

1

e act of ta ,rger forms of

life,

aq1:1atic

nd terrestrial;

the

great sea monsters

and gigan~

tic

rep,tiles

(the sheretjim and tanninim) . . (Dawson, Origin

of the World, .

p~

213; Gen. 1 :20-21.) . .

4. The emergence by Divine creative power of land ani

mals

of

higher organization,

herbivora · and

smaller

mammals

and carnivora.

(_Gen. 1

:24-25.)

5. And finally the creation

by

direct

Divine

act

1

0f

.man.

(Gen. 1

:26,

27.) Not first but last.

The

last for · which

the

first wa~ made, as Browning so finely puts it. Herein is the

compatability of Genesis

a11d

science,

for

this sublime order

is

just the

order

that

sotne

of

the f

oremOst of the

nineteenth

and twentieth century scientists have proclaimed. · It is re

inarkable, too, that the word for absolutely new creation is

only used

in

connection

with the

introduction

of

life. (

Gen.

•

1

:1,

2, 27.)

These

three points where the

idea

of absolute

creati

1

on

is

introdu

1

ced

are

t he

three

n1ain

points

at which

mod

ern

champions of evolution find

it impossible to

make their

•

connection.

· Next we have in thi ,s sub.lime

revelation

the doctrinal

foundation

£,or the beginning of

mankind. ,

•

•

•

•

•



I

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

82

•

The

Fundamen i·als

•

Man was

1

creat

1

ed., not evolved. That is,

.he

,did not com

e

fr,om p

1

rotoplasmic .mud-mass, or sea. ooze bat·h.yb.ian, or by

. descent from fish

or

frog, or ·

ho

rse,

or

a.pe ;.

but

at

once,

d.irect,

full made, did. man co

1

me forth ·from God. When y·ou read

what som.e wr.iters, prof ess.e,dly r ,eligio,us, s·ay about :man

and

his be.s,tial origin

you.r

sho·ul,de,r.s,

uncons,ciously

droo1 ; yo.ur

head han,gs down; yoitr h·eart feels, sick, Your se·Jf . ·esp,ect

bas rec

1

eived a blow, When

y,ou r,ead

Gene:si.s,

your

s,hot11ders

strai .ghten, your · chest emerges. You feel p

1

r

1

0,ud to be

that

thing that is called .

man. .

up

goes ,.

your hear ·t, and.

up

goes

your head. The Bible stands openly against

tl1 e

evolutio·ll'

ary developme11t,o·f· man, and h .i:s gradual a,sc:eint ·thr,o,u,gh in#

,detin.ite aeons from the anima .l. Not a.gainst the id,ea

of .

the

1

development of the,

p'l.ans

of·

the

Creator in nature, or a

varia~

ti

1

on of species

by

means of

enviro,111nent

and p1ocesses

of

time.

T'hat is

seen

in

Gene.sis, a·n.d

throughout ·the B

1

ibl

1

e., and

•

in this world. Bt1t th.e Bible

,d,oes.

stand

plai .nly

ag,ainst that:

gari .s,h

th ,eory

tha·t

all

.species,·veg,eta'ble an

1

d

animal, have

o.rig

inated thr ,ough e:volutio,n

f roin

lower farms t11rough long na·t,

ural processes. T:he mater ·ialistic f,orm of thi ·s the:o·ry

to

the

Christian is mo .st offensive. It p,ractically

SUbstitutes

an

a·tt-en-·

•

g,en·d~ring pr.otop,la.smic call for th

1

e only and trµ ,e

1

God. But

. even

the

theis,tic-supernat ur .alisi'ic t.heory

is

1

opp

1

0,sed to

the

Bible

a11d

o .Scienc

1

e ·for these r,easo11s.

•

1. There i,s no such univ,ersal law ,0

1

f-development.

1

0lf

t'h·e contrary, scientifi.c

eviCtlence

is now

standing for det·eriora·

tion. The fl.ora and the fauna

0£ t·t1e

1ate,st p

1

eriod show

no

. trace ·of improveme·nt, .and

,ev,e·n

man,

proud

man, from t_be

bio

logical

,a·nd physi,ological standpo ·int

has gained nothing

t:o speak of from the ·dawn of '

histoi'·y.

The earliest .ar

1

chreolog

ical remains of Egyp,t, As,syria, Bab,yl.onia, s·how no ·trac,e of

slow emergence from barbarism .. That sp

1

ecies

can b1 arti

ficially improv ,ed is true , but that is not transmutati :on of sp

1

e~

\ cies. (.Dawson, ''Ori .git;

0

1

f

the Worl ,d,'' pp •.

22'7-2'77.)

1

•

2. N,o n.ew

t,ype

has ever be·en di.scovered.

Sc~ence is

•

•



• as

=

a :

•

•

•

•

•

unive,rsally proclaiming the truth af

Gen,, l

:11,, 12,

21,

24, 2,5

''after his kind,'' ~'after their kind'' ; that is, species by species.

Geology with its five

hundred

or so species of ganoids

pro ..

•

claims the fact of

the

non-trans1nt1tation of

species. If

as

•

they say, the strata tell the story of

countless

aeons, , it i:s

strange that during those countles,s aeons the trilobite never

Produced anythin ,g but a trilobi 'te,

no1·

has ·the amn1onite ever

produced anything but an an1monite. The elaborat

1

ely a.rtifi

cial exception 1S

o,f n10,dern ,s,cience o,nly confirm the

rule. (

See ,

Townsend,. 'Collapse of Evolution.'')

•

, · 3.

Nor is the~e any

trace of

transmutation of

spec·ies .

Man develops £ram a single cell, ·and the

cell

of a monkey

•

is said to be indistinguishable from that

of

a man. But the

fact that

a

man cell d.evelops into

a man

and

the

monkey cell .

develops into a monkey, show ·s th·ere is. an

im,1neasurable

dif

ference

b1tween

them. And t.he

developmen .t.

from

a

cell into

la man has nothing whatever to do with the evolution of one

species into another. ''To science, species are practically un

changeable units'' ( ''

1

0rigin of the

1

World,'' p

1

•• 227). Man is

the

so1e

,s1pecies of

his

genus .

and the sole representative

of

'his

species.

The

abandonment

of ·

any original type is said

to

be

soon followed by the

comple·te extinctio

1

n

0

1

f

the family.

4. Nor has th

1

e.

missing

link

be·en found.

The

lat.e Rob

ert Etheridge of the British Mttseum, head of the geologicaJ

department, and one of the ablest of British paleontologists,

has said: ''In all

that

great museum there

is

not a particle of ·

evi

1

dence of tran smutation of species..

Ni.ne-tenths

of

the

talk

of evolutionists is not founded on observation, and is whol ly

Unsupported by ·facts.'' And Profe ,ssor Virchow is

1

said to have

declared with vehemence .rega di ng evolution: . ~'It's all non- ·

sense. Y

1

ou are as far as ever

you,

we.re

from

establishing

any

connection between man and the ,ape,.'' A great

gt1lf

is fixed

between the theory of evolution and the sublime statement of

Gen. 1 :26, 27

·

These verses give man his true place in the

Universe as

the

consummatio .n of creation. Made out

of the

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



•

84

The Fundamentals

I

dust of the ground, and created on the same day with

the

highe st group of animals, man has physiological affinities with

the animal creation. But he was made in the image of God,

and therefore transcendently superior to any animal. Man

is a walker, the monkey is a climber, said the great French

scientist, De Quatrefage s, years ago. A man does a thou~

sand things every day that a monkey could not do if he

tried ten thousand year s. Man has the designing, controlling,

order ing, constructive, and governing faculties. Man has per

sonality, under standing , will, conscience. Man is fitted for

apprehending God, and for worshipping God. The Genesis

account

of

man is the only possible basis

of

revelation. The

revelation of fatherhood; of the beautiful, the true, the good;

of purity, of peace; is unthinkable to a horse, a dog, or a

monkey. The most civilized simian could have no affinity

with such ideas. There is no possibility of his conceiving

such conceptions, or of receiving them if revealed. It is,

moreover, the only rational basis for the doctrine of regen

eration in opposition to the idea of the evolution of the hu

man character, and of the great doctrine of the incarnation.

Man once made in the image of God, by the regenerating

power of the Holy Ghost is born again and made in the image

of

God the Son.

Further, we have in this sublime revelation

of

Genesis

the doctrinal foundation of-

1. The unity of the hutnan race.

2.

The fall of man.

3. The plan of redemption .

1.

With regard to the first, Sir William Dawson has said

that the Bible knows but one Adam. Adam was not a myth,

or an ethnic name. He was a veritabie man, made by God;

not an evolutionary developn1ent from some hairy anthropoid

in some imaginary continent of Lemuria. The Bible knows

but one species of man, one primitive pair. This is confitmed

by

the Lord Je sus Chri st in Matt.

19

:4. It is re-affirmed



•

•

•

•

DOctrinal

Value

of

First Chapters of

Genesis 8,5

. .

by

Paul in Acts ·

17 :26,

whichever reading

may

be

take11,

and

in

Rom. 5 :12;

Cor. 15

:21,

47

49. Nor is there any

ground

for

supposing

that

the wo,rd Adam

is

used

in

a col

leCtive sense,

and

thu s

leave room

for

the hypotheses of

the

evolutionary development of a

large

number of human pairs.

All things in both physiology and ethnology, as well as in the

sciences, which bear on .the

subject,

confirm the idea of the

•

unity of the

human race. ( Saph:ir,

p.

206.)

2.

With regard to

the

f

a11

of

man. The foundation

of

all

Han1artology and

Anthropology lies in the first three chapter s of .

Ge11esis_

t te aches

us

that 1nan

·was

originally

created for com-

munio ,o with God, and

that

whether his personality was dichot

omistic

or

trichotomi stic,

he

was entirely fitted for personal,

in- .

telligent

fellowship

with .his

Maker,

and

was united ·with I-Iim

in

the bonds of lo ve

and

kno wledge.

Eve.ry

element

of the Bible

.

•

story recommends itself as a l1istoric

narrative.

Placed in

Eden

by his

God., with

a work to do,

and a trial-command,

tnan was potentially perfect, but with the possibility of fall,

Man

fell,

thot1gh

it was God's will

that

man

should

rise

fro1n

that human posse non peccari as a free agent into the Divine

non posse

peccarf.

(Augustine, ''De Civitate

Dei ,,

Book 22,

Chap.

30.)

Man fell

by

disobedience, and through the power

of a supernatural deceiver called

that

old serpent, the devil

and Satan, who from

Gen.

3 to Rev. 19 appears as· the im

placable enemy of the

hun1an

race, and the head of

tl1at

fallen

angel-band which abandon ,ed

through

the sin

of

pride tl1eir

first

principality. ·

This story is incomprehensible if only a myth. The great

•

Dutch theologian,

Van

Oosterzee says ,

''The

narrative

pre -

sents

itself

plainly as history. Such an historico-fantastic

clothing

of

a pure philosophic ·idea accords little with the

genuine

spirit of

Jewish antiquity. (Dog. ii, p. 403.)

· Still

more incomprehen sible is it, if

it

is merely an allegor y

wl1i.ch refers fruit serpent woman tree eating etc. to en-

•

-

•

•

•

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

86

Tlie undamentals

\

•

is history. It~is treated as such h,y our Lord Jesus Christ,

•

who

surely

would not

1nistak-e

a

myth

for

history,

and

by St.

Paul, who hardly

built

Rom. 5, and 1 Cor.

15,,

on

cleverly

coin·

po,sed fables. It is the o,nly sat ·i.sfactory

expl.a.11ation

of the

. corruption of the race. From Adam's time death has reigned.

This story of the fall stands, moreover, as

a barrier

against

all Manicheism, and ag.ainst that Pelagianism which declares

· that man is not so bad after all, and d

1

erides the ,doct ·rine of

original sin which in all our Church confessions

disti11ctly

de ..

c1ares the possession by every one from birth of this sinfttl

nature. (See, e.g., Art. IX of .''Anglican Church.'') The pen-

alty and horror of sin, ·the corr11ption of our human nature,

and the hopelessness of our sinful estate ar~ things definitely

set

forth in the Holy Scripture, and are St.

Paul's

divinelyp

inspired deductions from this fact of the incoming of sin and

death thrott.gh the disobedience and fall of Adam, the original

he

1

ad of ·the l1uman race. Tl1e race is. in a sinf 'ul condition .

•

(Roni, 5 :12.) Manki .nd is a solidarity. As tl1e root of a tree

lives in s·t

1

em, branch, leaf and fruit; .s.o in Adam, as Anselm

· says, a person made nature sin£ul, in his post ,erity nature

made persons sinful. Or, as Pascal finely puts it, origina1

sin is folly in the sight of man, but

this

folly is wiser than all

•

,

the wisdom of man. Fo1· without it, who could have said ·

what

man is.

His

whole condition depends

upon

this imper-

ceptible

point. (

''Thoughts,'' ch. xiii-11.) This

Genesis

story

•

further is the

f

1

oundation

0

1

f

the Scriptur

1

e doc·trine of all

htt-

man resp,onsiblity, and accountability to God. A lowered

anthropology always means

a

~owered theology, for if man

was not

a direct

creatio :n

of G

1

od,

if

he

was

1

a

inere

i11direct

I

devel,opment, through .slow and painful p·ro,cess., of no· one

knows what, or l1ow, or wl1y, or when, or wl1ere, the main

spring of moral .ac,countability is gone. The

f

at ,alistic con

ception of man's personal and moral life is the deadly gift of

•

naturalistic ·evolution to our age, said Prof, D. A. Curtis re-

centJy. .



•

Doctrinal Value of First hapters of Genesis ·

87

•

•

•

•

•

.

3. With regard to our redemption, the third chapter of

·G,enesis is the basis of all Sot,eriology .If there Y{asno £,all,

· there wasl no conde1nnation, no separa .tion and no

ne,ed

1

0£

reconciliation. If

there was. n

1

0 need o,f

reconciliation, there

was no need of redemptio11; and . if there was no nee~ of r·e

demption, the Incarnation ,vas a superfluity, and the crucifixion

folly. ( Gal. 3 :21.) So closely does the apostle link the fall

,,

of Adam

and

the

deat h of

Christ, that ' ithout

Adam's fall

the science of theology is evacuated of its most salient feature,

•

tl1e a·tonement. If the first Adam was. not ma,de a livin,g 'Soul

and fell,. there was no rea son for the work of the Second

•

Man, the Lord from heaven. The rejection of the Genesis

•

story as a myth, tends to the reje .ction of the Gospel of salva-

tion. One of the chief

C

1

orner stones of the Christian doc

tr ,i11e s removed, if

th

1

e

historical

re,a1ity of

Adam and Eve

is

abandoned, for the

fall will

ever remain

as

tl1e

starting

point

of special revelation, of salvatio11by grace, and of the need of

personal regeneration. In it lies the germ of the entire apos-

tol.ic

Gospel. ·

Finally, we have in Gen. 2 the doctrinal foundation of

those great fundamentals, the necessity of labor, the Lord' s .

Day

of

rest,

the Divine

ordinance of matrimony, and the

home life of mankind. The weekly day of rest was .provided

for man by his God, and is planted in the very forefront of

revelation as a Divine ordinance, and so also is marriage an

1

d ·

the l10n1e. ,Our Lord J~st1s Christ en

1

dorses the Mo·saic s,tory

of tl1e creation of Adam and Eve, refers to it as the explana

tion of the Divine will 1·egar,ding divorce, and san

1

ctions by His

inf

a]lible

imprim

atur

that most

mo111entous

of

ethical ques

tions, monogamy. .Thus the great elem-ents of life as God

intended

it,

the

thr ,ee itniv ·ersal

f actor .s of happy, healthy,

..helpful life, la.w, labor, love, are laid down in the beginning

of God' s Book. · ·

•

Three other remarkable .

features

in. the first cl1apters oi ·

•

•

•

•



88

The Funda nentals

The first is the assertion of the original unity of the lan

guage of the human race. (Gen. 11:1.) Max Muller, a fore

most ethnologist and philoiogist, declares that all our language s,

in spite of their diversities, must have originated in one con1-

1non source. ( See Saphir, Divine Unity, p. 206; Daw son,

Origin of the World, p. 286; Guinness, Divine Pro

gramme, p. 75.)

The second is that miracle of ethnological prophecy by Noah

in Gen. 9 :26, 27, in which we have foretold in a sublime epit

ome the three great divisions of the human race, and their

ultimate historic destinie s. The three great divisions, Ha

mitic, Shemitic, arid Japhetic, are the three ethnic group s into

which modern science has divided the human race. The fact s

of history have fulfilled what was fo~etold in Genesis four

thou sand years ago. The Hamitic nations, including . 'the

Chaldean, Babylonic, and Egyptian, have been degraded, pro

fane, and sensual. The Shemitic have been the religious with

1

the line of the coming Messiah. The Japhetic have been the

enlarging, and the dominant race s, including all the great

world monarchie s, both of the ancient and modern times, the

Grecian, Roman, Gothic, Celtic, Teutonic , British and Ameri

can, and by recent investigation and discovery , th~ races of

India, China, and Japan. Thu s Ham lost all empire centurie s

ago; Shem and his race acquir ed it ethically and spirituaPy

through the Prophet , Prie st and King , the Messiah; while

Japheth, in world-embrac ing enlargement and imperial su

premacy, has stood for industrial ., commercial, and politi cal

dominion.

The third is the gloriou s promi se given to Abraham, the

man to whom the God of glory appeared and in whose seed,

personal and incarnate, the whole world was to be blessed.

Abraham' s per sonality is the explanation of the monothei sm

of

the three greate st religion s in the world. He stands out in

majestic proportion, as Max 1'1uller says, as a figure, second

only to One in the whole world' s history. Apart from that



•

•

•

•

D octrinal

Value

of F irst Chapters

,of Gene,sis·

89

•

•

p,1·ornise

the m,iracu1ous history of the Hebr

1

ew

,race is inex

p1icab1e. In him c,enter ,s,, and on him hangs, the c,entra1 fact

of the

who,Je

of

the

Old Te stament,

the

pr ,omise of t he S,a-

viour

and

His glorious salvation. ( Gen. 11 :3; 22 :18; Gal.

3:8-16.) · -

In an age, th

1

ere,for ·e, when the

1

cri·tics are waxing bo1d in

claiming settledness

fo.r

.the

assured results o·f their

hypothetic

eccentricities, Christian s should wax bolder in contending

earnestly for

the

as sured results

of

the revelation in

the open-

ing chapters of

Genesis. ·

The

attempt

o:f

modernism

to

save

the

supernatural

in

the second part of the Bible by mythicalizing

the super

natural

in the

first p,art, is

a.s

unwise

a,s it

is fatal. Ins ,tead

of lowering

tl1e

dominant of faith amidst the choru s

of

doubt,

and admitting

that

a chapter is doubtful

beca·use

some

doc-

·tr1naire

has questioned it, ,or a ·do,ct1·ine is les.s authentic be-

cause s.omebody

has flo,ated

an

unve1·ifi.able

h.ypothesi .s,

it

would

be

better to take our stand with such men as Romanes,

Lord Kelvin, Vire .how, and Liebig, i·n the ·ir ideas of a Creative

Power, and to side with Cuvier, the eminent French scientist,

who said that Mo,ses, while brought up in all the science

of Egypt, was superio :r to h.is .age, and has l,ef

t

us a cos

mogony, the exactitude of which verifies itself every day in

a

reasonable nianner; with Sir William Dawson,

the

eminent

•

Canadian scientist, who declared that Scripture in all its de-

tails contradicts no received result o·f science, but anticipates

ma.ny of its discove1·ies.;. with Prof ess

1

or D,ana, , the e1ninent ·

•

American scientist, who said, after examining the first chapters .

of Genesis as a geologist, I find it to be in perfect accord with

known science ; or, best of all, with Him who said, Had ybu

believed

Moses,

you would have believed Me, £or he wrote of

Me. But if you believe not his writings, how shall you be-

1ieve My words?~ (John S :45, 46j)

•

•

•

•

...



CHAPTER VII

THE

KNOWLEDGE

OF

GOD

BY

REV. DAVID JAMES BURRELL, . D.

D., LL. D.,

MINISTER OF THE MARBLE COLLEGIATE CHURCH, NEW YORK

CITY

The man who does not know God has not begun to live.

He may eat and drink, make merry, accumulate a fortune

or wear a crown; but he has not entered into that better life

of high hopes and noble purpo ses and aspirations which make

us worthy of our Divine birthright. For "this is life enternal,

to know God."

To put ourselves into just relati9ns with God is literally a

matter of life or death. All the ologies are worth mastering

but THEOLOGYs indispensab le. We must know God.

But where is He? "Oh, that I knew where · I might find

Him Behold, I go forward but He is not there, and back

~1ard but I cannot perceive I-Iim; on the left hand where He

doth work, but I cannot behold Him; He hideth Himself on

the right hand so that I cannot see Him " The horizons

recede as we approach them, and the darkness thickens as

we grope like blind men feeling their way along the wall.

There are three roads which are vainly trodden by multi:

tudes who pursue thi s holy quest. Each of them is marked,

"T his way to God"; .and ,each of them is a cul de sac or

blind alley, which leaves the soul still groping and crying,

"Oh, that I knew where I might find Him "

The first of these paths is Intuition

There are no natural atheists. All are born with an

in-

dwelling sense of God. We do not enter on conscious life

like the inferior orders; but "tra iling clouds of glory do we

come from God who is our horn

en

In regions of darkest

paganism there are traces of two innate convictions; namely,

00



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

· a Divine birth and a sinful a]ienatiOn. Hence the universal ·

spirit of unrest so pathetically

expressed by Augustine:

''We

came forth from God, and. we shall be homesick ·until

we

re-

•

turn to· Hinri.''

No doubt there l1ave

been

some who, with no

Jight

but

t l1at wl1icI1shine·s along the pathway of Intuition, h.ave, made

the ·

acquaintance

of Go'd ;

but

the

vast

multitude

have simply ·

arrived at idolatry. They have made unto themselves gods

'''after t11e similitude of a man''; gods, like the Bro ,cken o,f

the Ha1·z mountains , p1·ojected on tl1e skies. An idol is a man

made god. It may be carved out of wood or conjured out

of the gray matter

of

tl1e brain; but a11 gods, whencesoever

. they co,me, are i,dols, except the one true God.

•

•

Tlie

second p thw y

of

tlie God-seekers is

Reason .

He,re we come upon the

p·hilosophers

and

thos ,e wh

1

0

travel

witl1 them, This also leads to disa·ppointment; as· it is writ- ·

ten, ''

1

The wor1.d

by

wisdom knew not God''.

The golden age of philosophy in Greece fo11owed close

•

on the decay of the Pantheon.. It was when the people had

lost confidence in their idols and the cry was heard, '~Great

•

Pan

is d,ead

I''

that

the

Groves ,and G.ardens an,d Painte ,d.

Porches

arose

on the hanks of the Ilyssus. The thoughtful

1nen who assumed th·e

na111e .Philosoplioi

that is, ''lovers of

wisdom'', were all seekers after God. The Stoics, Epicureans,

Cynics and Peripatetics all hoped

to

discover Him

by

the

light of reason. Ho,v vain the quest

When Sim.onides ,vas asked for a definition of

God, he

required some weeks for meditation and then

anSwered,

''The

mo1·e

I t·hink

of

Him, the

more

He

is

unl<n,own I The ·in

numerable , gods and altars of Athens had been laughed out

of court; and the r·esults of philosophic inquiry were reco·rded

on that other altar which

succ,eeded

them, ''To

the Unknov,n

. God'' ,~

•

• •

The stock 1n trad

1

e 0

1

f

the pht]o,,ophers of Athens was

•

•

•



\

Se1 ises.; that is, of Natt11·a] Science, wl1ich reache ·s its con-

clusions on

the ·

evidence

of tl1e

physical senses.

This rules out faith, which is the

sixth sense

divinely

given to

men for the ·

apprehension ~f spiritual truths. To

undertal,e to

solve a11yof the grea ·t problems

which have to

.

do with .our spiri tu,a.1 life

by

th,e

testimony

o;f

the

fin_ger

tips

is to l1ave one s labor

£01·

one s . pains; since, in the nature

of

the

cas·e,. ,,·s,piritual

,thing s are

spirituall .Y discerned .

T·o1·.

undertake to grasp

a spiritual

fact

by

the

p hysical

senses

is as preposterous

as

it

woi1ld

be

to

insi.st

on

se,eing

with

the ears or

he·aring with

the eyes. Faith i.s

not. cr,edu1ity,

nor

is

i·t

unsubstantial, n

1

or is it

belie·ving witl1out ,evidence..

On the

contrary,

it is

both substantia l

an,d

evidential:

only

i·t

is the substance of . things

hoped

for, the evid,en

1

ce

of

t.hings

not seen .. To

reft1se

to · exercis ,e

this .sixth

sense or

. power of spiritual . apprehension

is

to

sl1ut oneself out

for-

ever £ om the

possibility of

appr

1

eh·e11ding

Go

1

d

~r·

a·ny

o,f

the great, intangible, but real

truths

which center ·in

Him.

Yet we are constant]y hearing, in certain quarters, of

the

in1portance of pttrsui11.g

ott r

theological studies

by the

scien-

tific method . With wl1at result? W ,e have a world of ·

facts , tl1ey say, and fro .m. the se facts,

by

the

inductive

pr ,ocess, we rn·ust arrive

.at

our

conclusio ,ns .

It

is

like

an

example in

Algebra:

God is the

unknow n term ; let

this , be

expr ·essed

by

x : th ,e p

1

ro

1

hl

1

em then ~s to resolve x into

known terms by th ,e use of a multitude of seen and tangible

facts. Can

it

be

done?

G·o on and pursue yo,ur research ,es

along

the line ,s

of

evolution, until back of cosn,os you come to chaos,[

an.cl

back

of

chaos

to the

nebula, and

ha,ck

of

tl1e

neb11]a

o

the

primordial germ; a·nd that last infini ·tesimal atom will loo~ up

at you

with

t he ,old

question

on its

lips,

as

loud

as ever

and

involving

.a probl .em

as deep

as wl1en ,you began,

1

Whence

ca1ne I? What is your answer? God? Call it

1

God

if

yo ,u

please; in fact, however, it is s.imply an impersonal indefinable,

inescapable something or

otl1,er which,

for l.ack of a

better

•

•

•



•

•

•

94 The Fundamentals ·

•

•

t,erm, is designated as a ''First

1

Cause'', h'ut which is infinitely

far ·from what is meant by a

perso11al

God. .

W 'elJ, then, s

1

hall the

quest be

given

up

?

Is

the universal

thought of God merely an ignis f atiius leading the hopef ttl

traveler into a r

1

eal111

f impenetr ,abie mists and shadows ?

Or

•

is there .still some way of finding , out God?

Yes,

there

is a foiirth road ·by w

lii ch we approacliRini; and

.

it is an liighway cast up by the King ,Hiinself. It is, calle~

Revelation , or tlie Unveiling.

•

Th.ere i,s an antecedent

pr ·esumption

in its

f lav,or;

to

wit,

that if there is a ,God anywhere in the universe He would not

Jea:ve us ~o gr

1

ope

QUr

way hopeles lsly

in

tl1e

dark towa,r·d Him, .

but would somewhere, somehow, unveil Himself to us,

· Well, her ·e ·is a Book, which claims to b

1

e Revelation. Of

all the books in the literature of the ages it is the only one that

claims to have been div·inely authorize

1

d and '',;v,ritten by holy ·

men as they were moved by the Spirit of God''.

It opens with tl1e words, ''In the begin11ing,God''; and pro

ceeds to set forth the tw

1

0 great doc,trines of Creat ,ion and

Providence. It affirms, on the on

1

e hand, that everything in the

universe ha ,s

its,

origin in

the

1

creative powe ,r

0

1

f

G,od.; and, 0

1

n

the other, , that everything is sustained

by

·the providence of

God. .

In these two doctrines we have the sum and

sub.stance

of

Bibl

1

e, truth. But

thi.s

is not all. In b

1

etwe

1

en tl1,e do,ctrines of

Creatio

1

n and Providence there walks, through all the co,rridors ·

of Holy 'Writ, a my s,terious Figure who is

the

foregleam of

anotl1er

revelation further on. At th~ outset this Figure

appears in the protev ,angel as the ''See ,d of Woman'•, who is

to come in the

fulln ,ess

of time

to ''bruise

the serpent's

hea,d'''.,

An

1

d He appears and re-appears, n,ow in

l{ingly

guise, again

as

a man of sorrows an.d acquainted . with gri ,ef, and again with

a.

name written on His ves.ture,

' 'Emmanu~l '',

which being inter-

•

preted is '' ,God ·with us''. ·

This Book, claiming to be the written Word of God, mal<es

•

•



•

•

•

•

The Kno·wledge of

God

us acquainted

with

His

being,

personality a·nd

rnora·1 attri bu·tes ;

bttt it does not exhaust the theme. It leads us along· a road,

li,ghted

h.Y

visions

and prophecies,

untiJ

it

opens

into another

and

cl.earer

roa,d;

to

wit, The Incarnat ,e Word of God, .

And this fifth road t.he Inca-rnation is the way which all

tru th-seekers mi.is t·pursue

if

they would fina.lly arrive

at

a just

and sa·ving kn0:wledge of God.

I·t js he·re that we ·me·et Christ,

bringin lg

th

1

e mes

1

sage from

the

throne .. He comes

into

our

worl\d

with

t·he expi ess purpose

of making · God l<nown to us; as it is written, No man hath

seen God at any time ; the only begotten Son whi

1

ch is i~ the

bosom of .the

Father,

He

ha·th declared Him .

He is called the Word, because He is the mediu

1

m of con»-

•

mt1ni,cation be.tween the Infinit ,e and the finite ; as it is written,

In

the

beginning

wa.s

tl1e

Word,

and

the

Word

was with

God,

and the Word was

God ;

and the Word was. made

flesh

and

dwe,Jt among us :

th .at is

1

to s,ay,,

the In ,carnation .

is

1

the articula

tio·n of the s,peech

1

0f ,Gad.

In the Scripture s we have a. l.etter from

1

God; but in

the

•

Incarna tion, we have the coming down of God to

unveil Him,-

self befor·e us. ·

The sottl o,f sinf ul man is like a child lost among strangers,

wild-eyed , lips trembling, eyes

searchi11g

vain]y for a familiar

.face.

Al1, l1ere

t·he

motlier ,com.es

I Ahd the

child

is sobbi·ng

•

out its happiness on her breast. Cuddle doon,

my bairnie 1 ,

So is

it

when

the

sinner find.s Christ;

or

sh,all

we not rather

say, when Chri st, th,e seeking God, finds l1im?

If, th

1

en., we a,re ever to

1

Iea.rn the .ology it mu st be ,as di,s

cip1es,

sitting

in a

docile attitude

at

the

feet of

Cl1rist.

He,

a.s

the i11carn.ate Son, is our authoritative Teacher, What,

there£

ore , ha s He to

say about God?

- As to

Hi s

be·ing, He

has little

1

or nothing

to

say;

for

the

obvious rea son that God s being is the s11b·trattun of Christ ~

entire doctrine, with out which it

,vould

be as

insignificant

•

•

•

•



I

•

•

•

•

•

96

•

•

teaching is postulated on the written Word, , o,f whic ,h He s,aid,

•

Search the Scriptures; for in them

ye

think

ye

have et

1

e1~nal

l

life; and they are they which testify of Me.

And

the moment

we turn from . tl1e I·ncar11ate Word t

1

0

the wri ·tten

Wor ,d, we

come ·upon the saying,

In

the beginning, God .

A.s to the moral att1·ibutes of God, the teach .ng of Jesus is

indUbitabiy

clear. God is a spirit , He says, and they that

· worship Him 1nust worship Him in spirit and in truth . It

11eed

scarc ,e1y

be said tl1at a. spirit,

t.hough invisible

and

impal

pable, is a real

s,elf-conscious

personality. The communion of

Jesus with this Spirit is that of one person with another. He

do,es,

not

s,p,ealc to

Law,

n,ot t

1

0

E·ne·r·gy, nor to, an ind 1

efinab]e

Something not

ou1~selves

that

maketl1

for right ,eousness , but

to One

with whon1

He is

on familiar terms. The only be

gotten Son which is in

t}ie b.0

so111 f the Father He hath de-

cla1·ed

Him . .

Asj to Divine providence I-Ie speaks i11 no t1nce1·tain tone~

The God whom He unveils is in .and ·ove1~all. Out on the

hillsides H ,e bi ·ds t1s Consider tl1e lilies,, how tl1ey grow , and

assures : us that 0~1r Father, who eareth f or

tl1em,

will muct1

more

care

for us . In pursuance of

this

fact

He

encourages

us

to pray, saying, Ask and it shall

be

given you, seek

and

ye

sl1all

find,

knock -

and

it

sha]]

be

opened

unto

you .

Oh,

great

heart of the Infinite, quick to respond to our every cry

for

l1elp The doctrine of prayer, as taught by Jesus, is simplicity

itself. We are to run to God with our longings as children to

their parents;

For

if ye, being evil, know how to give

gooc1

gift ,s unto YOUr c.hiidren, how much mor

1

e sha.11you.r

Fatl1er

•

which is in heaven give good things to them

that

ask

Him''.

As to

th ,e moral attributes

of God the

tea

1

ching of

Jesus

is

not

only

clear but most emphatic; be

1

1use at this point it

toucl1es vitally our eternal welfare. The Divine holiness is

pr ,esented not so .much as .an a·tt·ribute as the condition

of

God s

being. It is the light emanating from I-Iis thr 1n

1

e, of whicl1

Christ is the supreme n1anif

estatio .n,

as He said, I am

the



•

9

light

of

t·he

world' '' ;

and

this light must ever be reflected in

the life of

His dis.ci·ple.s,

.as He said, ''Ye a.re the ligl1t

of

the

world ; let your

light

so shine

before

men

that

they may see

your good works and glorify God''. This holiness is not merely

freedom

from moral

contamination; but

sucl1 a

se·nsit ·ive,

aver

sion to sin as makes it impossible for God to 100k with

com

plac1·ncy u·po,n any cre~·ture ,vl10 is defiled by

it.

Hence the

appeal . o the

cultivati ,on

of .a ho1y life; since '',vithout holiness

no

man

sha.lI

s·ee Go,d''.

Out of this

atm :os.phere

of

holiness

proceed two attributes

\vhi,ch, like op ·ening arms ,,

embr,ace

the world.

1

0ne of

th,em

is Justice, or regard for la\iv. No teacher · ever lived,

·11ot

even

.Mo,,e,s, wh·o emphasized as deeply as d.i,d Jesus t.he integrity of

the mo·ra.1 law. He de,fended not only the law its.elf but th

1

e

penalties affixed to its violation. The Deca1ogue is not so

sev,ere an arraignmen ·t

1

0£

sin

as the

S,ermo

1

n on the ,

Moun.t,

which rings with the inviolability of law.

The other of

the

1

outstretched arm :s is Love. The

fullne .ss

of D

1

ivine love is set

fo·rth

in the words of Jesus: ''When ye

pray sa.y, 'Our Fat .her', .,. It was wisely

obs.erve

1

d by Mad .ame

de .Stael that if Jesus had nev,er do,ne an)rthing in the w·orld

except

to

teach us

''Our Father''

He wo,uld h.ave

,conferred

·an

· inestimable boon upon a11 the children of men.

God~s love

is

manifest i.n the unceasing gifts of His providence; but its

crowning token is the grace of salvation : ''God so loved the

world that He g3.ve H is only begotten

Son

that whosoever

believeth in Him shou1d not perish but h.ave everlasting life''.

And the reconciliation between Love and Justice is found

at the

1

Cro.ss,

Here ''mercy

and

truth

are

me.t

togeth ,er ;

rigl1t

eousness and peace have kissed each other''. As law is s.acred

an,d

invio1able,

i.ts

pen .alty

m.ust b,e inflicted; it

must

be. inflict,e

1

d

e1the·r upon the male·£acto,r 01· upon some

com·petent

substitut e

who sha.11volunteer

to

st1ffer fqr

him.

It i,s

the only begotten

S,on who ,

vo]u·nteers,

sayi·ng, ''Here am I, send Me '' The justice ~

'of God is shown in the suff er ,ng inflicted upon His only begot-

•

•

•

•



r t

..

•

'

•

•

• •

•

98

•

..

•

ten Son; and Hi ,s l,ove is corre ,spondingly shown in 'the

proffer

of all tl1e 'be].J.efits of that vicarious suffering to every one on

the

so,Je condition

of

faith. . ·

. It pleased God to vindicate Hi~ supre me maj ·esty before Iiis ,

an

1

cien·t peop ·te in the controversy on Carmel. All day the paga?3

p,riests assemb led at their altar cried, . ''O Baal, l1ear us'' : but

·t'here was no voice nor any that regarded. At evening tl1e

lone p

1

ro

1

pl1

et

of J

l1ovah

stood be s.ide his altar and calmly n1ade

l1is prayer, ''0 God of Israel, . let it be known tl1is day that

Thou a1·t God '' Was there any tI1at· r,egar 'ded?

Lo,

yonder

in t11e twilight sky a falling fleece of fire In awe-struclc

silence. t11e people saw it desc ,ending, lower ,and lower, until it

touched the sacrifice and cons11medit. The lo,gic of the argu

ment was ir1·esistible: they cried with one accor

1

d, ''Jehovah

i,s the Go,d '' .

The antitype and parallel of that great controversy is at

Calvary, ,vl1ete Christ, at once the ministering p

1

riest and the

sacrifice upo n tl1e alta1·, made I-Iis last prayer with hand s out

st ·retcl1ed upon

the cros .s ; and

the desce11di11g

ire consumed

14im as a wl1.0Ie burnt 0

1

ffering for the w,orld's sin. The logic,

here .also, is un ,answerable. In all the world

t'her ,e

is no

othe ·r

gospel

\Vl11cl1

dequately sets fortI1 the

Divi11e

love*

By

the

power of truth,

by

the trii1mph of

righteousness,

by

the

logic

of events, by the philosophy of history, by the blood of the

atonement, . let the world answ ,er, ''Our God is the God of

sa lvati o11; and th.ere is none otl1er beside Him ''

Tl1e fai lure of other religions and philosophies has been

•

grote ·squely pathetic: The irony of Elijah on C'armel is merely ·

•

an ecl10 of '

tl1e

D

1

ivine bttrs ,t

of

laughte ,r

out of

heaven

in

respons ,e to tl1ose who cry ,: ''Let us br

1

eak Hi ,s band asunder

and cast away I-Iis, cor

1

ds f r,o,m us ." He

th,at

si,tteth in the

I1eavens sha ll laugh; the Lord shall have them in derision. ·

Th ,e pantheo ·ns cr ,umble an ,d the pri

1

ests die; one altar remains,

to wit, tl1e cross on C'alvary. It is the sole altar and supreme

argum

1

ent of tl1e true God .



•

I

•

..

•

•

•

CHAPTER

VIII

•

•

•

·PREACH THE WORD

•

•

One of the latest · njunctions of the aged

Paul,

just

before

his martyrdom, was that to Timo

1

thy, which constitutes tl1e

text of my address, Preach the Word. Thirty years of

Christian experience, fifteen years of aPostolic survey, and

th

1

e inspiration

of

the Holy Ghost, all spoke in

those words.

It was a command frolll heaven itself, no

1

t to

Timothy only,

but to

all

who fill the

·0

1

ffice of evan ,gelists or preachers in

th ,e

N

e W

Test.ament

Church, The order thus SUCcinctly

given, is a condensation of ,all that Paul had said to

Timothy

or to the Church on the subject ojf preaching .

The sound or h,ealthy doctrine on which he lays so much

StreSS, and

the

avoi

1

dan

1

c,e

0

1

f fables and

t.he

world s

wi,s1dom,

,ar

1

e both included in

this curt command.

There

has

been

a

tend

1

en

1

cy from the very beginning to con£ orm the doctrine

of Christ to the , philosop,hy of man, to fuse the two together,

and to show that all religion,s ha ·ve the . same Divin

1

e element

at th

1

eir roots. T :hi.s was seen in gnosticis ,mt in the Alexi-

andrian school of Clement and Origen, and in a score of

heresies that .sprang up within the later Church.

· The distinctive ,character of Christianity

has

displeased

the philo ,sophic

min

1

d,, and .

men

h,ave

sought :

to ·explain

aw aY

many

of its f eatu·res f ro·m

the standpoint

of

the

human cot1-

sciousness and

by

an appeal to the teachings of nature. These

efforts have certain marks in ·commo

1

n. They diminish the

heinousness of

sin, they exaggerate

the

p,owers

of

man,,

a11d

they suggest a

unif :or·mi.ty

of destiny. Sin

i,s a

d

1

efect,

perhaps

a disease , The defect can be supplied, the dise,ase can be

cured by human applications, the Divine help being

valuable

as encouragement to the human effort. High civilization and

•

•

100



•

Preach the Wor

d

101

•

moral ref

1

orm are what man needs, an

1

d t.hes .e can be obtained

by the use of general principles common to our race, of which

Christianity is

only

one of

the for .ms.

It is natural and inevitable ti1at, with this teaching, the

written Wo

1

rd

o·f Go

1

d-should be ne,gl

1

ected, if n

1

ot ign

1

ored. No

one can

s,tudy

that Word and then ttse

it

for so broad and

indiscriminati ·ng a p·urpose. No one can study that

Word

an1d the -n be

contented

with ,a s11perficialpo1ish of

society,

and

a universal brotherhood founded upon such a scheme. Paul

s,aw this

tende ·ncy in

his

own day, and

he warns

t,he.

C.hurch

earnestly against it.

Beware,

is l1is, language Beware

lest

an,y

man spoil

you

through

phil ,osophy

and vain deceit,

after the tradjti ,on of

men.,

after

the

rudiments of the world,

and not after Christ ( Col. 2 :8) . The

evil prin

1

ciple is ever

at work. Hu .man , nature is ever

the

same.

The

Church is

a]ways

subject to

the

same ,efforts of human

nature

witl1in

itself to .remove tl1e

f,oundations of

grace and substitute the

inventions

of p·ride.

Whether i t ap·pear in the form of hier

archical assumption, or in the chara

1

cter of rational inquir ,y

and scientific r~search ., the evil principle hides,

mutilates,

or

Contr ,ad:icts the Ho,Jy Scripture. The [Scriptures, as they are,

with th

1

eir Divin

1

e claim and their uncompromising , teachings,

it cann

1

ot endure ,, and the ap,peal

to

1

.S,cripture

it

1

counts

las .

,a

m,ark of credulity and an exhibition of i,g11.orance.

One of the sa

1

dd

1

est sights in the Church of Christ is the

yiel,ding to this spirit of prid .e on the part . of the ordained

preachers of

the

Wo ·rd.

Many modern Timothys

·usii

the

pulpit for

dis,course .s

on

art

an

1

d literature ; ,others take the

opportttnity for the display of r hetoric and oratory; o,tl1ers

procJ,aim

an ethics

of ,expediency ; while Sti11 othe1·s seek

1

only

to tickle the ears

of

an audience that desires to be amused.

In all this you look in vain for the Go,spel.

Plato

or Aris

totle,

and ,

in

some cases Lt1.cian, ,

could have said it a11~

Churches are filled

by

a

1

pp

1

ealing to

1

carnal

1

desires and aesthetic

•

t,astes. Bri11iant oratory, scientific music, s

1

en,sational topics

•

•

I

-

•



f

•

•

•

•

•

•

102

The Fundamentals

•

•

•

•

and

·fas'hionable

pew holders, are the baits

to

lure people

in·to

the

churcl1es

1

and

a church is called

p

1

rosperous

as

these

wretched d

1

e·vices

succe

1

ed.

The

preacher

deligl1ts

to· get

him~

.self int ,o

the

11ewspap

1

er an

1

d he accom ·modates

his

preach ing

to the newspaper level. Sucl1 churches will, o,f course, have

worldly-mi ·nde,d.

0

1

ffi·cers

a·n.d

a. worldly~minded

membership,

while godly sou ls either flee from ' them, or else 1nrourn

in

secret, if the.y are not tl1emselv

1

es chilled by the lack of Go·spel

heat.

It

is

directly again st

all

this

that the holy

apostle utters

his clarion cry

down throug ·h the ages, ''Preach the Wo,rd.,'

What

is the

Woi'd?

It

i.s

n.ot man's philo sophy

n,or

man's

rhetoric. It is the Divine revelation. It is called '

the

Word

.

of

God,I be

1

cause

it is no·t of m.an. As God's , it has

both

authority and povver--g utho

1

rity to demand attention, and

power to

convert

and

save tl1e soul.

It is

not to

be

pounded

in ma11's n1,orta1 . n.or run into

1

man' ,s .mould. It is

not

to be·

•

•

twi sted and fitt

1

ed to n1an's preconceived

ideas. ·

It is not to ·

be filtered thro -ugh man's strainer, nor mixed with man's

conc

1

eits. It ·is.

1

God's and as ·(;-od' 's l

1

et

110

.n1an

d.a.re

add t

it, or take

from it,

or alt,er

it

in any way. The Lor

1

d Jesus

stands b y His cross, where He offered up tl1e sacii--

fice for si,n, ,and poin·ts b.ac.kward to t·he-

1

01d T,estan1ent,

and forward to the New, as alike the Word of God.

0£

t11e forme ,r

He

cries,

''S

1

earch

the Scriptttres'';

o

the latter He tell s }Iis

apost'les

that the · Paraclete

would

come a11d

teach them all things, and

tl1ey

shou ld bear

witness.

Thi s

Old

and N

1

ew Testament is one

reve.lation o·f

God one Bible one uner1·ing· rule of faith. Goc;Ih.as not

given us a

doubtful

and

deceitful

light

for

0

1

ur path.

He

has

not ,given tts a bundle of t.ruth and fabJe tied up

1

together~

He has not left us to our weak and ,discordant reason, and

thus made revelation sup,erfluous. He has given His people a

'"s,ure word d·f pro ,phec.y'' as the only reasonab

1

]e

guide ,for

I

. ou r wealc reason and o·ur sinful natures; and on this

sure

_.

•



•

.

,

•

Preach the Word

•

103

•

•

Word is His Church built. The doctrines ,of grace have

. neithe ,r h11man origin

no,r

human support . They are alto

gether Divine,

and are

r

1

ec,eived

only

by

th

1

e

soul

th ,at

becomes.

partaker of

the Divine natute.

To

go:, there£

ore,

to

human

philosophy or to man s inne1· consciousness for · their con

firmation

01·

exp ,lanation, is

to go to the

sentenced criminal

•

to understand

tl1e

exce,llences of criminal law.

Tl1e

error

of e,r,ro

1

·r·s is the see~ing fo

1

r th

1

e

truths

of

religion ·from ma ,n.

It is, but the adaptatio ,n

of

religion to ,

the

carnal heart. It

is t·he essence

0

1

£

pride and

1.

ebellion ag,ainst

God.

Thousands

of tomes have , been Written by men who called themselves

•

Christia .n s,cholars and Chri sti,an p,hilosophers, wl1ich are but

·volumes of C

onf ,t1.ing n1etap,hysics

and . specious rationalizing

,from the

basis of

natural exper ien

1

c,e, ,and ,vl1ich hav

1

e under-

. mined fai ·th in the Wo ,rd o.f God, and utterly perve ·rted ·the

Gospel of

Christ.

Stud

1

ents

of

Christian

theology

waste

pr

1

ecious time

in studying the

works

of these

1

conceited thin k

ers, whose

nam

1

es

are lauded ,as. those of giants in the

Church,

while the y are ,corrupting

the

pulpit

and

secu larizin ,g

th

1

e pew.

•

, It is a favo1·ite cl1ar·g,e of

the

advocat es 0

1

f

this lo,osenes \s

that

we are worshipping a

Boal{.

Bibl ·iolatry

is

the

for

mi1dable

word. that

they cast at us.

But

we worship no book.

We

o

wo,rsh .ip, God who sent

the

Book, and

it

is no t.rue

worship,

of

1

G,od th,at sligl1ts

th

1

e

Bo

1

ol<:

whi1h H,e give,s.

I£

We

ho·nor God,

we s

hall

l1onor tl1e

W

01·d He

has ,

sent,

and

we .shall be jealous f or that Word, that not one ·jot or one ·

tittle of it be

1

disturbed by the vagaries of dreamers or · the

impio

1

u.s hands of

boas,tin,g

critics.

It

i,s the Word of Goel,

· an1d,1as

s,uch,

we

shall

not allo·w,

f

1

or a

moment,

the

specula- .

tions, imaginings, a·nd guesses of men,, ever ·

S

1

0

lea1·ned, to

weigh a feat her s weight against it. They have been con

victed

over and

over again of

grossest

fallacies in

their

hot

end.ea,vor to detract from the influ

1

ence of the ho1y ·Word,

and their

criticisms

have

returned upon th ·emselves to

thei1·

conf ·usion. What gros .s absttr ·dities

l1av.e

been

p,r·omulga.ted

•

•

•

•

•



•

•

104

The Fundament als

•

by

the se

learned enemies

of

R,evelation ·

Myth,

roman,ce, the

fiction

of poe

try,

,a

patchwork of tra

1

ditions, contradictory rec

ords,

pious

fraud,

these are

some of the labels -hat the strut

·ting pride of man has affixed to the

books

of the

Bible,

while ·

not

one of

his

sneei:s ha s been sustained in the light , of

honest criticism. No scientific truth has been found op--

•

posed, and no historic truth misstated, in all the sacred writ-

ings, f r0m Moses to

John.

The

most microscopic investiga

tio11s

have been made by the most

eager

and

learn ,ed enemies,

0£

the truth in order

to,

find some inaccuracy, but

not

one

has,

been discovered, except those

necessaril.y

res ,ulting from the

process of transcrip ·tion,

an,d

th

1

ose

imaginar ,y ones whic'h are

perf

e,ct,ly

re solv,able by ordinary common

s,en,se.

Apply thes,e

tes ,ts to the

Veda,s,

the Avesta, or the Koran, and the

c,on,ra ,st

is ove,rwhe1m1ng. These fairly bristle with -error and

f1lse- ·

hood, , but the Bible · comes

o~t fro,m t,he crucibl,e·

Witho~ ,t

spot,

•

as the pur ,e Word of

1

God. Men

just .

a,s learned a,s the

inimical critic ,s, and jus ,t as

thorou ,gh ,i:n

their

iriv,esltigation,

men known and

revered in the

world of

let.ter'S,1

h,ave accep,ted

the Bible ,, the

whole

Bible,

as,

the inerrant truth

0

1

f God,, I'f

the

verdict

of

the

inimical

critic s

,can,

be

tl1us

set

aside

in an

equally learned

1

Court, the 1

1

esult shows

that

their learning

· goes

for

nothing

in

th

1

e matter. ·

But far above all this te stimony to the letter is the wit

ness of millions who have found the joy unutterable , ,and the

· peac

1

e which pas ,se.th all understanding in the sacred Volume,

and who , are drawn to i·t as

a

child is drawn t,o

its

father,

without ques ,tion regarding

l1is

worth

and authority. They

never suppo se ( and the position is a

right

one) that the

fountain

that

refreshes their

soul

is defective or corrupt, but

they value its every drop a s a gift of the

Divine gr,ace.

They

go constantly to its bles sed waters and always derive strength ·

from the dra,u,gh,t. To

s,ucl1

the ca1·plng critics are as

u11-

wo,rthy 0£

regard as tho

1

se, who wou.l,d argue against the: sun

shine.

The

knowledge of the hear·t is a ,prof

ound,er

thinr.



•

Preach the

Word 105

than

the ·k.nowled,ge

of

the head, and,

in

the Spirit--led dis

ciple, can

correct and rebuke the errors

of

the latter.

Now,

it

is this

holy

Word, thus spo

1

tless

and

thus

powerful

for

right ie,ousness .and

1

comfort, that t.he Christian preacher is

to pr ,each. The

preacher

is a procl ainie·r, a

herald,

no

t

a col·

legie prof ie,ssor or an

or(ginator of theories.

H

1

e has the Word

g.iven

.h,,.m,.

and

that

he , is to

proclaim. He

isl

not

to draw

from the wells of h·uman philosophy, but from the

stream

th,at

flows ·dir,ec·tly from the throne

1

0£ God. He is to tell the

peo,ple what God has s.ai.d. He is to hide 'himse·tf behind

his message, and to receive it equally with those he addresses. ·

Nor i.s tlie pre

acher ]he mouthpiece of a Church t

0

issite

ecclesiastical decrees a id fitlminate ec,clesiastical cenSt.Wes.

This is as fa·r from

preaching

the Word as the other. As ,a

herald of Chr ,ist, while

tl1,ere is

nothing bef

1

ore him

but

human

hear ,ts

and

consciences

to

appeal

to

1

,.

there ·

is nothing , behind

him but the revealed

W

or

1

d

0

1

f

God to utter and enforce.

All Church commands laid upon him as to his ·preaching are . .

as nothing

except

·as

they

are

1

conformed ·to

that

Wor

1

d.

He

is responsible as a

herald to

God

and not

to the

Churcl1t

He is God's he·rald and not

tl1

e·

Church' ,s.

The

same

rea ,son

that

f

o,rb,ids him . ro,m making th,e pe.ople' 's, approbation the

guide to his preaching wi.11 forbid him from m.a'king Church

authori .ty

the guide ..

He will be happy

to

please

both

peo.ple

and a11thorities,

but

he

cannot ·make that

pleasing a criterion

or standard. His duty is above all that. His allegiance is

higher.

IN THUS LIMITING HIMSELF T

1

0 THE PREACHING OF GOD'S

WORDJ THE , PREACHER IS NOT

1

CIRCUMSCRIBING

HIS POWER,

BUT ENLARGING IT. By the j:ealous

use

of ·

that

Word alone

he will accomplish f'ar more for

the

k·ingdom of Christ and

the salvation of men

than

by

mixing

human

expedients

with

the Word. H ·u·ma·n e·xpedients a·re very specious ,and

at

tractive,

and,

alas

many p,r·eachers

betake

themselve .s

to them.

They think

they

will ~tt ·ract th.e m.ultit .ude and fill up the pews

•



•

..

•

•

106

The Fundamen tals

•

f

and prOduce

a

larger rental;

and so they may,

but

these are

not the

objects

for

which the Lord

sent

out

His

heralds.

Success

is not

to

be reckoned

by

full

houses

and popular

applause,

but

by

convicted

and converted

hearts, and

b)f

the ,

strengthening of the

faith

and piety of God's people. A

· holier

life, a more

pronounced

separation

from

the

world,

a

stainless integrity

in

business

pursuits, a

Christly

devotion

to

the

interests

of

others,

a moie

thorough

know edge of the

Word these

are

the true signs

of

success which

the preacher

may justly

seek, even though he

wear

ho1nespttn

and his

people

meet

in

a

barn.

These

are

the

glorious

results

which

tl1e

conse ·crated soul wil,l p

1

ray £0

1

1·,

and in th

1

em .h,l will re-

•

j'<?icewith a pure ,r, holier joy tha ,n

that

wl1ich

c,omes

fr ·o·tn .

numbers, wealth, or popular admiration .

,

IF THE PREACHER PREACHES THE WORD ONLY, THEN BE

WILL TEAC:fI HIS J?EOPL,E

TO HANDLE THE

WORD

-to folloW

him

in his reading

and expounding to study

over

the

Scrip·

ture lesson

at, ho,me,

and to

p1ay its

blesse

1

d

truths into their

souls. A people will, in this

way, become

mighty in the

Script~tres; and he who is n1ighty in the Scriptures is a mighty

power

for Christ

and

salvati ,on, and

i:n l1i,

own sottl ,vi,l,l ha"·e

. a full experience of the power of Divine truth, deriving it

•

directly from its

source,

and

proving

how the entrance

of

· · God's

Word giveth light.

S'TILL

AGAIN,

IF

THE

PREACHER PREACH

THE

)VORD

ONLY,.

HE W'ILL . HIMSELF ' BE A DILIGE~TT STUDENT OF THE \V0

1

RD.. ·

He will

bathe

in God's

revelation

and be permeated by

it]

and so be proof against all the

shafts

of

ignorance

and con

ceit. He will become familiar with every detail of the sacred

history,

chronology, ethnology,

geography, prophecy, precept,

and doctrine., and will

take

nothing

at second

hand.

He

will not go t,o P

1

ope or Council, nor to Calvin or. Schleier

macher, to

kn,ow

what to preach, but his

de]igI1t

will

be

in

. the law of the Lord, and in I-Iis law will he meditate

day

and .

night ,. .

•



•

•

''Preach .the W.ord '

•

I

It

is a

lamenta rb,Ie

fact,

that in

too many

of our

seminaries

where preachers are prepared for their work, the _Word of

God

is, not

taught,

but

in its

st

1

ea,d

the

philosophic

schemes [

of so-called

1

fathers

and great

divines,

ar

1

e

given

as the

basis of doctrinal belief. It is t rue, th,at the se sche,m

1

es are

brought to the Scripture for support, and texts are quoted in

their

defence.

It is tru .e also

tha,t ,S0

1

me. of tl1ese sch

1

emes

are consoi:iant with Scripture more or less. But, with thes ,e

admissions ,, the mistake still

exi ,sts, that the Word of God

plays a secondary part in the instruction. It is not ta .ught ;

that is, it is n.ot made th,e authoritative text-book. It is e-ven

sometimes introduc

1

ed as a, .subje

1

ct f,or critici sm,, land men ·

like Reuss and Robertson Smith are brought ·

n

as ·the cri tical

guides o,r, at least, helpers ,. As

if

a school of the prophets

was intended to examine tl1e credentia ls ,of God s Word, , and

not

tor

take it

humbly

and

grateft1lly

for

personal

t1se

a·nd

for

use before

the people.

S

1

ome th~ological schools nlight without

1

exaggeration be

called schools for turning beli

1

ever ,s into doubters. The

excuse, that men wh,o

ar ,e

going to be

prea ,chers sh,ould know

all

that is said

against

the credibility, genuineness ., and au

th1nticity of

the Scriptures, is

a

flimsy one. If th .at were

the object,

tl1ese objec·tions wo·ul

1

d b

1

e

consrdered

only

b1y way

of parenth ,esis, and the overwhelming

evidence

of the

Scrip

tures would b

1

e the ·main current of tho,ught; but this is not

the way it is ,clone,. On

the

c,ontrary,

t·he

obj ,ections are ,

magnified, and their a,uthors are commended to the stud ents

f

o,r their perusal, and ·the hint is of ten thrown out that con- ·

servat ,ive

views

0

1

f

the inspiration

of

God s

Word

a1·e

an

tiquated,

o,bsolete,

and ma rks of ignorance. We have ~hus,

in · he very places where, most of all, Ye should expect to

see the profound ,est rev ,erence

for God s

Word, ,

and

its

faith-

£

ul study

for the understan

1

ding ·0

1

f the Div·ine

will, the

ma

chinery for un

1

dermining the doctrin ,e of Scripture inspiration ,

and

author ,ity,

on

whi ,ch all Chris ,tian truth

rests, an,d that,

•

•

•



108

The Fundamentals

too in the young minds which are being prepared to become

Christ s preachers to a sinful and dying world. It is a most

painful thought, and it becomes the Church of Jesus Christ

to arise to a sense of the evil, and to correct it before the ·

whole Church is poisoned by this insidious influence. ·

We wish our young Timothys to go out to their work with

the one controlling desire to put God s Word before the people

and to avoid questions ·and strifes of words which do not

minister to godly edifying, knowing that the power to con~

vert and edify is not the wisdom of man, but the power of

God.

In these days when so much is made of science, let them

leave science alone. All the knowledge of the material world,

which science deals in, has nothing to do with the soul s

salvation. That ·is in a different sphere altogether. While it

is in accordance with propriety that a p~eacher should have

a gene·ral acquaintance with life and things about him, w·hich

would include the main principles of natural science (which

is simply to say that he ought to be an educated man), yet

it

is not through material science that he is to teach heavenly

truths, nor is he to waste his time on protoplasm, bathybius,

and natural selection, into which and like sµbjects Satan

would gladly draw him, that he may not present the sub

jects of sin and the cross of Christ. If a preacher illustrate

Scripture doctrine from facts in the natural world, it is well.

He follows the Master s example. But i he puts the natural

world in its scientific aspects forward as the text of his

discourse, he is using a Bible of a very weak and uncertain

sort, and of which he knows very little, and he is making the

Word of God subordinate to his own inferences and guesses

from nature. Science and religion are too often spoken of

as if they occupied the same plane. Both those who say

they are antagonistic, and those who say they are at one,

equally talk of the two as on a level. You might as well

talk of bread-baking and religion as if they were co-ordinates.



•

•

•

Preach

tlie

Word .

109

Of

1

Course there is a. connection between science and r·eligion.

So the1~e s between bread-baking and religi

1

on. The s·cientiiic

•

man

ought

to be religiou :s.

So

ought

the bread~baker~

Science

can furnish examples of God·,s wo

1

nders in natu ·re. So ca11

bread-baking. But such c,onnec ·tio~s cannot put the subjects

on the .same . levre].,

Sc.ience is m,er,ely· the study of matte ·r, an ex

1

amination

into natural sequence ,s; b,ttt what has that to do witl~ man's

imm.01·tal soul, and the W or ·d of God to that soul ? Who , .

dares ·to bring the latter down to the level

of

the

f

orme .r?

What has th·e: a.nalysis of any body and its division into

carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen to

do

with my eternal relation

t.o God as a responsible and si·nf ul being? Why mingle

things so utterly d·iverse

?

And yet this babble abo

1

ut science

and r,eligion (wh

1

ere science is always ever put fir ,st) is heard

•

•

ad naus.eam

from those

who

are

commissioned

to preach the

Word. Is this

Paul's . w.ay?

Is this

.John's way?

Is this

Christ's way

?

Then w·hy should it be the way o,f our ·modern

Timothys ? Science at its utmost reach can never touch the · ·

sphere of the soul's pressing wants. All its truths together

can make no impr

1

ession on a guilty conscience needing ·the

Divine p,ardon. Nature is as dumb as any of its own stones

in the matter of the soul's

salva ·tion.

Then

why

meddle with

i·t in the p

1

ulpit? Why bow to it. a.s a tea

1

cher? Why be

guilty of the blasphemy of putting it on a level with the Word

of God?

It is as preachers depart from that

Word

that their

preaching becomes barren and fruitless. The Divine Spirit

'Will

only accompany the Divine Word. His , mighty power

will act only in· His own way and

by

His own means. The

Wprd is

su·pernatural,

a.nd woe to the preacher

who leaves

••

the supernatural for the natural; who sets aside the sword

of the Spirit to use in its stead a blade o,f his own tempering

•

..

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



•

•

..

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

CHAPTER IX

MORMONISM:

ITS

ORIGIN,

CHARACTERISTICS,

AND DOCTRINES

BY REV. R. G. MCNIECE, D. D.,

•

FOR T'\vVENTY YEARS PRIOR T0

1

1897,

PASTOR 0

1

F F~ST

PRESBlY·

TE,RIAN CHURCH, S1ALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

The writer has lived in Salt Lake City, the official head

quarters of

Mo,rmonism,

.for oVer thirty years, and he has irn~

proved the opportunity to secure a complete understanding o:f

the system. In the great Tab ,ernacle in Salt Lake City, during

a

whole

generation,

he

has heard Mormonism expounded

and def ended,

again and again, by its chief officials by

President Brigham Young, and President John ·Taylor, and

their successors, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo SnoW, and

Joseph F. Smith. In various Mormon meeting-houses, also,

front Idaho to Arizona, he has heard the system set forth

by many of its chief apostles, bishops, and elders .

F'urthermore, the writer has diligently studied the chief

o:fficiaJ

books of Mormonism, especially the ''Boo k of Mor ..

•

mon'', the

''Doctri ne and

Covenants'', ,

the

''Pearl of G:reat

Price'',

and,

supplementing these , the Mormon Catechism,

Elder

Robert's ''New Witness for

God'',

Professor Talmage's

''Lectures on the Articles of Faith' '', the works of Apostle

•

· Orson Pratt , Lucy Smith's ''History of the Proph~t Joseph'',

and

the

Autobiography of Joseph Smith. And besides he

has read a

great

mass of pamp ,hlets and

articles

by Mormon

officials. 1 he standpoint of

the

writer is that of friendly

sympathy and good-will toward the men and women a.mong

the common people in the Mormon ranks, whose sincerity

he has no desire to call in question. But since Mormonism

keeps from 1,500 to 2,000 missionaries Scattered up and down

the country, propagating

this

most erroneous

and

harmful sys-

•

•

11



•

•

•

•

Mor1nonism: Its Origin and Do triii.es

•

ten1, organ .izing

Mormon

meetings,

a·n,d

separating , famities,

in the Eastern, Th1idd1e,Southern and Nortl1wes,tern . States,

pat .riotic and Ch.ristian people eve,rywhere n,eed to have a

clear idea of what M,or1nonism

1.

eally is, and tl1e shameful

way

in w.hich it disl1onors tl1e Bible and th·e Chri stian religion, so

that they

ca11

help to

pro ·tect their

own com111unities

fro1n the,

cttr se. And it .is imp,ossih1e

t,o·

understand its

cha1.

cter, with-

out ttnderstanding

its

origin, so l·et us consider

that

first. ·

•

T I-IE ORIGIN OF THE 110RM

1

0N SYSTEM

1..

As an organization

it is only eighty-two ye,ars old,

going back to April, 1830. About this ti111e, r a f,ew months

bef o,re, tl1e Bo·o,k of Morn1,on was publisl1ed ;, a11d on April

6tl1.,

1830., the Mormon Church \Vas

orga .11ized

·with six mem

bers, in Fayette, Seneca County, New Yo1·k. Notwit hstan ,d

ing the

1ong-continued

effort to. surround

this

origin with

gr

1

eat

1nystery, a11d various .

spectacular

firew

1

orks

from heaven,

as

1nanipul ,ated

by

Joseph Smith,

there

is no mystery about

it.

Tl1e period of eigl1ty-two years is not long

,enough to

take .

us back to the region of mystery.

2. Tlze two main s oitrces of its Origin: The first

sourc ·e

is a group of tl1r·ee

1

designing 1nen, wl10 p

1

ut tl1eir profane

wits

tog

1

ether t.o p,alm off on various commu11ities in N

1

ew

York, P

1

e·nnsylvania

an,d Oh.io,

this crude, bogus, man-made

system un(ler tl1e

garb of Cl1ristian ph1·aseol,ogy, in order

to deceive t·l1e unt11inl<ing.

P ,eop

1

le in general tl1ink o Josepl1 Smith as the one man

above al .. otl1ers ,~ho 01~iginatedtl1e

MortnO·t:J

Sy ,stem. But the

facts a.re

so.lid agai11st

sucl1

a

p

1

1·oposition.

Smitl1

w.as igno-

1·ant and i lliter .ate , l1a1·dlyable to read until after he was a

grow ·n man. I-Ie kn,ew practically noth .ing abo.ut the Bible,

according to

l1i:s n1othe1·s

state1nent,

and there

is no·

subs.tan

tial evidence in his life and conduct that he e·ver had any re-

ligion in

11is

1eart. :

A

religiotts man ,

l1ovvev,er erratic l1e 1ni-gl1tbe who ha,d

•

•

•

•



112

The Funda nentals

.

been trained in the Bible and in theology was needed to give

the bogus system some kind of religious setting. The only

man connected with the scheme from its very beginning long

before the public organization who had any such qualifications

was the Rev. Sidney Rigdon. About 1819 when 26 years of

age he was licensed to preach as a Baptist minister and in

1821

became pastor of a small Baptist church in Pittsburg.

He was an interesting speaker but very erratic and con

stantly presenting all sorts of wild and startling theories

which unsettled the people. In

1824

he was deposed from

the Baptist denomination because he was unwilling to work

in harmony w1th its leaders. About two years later he be .

came a minister of the Campbellite denomination and came

under the powerful influence of that strong man Alexander

Campbell who thoroughly indoctrinated him in all the doc

trines and views peculiar at that time to the denomination. But

Rigdon quarreled with Campbell and argued if the latter could

secure fame and authority for himself by organizing a new

church then he Rigdon could secure still greater fame and

authority by giving to the world both a new revelatio~ and

a new religion through the Book of Mormon.

The two unprincipled men who assisted Rigdon in work

ing out this scheme were Parley P. Pratt who after

wards became one of the twelve apostles and Joseph Smith.

Pratt furnished 1:he mental and moral audacity necessary to

pr0pagate such a dishonest scheme and Joseph Smith fur

nished the avaricious cunning which enabled him to so com ..

mercialize the whole affair that the great bulk of the financial

profit and of the ecclesiastical power fell into his hands.

He occupied a subordinate place only until Rigdon could

put the spurious Book of Mormon into its present shape.

But just as soon as the church was organized Joseph Smith

seized the reins of power rode rough-shod over everything

and everybody that stood in his way and did not lay down

the power until his death in June

1844.



4

The Fundamentals

2.

The Mormon System is thoroughly anti-Christian.

While appropriating to itself Christian phra seology, and

New Testament names and forms,

it

perverts or denies

every fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion.

It

not only denies but ridicules the Christian doctrine

of

the

spirituality of

God,

and teaches the people that

He is a

big

man like Brigham Young. For Morn1onism teaches that Adatll

is the god of this world. It denies that Christ's atonement has

anything to do with our sins, but only with the sins of Adam.

To

get rid

of

our sins,

we

must wo

1

rk

out our-salvation through

the teachings, and form s, and ordinances

of

the Mormon

Church, with its multiplied baptisms for the dead.

3.

Mormonism is a deliberate counter/ eit of the Christian

religion int ended to deceive the ignorant.

It calls itself,

The Church of Jesus Chri st , a name to which it can lay no

claim. The term Church ,>

is

a Chri stian name· and belongs

alone to Chri stians- to those who are loyal to the Christian

Church, to Je sus Chri st as the Divine and only head of the

Church, and to

the Bible

as

the

supreme and only revelation

from God.

1)

Mormoni sm tries to palm off on the world a

coun ter

feit prophet in the person of Joseph Smith. He had all the

mark s of a counterfeit or false proph et, and not one of the

marks of a true prophet. In prophetic times, what were the

n1arks of a t rue prophet? In the first place, he was a man of

pure and upright life; he was noted for spirituality of n1ind,

so

that he could discern spiritual truth and teach it to other s. He

was loyal to God, everywhere and always, and he never made

merchandise of his prophetic office. Joseph Smith .was just

the very opposite of this. Instead of living a pure and upright

life, he was hnmoral and wicked, as we shall presently see. He

had no spirituality whatever , and he constantly made n1er

chandise of his pretended prophetic position, so that it secured

for him houses and lands, and valuable corner-lot s and lucra-



•

Mormonism Its Origin and Doc·trines

115

•

tive offices, such as the

1

office

1

0£ mayor, municip,al magistrate,

municipal judge, lieutenant:_general o.f the .Nauvoo Legion,, and

the nominatio

1

n

to be president.

Th

1

e Mormon people have all9wed themselves to be gr

1

iev

ou,sly decei,ved by l1is Au·tobiograp,hy, written in 1838. H

1

e

tries t.o make out that ·when he was

fift

1

en, he was a

pio1us,

praying youth, greatly concerned about religion, and ·especially

t ro t1bled becau se there were so many religious , sects, he could

not tell which one

t

1

0 join.

Now

let

us

see what

J ,oseph .Smith s

imme.diate

neighbors

have to

1

s.ay

about hi~ charact~r. , Tl1er,e is no

lack o,£

evidence.

Josep~ Smith s f,ather and mother, with the other child·ren,

.removed fr ,om V,ermont to Paln1yra, Onta ·rio County, New

York ;

in

the summer of 1815,.

They were

fortune-telle ·rs,

dreamer s, vision-seers. The fat her was a money-digger, and

th·e ,son Joseph be

1

came f,amo,us all

thr

1

ough

that

region a.s a

money-digger. Young Joseph was about eleven years old at

thi s time, having been born in

Sharon,

Vermont ,, Pee. 23, 1805.

After two ·or three yea1·s they moved about three miles south

to

Manches,ter,

where they lived

up

to 1830. Take

fi·rst

the

. .esti.mony of

P omeroy ·Tucker,

edit ,or

of

the Wayn ,e

S.en

t.ine1,

at

Palmyra,

on wl1osep

1

ress the

first

e,ditio·n of

the

Book of Mormon was

p

rin ·ted. S

1

ays Mr.

Tucker: At

this

period [ £ram 1820 to 1830] in tl1,e ]ife a11dcareer of Joseph

Smith, Jr., or Joe Smith , as he wasl uriiversa~ly named, and

the

Smith

family,

they were

popularly regarde d

as

a.n illiterate,

whisky-drinking, irreligious race of people;

the

first named,

th

1

e chief subject of this biogr,aphy., being unanimously vo·ted

the laziest

and

most worthles ,s of the generation. . . . . He

could utter the most palpa~le exaggeration, o,r marv

1

elous

absLtr,dicy,

with

the utmos ·t apparent gravity .

( Origin, Ris

1

e

an~ -P·r·ogress

of

Mormonism , p. 16.) · .

In 1833 sixty-two r,esid

1

ents of Palmyra made affidavit, over

their own sign.a.tu res, to the following

st.at,ements :

We, the undersigned, ,have be,en acquainted with the Smith

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



116

The Fundamentals.

family for a number of years while they resided near this

place, and we have no hesitation in saying that we consider

them destitute of that moral char~cter which ought to entitle .

them to the confidence of .any community. • • Joseph

Smith, Sr., and his son Joseph, were, in particular, considered

entirely destitute of moral character and addicted to vicious

habits . There is much more evidence of a similar character.

(2) Mormonis1n tries to palm off on the world a counter·

feit Bible which it calls the Book of Mormon and sets forth

as a revelation from God, putting it on the same level with our

own Christian Bible, placing the two side by side in the Mor ..

mon pulpit. Now the Book of Mormon is simply a poor and

weak imitation of our English Bible-a lifeless counterfeit.

Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

· Let all that absurd, fictitious yarn of Joseph Smith, about

an angel disclosing to him the box ·hidden in the hill of

Cumorah, New York, on whose golden plates, in the reformed

Egyptian language, was contained the material out of w.hich he

translated the Book of Mormon-let all that be cut out as

having not a particle of foundation. There was no angel. The

only plates Joseph Sm ith ever dug ou t of the hill of Cumorah

or any other hill were put there by hin1 self or by one of his

agents.

While the literature in regard to the origin of the Book

of Mormon is quite voluminous, the real facts about its origin

can be stated in small compass. In

1808-09

the Rev. Solomon

Spaulding settled down as a citizen in the town of Conneaut,

in northeastern Ohio. He was a man of education, having

graduated · from Dartmouth College in New Hampshire in

1785. He studied theology, and for a number of years was a

minister

of

one of the Christian den0minatiot1s in western New

York. He had given up preaching, and had settled down in

Conneaut as a business man, seeking to establish an iron

foundry.

Being fond of Bible literature and religious romance and

archaeology, he became interested in the many Indian mounds



•

•

•

Mormonism: I ts Origin and Dorctrin es

117

•

ii

in that region)

and

especially in

their

builders. Tl1is led him to

pt,an a r

1

eligious romance,

in w.hich

he

brought

a colony of the,

Lost Tribes from

J

rsuale1n

into this country, where

the,y,

developed into two

nations,

the N ephites and

tl1e

Lamanites, a

purely imaginary

people.

The Book of Mormon,

composed

of

fift ,een

1

different

books,

giv ·es an account

of their

wan

1

dering ,s,

hardships and battles.

The

records are alleged

to

have been

written on pJ-a,tes of b·rass. These plate:,

begin

to jingl,e on the

second page of the Boo.k of M

1

ormo

1

n,

.and

tl1ey

cont,inue

to

jingle until

they

are

finally sealed up

and hidden

away

in

the

hill

of

Cumorah, near

Pa ,lmyra, in 420

A.

D,.

Now there are t.en int ,elli,gent witnesses, who stated over

their affida.vit

in

1833, when the .subject was f r

1

esh

in miari,

tha,t about 1811-12, they heard Solomon Spaulding reading a

religious i,tory from the Manuscript Found , trying to show

that the American Indians are the descen

1

dants

1

0f

tl1e Lost

Tribes. They remembered

the

quaint phraseology, and the

queer

names,

Lehi,

Nephi,

Jarom,

Moroni,

and

the rest. The

expression, and it

came to

pass ,

occurred ·

so of ten, the

boys

n,ick-named Spaulding, 01 ,d

Con1e-to-Pass . When

the Book

of

Mormon was publishe

1

d these witnesses

identified a t

once

the queer

names

and

phraseology.

When Esquire Wright

heard the B,oo k of Mormon read in Conneaut he ex,claimed,

Old

Come-to-P ,a,ss has co,me

to

life again .

These witnesses

were John

Spaulding,

brother of Solomon, his wife

Martha

Spa .ulding,

Henry

Lake, ,

business

partner

of Solomon

Spaulding,

John N. Miller,

who worked

for Spaulding, . ·

Aaron Wright, Oliver

Smith,

and Naham Howa .rd, three

o,f Spaulding s neighbors, and Artemas Cunningham,

of

Geauga

1

County,

who

visited

Spaulding

in

,October, ,

1,811, to

co11ect a

1

debt. Spaulding showed h,im la story he was writing

about

the 10

st tribes.

Mr. Cunningham

,spent half the ni,ght

list,ening to the

.story.

When

the

Book of Mormon a·pp~ared

he

recognized

that

in

outline it ·was

the same

thing that Spauld

•



118 .

The F unda1nentals

of Solomon Spaulding, and Mr. Joseph Miller, of Amity,

Pa.,

where Spaulding died.

The evidence clearly shows

that the Book of Mormon grew ·

out of Spaulding s story , but the defenders of Mormon1sn1

lose their mental balance whenever this subject is mentioned,

and they treat it dishonestly. They say: We have the

Spaulding manuscript in the Oberlin College Library, brought

back from Honolulu in

1884

by Presid .ent Fairchild, and there

is

no connection between it and the Book of Mormon . Cer-

tainly not. No person well informed about the history of Mor-

moni sm ever claimed that there is any connection. But why

say, . We have the Spaulding Manuscript ? All that the facts

warrant is, There is a Spaulding manuscript in Oberlin ,

and the possession of that manuscript will afford no help

to

the defenders of Mormonism against the plagiari sm of the

.book until they do one thing which they are unable to do;

namely, establish a general negative, and show that this manu-

script in Oberlin College Library is the only manuscript which

Solomon Spaulding ever wrote. This can not be done, for

there is conclusive evidence that he wrote three or four manu-

scripts, and one of them was the ''Manu script Found , which

he read to his neighbors, and which formed the basis of the

Book of Mormon. So when the champions of Mormonism

say: The Book of Mormon could not have grown out of the

Spaulding manuscript, for that manu script is in Oberlin, and

there is no connection between it and the Book of Mor.moo ,

they take a dishone st position by fal sely assurriing that this is .

the only manuscript Spaulding wrote, whereas there is positive

evidence that he wrote several manuscript s. The fact, there-

fore,

is established

by

abundant evidence

that the

Book

of

Mormon is a plagiarism from Spaulding)s religious romance.

Ju st

when Rigdon, Pratt, and Smith first met and con-

cocted the dishonest scheme of the buried plates is not alto-

gether clear, probably about

1827. A strenuous attempt has

been made to show that Rigdon and Pratt had no' knowledge



•

•

•

•

Mormonism: I ts 01 .igin a11td

Doc trines 119

of th·e Book of Mormon un·til its publication, and they go

through the wretched farce of pretending to be convert

1

ed to

11ormoni sin after the Book of Mormon ha ,d be,en published,

wl1ich they say they knew not h·ing about before, althougl1

evidence sl1ows that they both had been in tl1e scheme to pub-

'lish it since 1827. Wha ·t,a S

1

et of deceivers f · · ·

The one important fact is the plagiari sm of the Book of

Mormon

f

ro·m the Sp

1

auiding ro,mance, entitled '''Ma .nttscript

Found''. It is not sp,ecially important to know

wh,o

edited

tl1e,

Spaul ding story, and developed it into the present Book of

-

Morn1on. · But all the evidence points to Sidney Rigdon, and

it points to no one else. The evide11ce shows the following

things : That a copy of the Spaulding manuscript was in the

printing offic,e of Patterson and Lambdin, in Pittsburg, f

1

or a

good while after 1814; that Rigdon and Lambdin were on

intimate t.e1~msrom

1818,

to

the

deat l1 of Lambdin in August,

1825 ;, th ,at more tl1an two

1

y,ears befor ,e ·the p.ublication of the

Boo'k

of Morn1011,

Rigdon had

spol<:en

o, several of his. friends

about tl1e comi11g publication of a b

1

ook

f

1·om golden , plat .es,

I

which ,¥ou 'ld pr

1

oduce a great religio

1

us revolution .. D

1

u1·ing

·tl1ese two , years Rig,don was pr ,each.ing wild an.d startling

doc·trine s, afterwards found in

the

Book of 1\tlormon.

Any 011e f.ami.liar with the pecttliar Campbellite doctrines

of that time

1

can

not

re ,a

1

d

f ,ar ,

into the Book of Mo1 'monwith·

out dis,covering that the author .had been. a C,ampbelli·te. His

''s ,peech beyvra,yeth'' him i11 the employment of p

1

l1raseology to

which l1e had become accusto1ned ,vhile associat,ed with the·

bretl1ren of tha,t denomination. Furtherm ,ore,

tl1e

bo

1

ok is f'ull ,of

Rigdon's own peculiar views. He deserves credit, however,

f

1

or n1a.king the Boo,k o,f Mor1no,n conden1·n tJo1ygamy, and for

conden1nin,g

it himself, whi

1

ch b1·ought him into sharp conflict

with both Joseph Smith and his successor, Brigham

YOung.

( 3) Mormonism imposes upon the people a counterfeit

priesthood

which it calls the ''Melchisedek and Aaronic priest- .

•

•

...

•



•

•

•

120

The Fundam entals

-

•

priesthood~ There

was

one man

by

that name,

both

a

king

and

a priest, without p·rede

1

ccssor or suc

1

cessor, ,a·nd so chosen

as

a

type of the priesthood of the S

1

0,n

of God.

The

Aaroni ·c priest .. .

hood des,cended from ·father to son, in a marvelous way, for

forty-five generations, until a.JI priesthood was fulfilled in Je:s~s

Christ. Since the one perfect sacrifice · of Himself made by

OUr ,g.re·a, Hig}:liPrie ,st, Jesus , Christ, any person who pretends

to be

a priest and

claims the right

to

stand between us

and

God, is what o·ur Saviour calls a , thief and a, robber , WJtat

a bogus priesthood this pretended Morn1on priesthoo 1d is It . ·

,-has no more right to administer , the Christian ordi ·nances of

baptism and the Lord s Supper,

than

any other

group

1

of

unp ,rincipled men ,vho repudiate Jes ius Christ as, the Divine

Head of the Church, an

1

d. go through the blasphemous , fa,rce of

electing themselves ·members of the holy priesthood .,. And

yet ..

M.ormo·ns trem,b

le

a.t,

the dictat ,es

of

this

b

1

0,gus pr ,iesit.hood,

and fear to exer

1

cise the freedom of opinion which is their

r·ight. The · ,7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Chapters of He,brews give

u,s

Divine instruction

as to

the . a

1

ct

that

all

priesthood

was

f

or

1

ever fulfil]ed, and came to an end in J,es,us Christ .

4.

Mormonism imposes·

upon

the people a counterfeit

group of apostles. .

-

It

re

1

q.uires

four tl1ings to

ma.ke

a. tru .e·

apo,stl,e:

First He must have been acqua ·inted

witl1

Jesus Ch·rist

•

bef

or1

Hi,s crucifixion. ·

Second

He must

have seen Christ after His resurrection

f

r

1

om the

1

dea

1

d.

•

·

Third

H ,e must have received his commission as an apostle

directly

f

ram

·Christ,

as Divine

Head of

th,e

Chur,ch.

· F ourt h

I-le must be [able

t·o

work

miracles

to show that

God

sent him.

So that

any

group of men

now who say they

ar

1

e apostles.

are simply will£ul deceivers, and the truth is· not in them.

T

1

HE DOCTRINES 0

1

F

THE

M:O·RMON •S,YST

1

EM

i\JJ

that has been said under the

preceding

1

division

about



I

•

M

o,monism: Its

0 -igin and Doctrines 121

.

the char.a

1

cteristics of M

1

ormonism, has

been

a se~ing fo,rth of ·

its false and anti-Scriptural teachings on_the four important

s·ubjects of

prophecy,

revelation, Divine authority ·

0£

the

bogus

pries ithood, and the bo,gus

1

a.postle:,.

T·he

Mormon.

Chu,rch.does

not publish its peculiar teachings and beliefs. If i-t did, it

would g,ain no more converts ; it waits until its c,onverts are

thoroughly entrapped before its

peculiar

doctrines are

dis.. ·

cl,0

1

sed.. .Its whole

system

is carr .ied on.,

so

far as new converts

are concerned,

by

means

of ·the

most

systematic

dec

1

eption.

Its

missionaries wear black frock coats and white cravats so

t'ha·t

the people are deceived into supposing that

they are

Christian

i •

ministers.

In the Spring of 1844, when the Mormon Church was

being severely condemned all over the country

I

John Went

worth, who was publishing a p,aper in Chic-ago

1

~ asked Joseph

Smith to

.sitat ,e what

the Mormons believe, Smith and some of

his associates put their heads together, and sent

out thirteen

articles as a summary of Mormon belief. It is sin1plyanother

piece

of

deception, for these articles do no~

contain

one doc

trine peculiar to Mormonism, but are rather a summary of

doctrines held by the Christian denominations. And yet they

stand

today as representing lVIormon belief. When we come

to test the,se artic 'les by

the

official

books of M·ormo·nism,

we

find

they

are

thoroughly deeciving.

Let

us take up

the first

s·ix or , seven of these prctende ,d articles of belief, ind see how

misleading

they are. · .

''ARTICLE 1. WE

BELIEVE IN '

GOD

THE E'l~ERNAL FAT'HER,

AND IN BIS S,ON J 'ESU ;S

CHRI :ST,

AND IN T'HE BO 'LY GH0 1ST. '

1. B,y God

the

,eternal

Father,

the

Mo1·mon

fficials

mean

Adam. (For convenience we will use the following abbreviaM

tions: B. oi

M.

for Book of Mormon; D. & C., for Doctrine

and

1

Cov

1

enants; P. G. P.

fo·r

Pe·arl of Great Pri

1

c

1

e;

Co·mp.l for

Compe·ndium

1

0£

Mormon

Doctrine; Key,

for

Pratt's Key to

Th

1

eoJ.; J.of D. for

Journa] of Discourses

volumes of Mor-



•

•

•

•

•

•

122

The Fundamentals

•

You ng taught tl1at Adam was p,ro,moted to be the god of this

world: He

{Adam)

is our Father and our God, and the only

·God with whom we l1ave to dot . -(J. of D., Vol. I, p. 50.)

2. T.his Adam-god

i.s

a polyg.amis·t. When our Fath

1

er

Adam came int·o the garden of Eden, he came into ,

i·t

with

a

celesi_ial body, and brought Eve. o,ne of his wives, with him ,.

(Brigham Young,

J.

of D., I,

5,0.) ·

•

3. The M·ormon officials teach that tho se who build up

-large polygamous

establishments

011

earth,

will

be promoted

to

be gods in the hea ven ly ,vorld, and will rule over kingdoms.

Take t.l1is heathen

teaching

of Josep .h Smith: God Hims.elf

was once .a.s we a1·e 110w, ,and :is .an. ex.alted Man [i.n

1

0·t:he1·

words,

simply

a big

Mormon]. . ; .

And

you

have

got

to

•

learn how to be gods yourselves, the same as all gods have

done before you .

(J.

o·f D. VI, 4; ·comp. 283 .)

4.

It

will be seen that Mormon ism b,elieves in many

gods. Are there more gods than one? Yes, many .

(Catechi sm~)

S. These gods con.tintt·e to have chil,dre.n for ,eve1·. Each

I

god. through his wife

or

wives, raises

up

a numerous family

of

sons and daughters, , . . . · for each father and motl1er

will

be

in

a

condition

to multiply forever

and

ever .

(The

Seer, 1, 37.) This is dire

1

ctly contrary to, our Saviour s ·teach

ing ·i·n J\dark 12 :25:

1

For wh ,i·n

they

shall

rise

from the dead,

they neither marry n,o,r .are given in marriage; but are as the

angels

which are

in

heaven . .

It see·ms

incredible

that such

di.s11011oring

heathe ·n.ish vi

1

e·ws

of

God,

the A1mighty

Creator and

Gover11or of the world,

should be

held and propagated in Christian America, by

an

organization calling itself The Church of

J s11s

Cht·ist of

La.tter ...Day

S

1

aints .

Paul s ·

statement in

Rom.

1 :2.l-2

1

4

see.ms

v,erified in them. ·

6. They teach that the Holy Spirit is

a

kind of ethereal ·

substance diffused through space. The purest , most refin.ed

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

I

M ormo nism: Its Originand Doctrines

123

•

•

· ism, magnetism )

1

• • •

is

that

substance

called the

Holy

•

Spirit''. (Key,

p.

39.) . ·

How

refr ,eshing

to turn

to the

Divine Word

and

read

its

convincing

and authoritative teachings about God.

We read

in Gen,. 1 ;1 : ''In the

be,ginning

God created tl1e heaven and

the

earth''; ,

in

De·ut,. 6 4:

'''Hear ·

1

0 ·

Israel, the

Lo

1

rd our

God

is one Lo:rd'';

:in

Psa. 104

:1:

~'O Lor ,d

my God, Tl1ou art very

great .; Thou art clothed

with h

1

onor and majesty''; in Isa. 4.5 :5:

''I am the Lord, and there is none else''; in

John

:24: ''God is

a S

1

pirit, and they that worship Him must w·orship Him in spirit

and in truth'';

in John

14 :2

1

6:

''But

the C

1

omforte ,r, which

is th

1

e

Holy Gl1ost, wh,om th

1

e

Father

will

se·nd

in

My name,

He s,hall

teach

you

all things,

and

bring all things to,

your

remembrance

whatsoever I have said unto you''. Tl1e Holy

Spirit,

then, is

a Divine Person, and not an '' ·ethereal sttbstance' ''.

''ARTICLE

2,

WE BELIEVE THAT MEN WILL BE PUNISHED

FO.R. 'THEIR OWN SINS ,, AND NOT FOR ADAM'S . TRANS .GRESSIONS.''

But

that

is

very

1

diff

erent

from

l1olding tl1at Adam

did

not

transgress

the

law ~f

God. Here

is the teaching of the Mor

mo1n

1

Catechism: ''Was it

ne ,cessary

that Adam . should partake

of the

£,or

bidden

fruit?

Yes,

unless. he had

done so, he would

not have known good

and

evil

here,

neither

could

he

ha·ve

had

•

§ ''

mortal

posterity • ·

''Is

it

proper

·for

us

to consider the t.ransgression

of A.dam

and Ev

1

e as a gri,e·vous

calamity,

and that all mankind w,oul ,d

have

been

infini·tely more

happ

1

y

if the Fall ,

had n

1

ot occu .rried?

No, but we ought to consider

the

Fall of our first

parents

as

· one

of the

great

steps

to

eternal exa1tation

and happiness''.

(Catechism, Chapter 8.) What saith the S,criptures: ''I 'f we

say that w·e h.ave n,o

s:in, we

deceive

ourselves ,,

and 'the

truth

is,

not -in us'' (

1

John 1 :8).

''Wheref

O·r·e as by one man

[Adam]

.sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so

death

passed upon all men, for that a1I have

sinned''

(Rom.

5

:12).

'~For, th,e wag ,es of sin is

death; h'ut

the gift

of God is eternal

-

•

..

•

•



•

•

124

•

T he

Fu,ndamentals

•

''ARTICLE 3, WE BELIEV 'E THAT THROUGH THE ATONEMENT

•

OF JESUS CHRIST ALL MANKIND MAY BE SAVED, BY OBEDIENCE

TO

THE L,A

W1S

AND ORDINANCES

OF

THE ,

GOSPEL'

1

.

1. That is, the bogus Mo

1

rmon Gos,pel. According to the

official

teachings

of

Mormonism, who , was J

s,us

Christ? ' The

son of Adam-god and Mary. '' The Father has begotten him

in his own likeness. , He was not begotten of the Holy Ghost~

And who is the,Fatl1er? He is t·he first of the human

f

amily'

1

.

(Brigham

Young,

J.

of

D.,

I,

50.)

2. Christ is represente ,d as h,aving plural wives. ''We say

it was Je sus Christ who was married (at Cana to the Ma~ys .

. nd Mart .ha),

whe,·,eby

He could

see

His see:d be·£

1

re He

wa;s

c1·ucified'' (

Apostle 0. H ,yde,

Sermon). . .

''The at

1

on

1

ement

made

by

J ,esus Christ

brought .

about the

resurr ection from the dead, and restored life''. (B. of M. ·

Alma, 42 ::23.)

' '.Re,demp

1

tion from perso

1

nal

si·os can

o,nly

be

ootained tl1rough

obedience

to

th.e

requirements of the , ·Gospel

(Mormon c,eremonies] and a life of good works''. .

. '·Will all the people be damne ,d who, are not Latter -D,ay

Saints

? Yes,

an ,d ,a gre ,at many of

them

except they

repent

spee

1

di]y'' . ( Brigham Young, J.

of

D., I, 339.)

,Qur

Saviour

said: ''For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn

tlie wo,rld, but tl1at throttgh Him the world might b1 save,d'''

''ARTICLE 4. WE BELIEVE Tl-IAT THE FIRST PRINCIPLES AND

•

ORDINAN ,CES ,oF 'THE , BIBT-E ,A:RE :: First, Fai ·th in the Lo.r,d

Jesus Christ; Second, Repentance; Third, Baptism by Im

rn1rsion fo1· the Remission of Sins; Fo·urth, ·Laying on of

Hands for

tl1e

Gift

of

the Holy

Gl10st.''

1. ''The sectar ian doctrine o,f justifi

1

cat,ion by faith

alone

has exercised an influence f'or evil since the early days of

· Christianity''. (Talmage's Articles of Faith, p. 120.) Paul

says: ''For ye are all the children of G,od by faith in Jesus

1

Christ'' (Gal.

3:26). · .

2. ·How

to

obtain the

H,o1y Spir 'it:

''There

is a set

mod

1

e

by which this great gift ( the Holy ,Spirit) js c,onf erred upo

1

n

•



I

•

•

Jtlormonism:

Its

1

rigin

and octrines 125,

•

•

mankind . • • the laying on of hands by men w'l10 have

themselves received

it,

an

1

d have been call

1

ed of Go

1

d and

ordain ,ed

to administer

it'', (

That means the

Mormon

priest

l1ood.) Our Saviour said : ''How much more shall your

•

Hea .venly

Father

give the Holy

Spirit

to them who ask Him .

The Holy Spirit, our Saviour teaches, is given in answer to

prayer, and is not dependent on the priesthood of the Mormon

Churcl1, or an,y

other church.

''ARTICLE

5.

'\J'E BELIEVE THAT

A

MAN MUST BE

C'ALLED

OF

GOD BY PROPHECY, AND

BY

TH ,E

LAYING

1Q~

1

0F HAND 1S, .BY

.

THOSE WHO ARE IN AUTHORITY, TO

PREACH

THE GOSPEL AND

•

•

ADMINISTER IN THE

1

0RD'INANCES THEREOF.wt,

Accordi .ng to Mormonis m,, the only persons wh,o ha.ve a.ny

right to administer the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's

Suppe r are

the

representative s of the Mormon priesthood. It

unchurches

all

the

Chri s,tian

den,omi11ations,

.and

impudently ,

claims ·

that

the

Mormo,n Church

is

tl1e

only true church;

wh 1ereas

it

is not a church .at ,all in th,e New T

1

estament sense,,

,and has no more authority than Do,vie had, or Mrs. Eddy. Its

priesthood is bogus in its origin and its autl1ority. They are

what ,our Saviour call ,s

''thieve ,s

and

1.

obbers''. . ·

•

Paul

says

in Eph. 4:11, 12:

''And

He

[Christ] gave

son1e

apo,st1es an,d

some

p

1

r·ophet.s ;,

and s,om,e evange'lists ; a.nd some

pastors and teachers; for the perfecting ·of the saints, for the

work of the ministry, fo

1

r

the

edifying

o,f the

body of

Cl1rist.'''

. ''ARTICLE 6.

WE

BEf-'IE, rE IN T'H .E SAME ORGANIZATION

THAT EXISTED IN THE PRIMITIVE CBURCHJ· NAMELY, APOSTLES,

PROPHETS, PASTORS, TEACHERS, EVANGE 'LISTS, ETC.''

We have

shown

'that

it

is

impossible

for men to, be true

apostle s no'1v. Nor is

tl1ere

any warrant in the New

Testa

ment for S'UCh bogus officials as th

1

e ''First

Pre .sid,ency

,of th ,e,

Church'' , with its two Counsellors, or for the

''High

1

C·ouncil_',

with its despotic methods ..

The Mormon

Churcl1 p

1

ronounc

1

es damnation upon

1

Chris,

tian believers who receive baptism

fr ,om the hands of

Christian

•



126

The undamentals

ministers. Any person who shall be so wicked as to receive

a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of these ·

apostate [Christian] churches, will be sent down to hell with

them unless he repents of the unholy and impious act . ( The

Seer, Vols. 1 & 2, p. 255.) Our Saviour said to His disciples,

and to all who should become His disciples to the end of time,

in Matt. 28 :19: Go,ye therefore and teach all nations, baptiz

ing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of

the Holy Ghost .

• A RTICLE

7.

WE BELIEVE IN THE GIFT OF TON GUES.,

PROPHECX, VISIONS ., HEALING, INTERPRETATION OF ...ONGUES.

ARTICLE 8. WE BELIEVE THE BIBLE TO BE THE WORD OF

GOD, SO FAR AS IT IS CORRECTLY TRANSLATED_,' WE ALSO BEL IEVE

THE BOOK OF MORMON TO BE THE WORD OF GOD.

L The prie sthood can 1nake additional Scriptures: Wil- ·

ford Woodruff is a prophet, and he can make

Scriptures as good as those in the Bible . (Apostle .J. W.

Taylor, Conference, Salt Lake, April S; '97.) The living

oracles [pretended priestly revelations] are worth more to the

Latter -Day Saints than all the Bibles . (Apostle M W. Mer

rill, Conference, Salt Lake, Oct., '97.)

2. Paul tells us, on the other hand, in 2 Tim. 3 :16, that

all genuine Scripture is given by inspiration of God .

The disgusting doctrine of plural marriage is omitted from

these Articles of Faith. But it still stands in the Book of

Doctrine and Covenants as a revelati on from God to be

observed under pain of eternal damnation. Yet as Mrs . Orson

Pratt said: This pretended revelation was simply a dishonest

trick on the part of Joseph Smith to cloak over h~s own wicked

and immoral life, and to keep the peace in his hou sehold .

It will be seen that the Mormon people are required to accept

the pretended revelation sanctioning plural marriage, on pain

of eternal damnation , from ·the following quotation from this

bogus revelation which still stands in their official book; ·

For .behold

I

reveal unto you a new and an everlasting



••

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

M

ormonis·11i ~

ts Origin and

Doctrines

•

127

covenant;

and

if yo

1

ti

~bi,de not tha~

covenant

then ar·e you

dan1ned : for

no 011ecan reject this covenant and be permitted

to ent~r

int

1

0

My

glory. ·. • •

And again, as

pertaining to

the llaw of the Priesth .ood,

if

a11y

man esp,ou.se a vi.rgi·n and

de·sire to espouse anotl1er, and the first give .her consent; and

if he espouse the second ,and they are virgins and have V

1

owed

.

to no other . 1nan, theri h~ is justified; for he canno ,t

1

commit

adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to none Clse;

and if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he can-

not commit

a.dultery,

f·or

they

b

1

el.ong

ttnto

him; and

they

are

give11 unto hin1;

therefore

is he justified:'' (''Doctrine an,d

Covenants, chap. 132.) .

N,ow, what is this but a depr

1

a,red and cunnin ,g bribe to ·

every kind of social imn1orality? And that has .been its direct

result for two gene1ations, with the

iniquity

still going on.

It is difficult fo

1

r any one to study this . Mormon system as a

wl1ole, wit.hout

co,ming

to

t l1

e

C

1

o·n

1

c·1usion

'tl1at

the1·e

is, som,e-

thing in it beyond the power of man,

sometl1ing positively

Sata11ic.

And does it not

s,eem to be a

reproach

on

the Chris·

tian churche s of tl1is country that, af te.r ei,ghty years,

sucl1 a

system of downright heatl1enism should still hold the people of

one of the great states of the West in absolute bondag

1

e, and

through its

hierarchical

powert

by means of

colo,niZation,

be

able to influence t·h.e election of senators ,.and

representative ls

in

Congress from five other

states?

This latter fact makes it a

na,tional and not a local

probl ,e1n.

The one

im,portant

thing to

be

done

is to double

tl1e Cl1ristian

missionary forces in Utah,

in order to bring deliverance to those who are in bondage .

•

•

•

•

•

-

•

•

•

\

•

•

•

•

•

I

•



PUBLISHERS NOTICE

Particular attention is hereby called to the fallowing points:

1.

All Engli sh-speaking Protestant pastors, evangelists, missionaries,

theological professors, theological students, Y. M.

C.

A. secretaries,

Y. W. C. A. secretaries, Sunday School superintendents, religious lay

workers, and editors of religious publications throughout the earth, are

entitled to a free copy of each volume of THE FUNDAMENTALS. Any

person, belonging to one of these classes, who has not received the

ea rlier volumes, may obtain them upon application to the undersigned.

State plainly which volumes are wanted, and state also the line of

Christian work engaged in and the denominational affiliation. After

an order is sent in, allow at least two weeks (and more if from a dis

tance) for filling it.

2 Changes of address should be promptly reported. Write plainly

both

the

old and the new addresses

in

full

3. In case any person receives two or more copies of any one vol

ume, kindly notify us. These books are too valuable and the demand

for them too great to permit waste through duplication. However,

where extra copies have been received, they need not be returned, but

may

be

loantd or otherwise placed in circulation.

4. There

is an

increasing demand for these books on the part of

the laity, and to meet this demand each volume is being furnished

postpaid at a cost of fifteen cents per copy, eight copies for one dol

lar, or one hundred copies for ten dollars. (In Great Britain, 8d;

4s 2d; and £2 ls ld, respectively.) These prices will be applied to the

.cost of issuing future volumes.

S.

Do not send currency or personal checks. Remit by

post office

money order

or by bank draft

on Chicago, New York, or London,

making the same payable to the Testimony Publishing Company.

6.

Foreign correspondents should be careful to prepay card and

letter postage

in

full

Otherwise we are compelled to pay

double

the

amount

of the

deficiency.

7 Please bear in mind that we publish nothing except THE

FUNDA-

MENTALS,

and do not issue any catalogue.

In conclusion, we would emphasize once more the

great importance

of writing plainly and briefly, and always

giving

full address-street

(or rural route) number, post office, state, and (if outside of the

United States) country. .

Much time

and

delay will be

saved by carefully

reading and

comply

ing

with the

foregoing directions.

TESTIMONY PUBLISHING COMPANY,

808 La Salle Avenue,

Chicago, Illinois, U. S. A.

RICHARD LINDAMOOD

2700 Gt,..ENWAY AVE,

the fundamentals: volume 8

Documents