ART. VI.-REASON AND FAITH IN RELIGION.

I ONCE entered a country grocery to make a small purchase. A coterie of idlers sat or stood around the stove. One young man with bronzed and unshaven face, low brow, and dirty clothes sat on the counter with an odorous pipe in his mouth and a yellow-backed copy of one of Ingersoll's agnostic books in his hand. Being acquainted with him, I remarked about the literature he was reading and asked him if he ever read the great book which Ingersoll was fond of assailing. He replied in the affirmative. "Do you believe and obey it?" I asked. "Yes," he replied, "as far as it is reasonable. I believe in a man's thinking for himself." The idea of one with his education and mental powers thinking for himself and without guidance forming conclusions on one of the greatest problems was both ludicrous and pathetic. And yet he stated simply and accurately the position not only of unlearned rationalists like himself, but of the most learned and philosophical of rationalistic unbelievers. A few days later, happening to step into the same store, I met a rabid Universalist, who pounced upon me for an argument on miracles. He said he did not believe Christ ever turned water into wine. "Why not?" I inquired. "Because it is unreasonable; and mustn't one use his judgment in religion?" Here was the same subtle fallacy stated by an uneducated farmer as clearly and concisely as the most learned sophist could have done it. Huxley could not have said it better.

Since this position is held by so many, it behooves Christian thinkers to have definite ideas concerning the limits of reason and of faith in religion. The conclusions given in this article are not presented with the fancy that they are a new thing under the sun. But a restatement of old truths is often helpful. The rationalist (and this includes many who call themselves Christians) takes this position: Everything must be brought before the bar of private judgment for adjudication. Man has no other guide but his judgment. Hence every re

ported miracle, doctrine, or moral precept is worthy of acceptance only as it per se meets the demands of each man's judgment. Hence the miraculous conception of Jesus, his resurrection, his ascension, the doctrine of eternal doom, et al., are incredible. Faith in such things is credulity. The position of the Christian thinker-at least of the Protestant-is this: The judgment is the primal authority for the acceptance of these reported facts and doctrines. Evidence is the ground of true faith. Belief without evidence is superstition or credulity. But the value of evidence is a matter for the judgment to determine. The judgment, however, is not to be used to determine the reasonableness of miracles and doctrines as such. Its function is to consider the value of human testimony to them as alleged facts. The reliability of the witnesses being established by the scholarly judgment, faith accepts implicitly the message of these witnesses. In brief, the judgment of the rationalist is exercised with scientific evidence; that of the Christian with historical evidence.

Let us elaborate, from the believer's point of view, the true method and field for the exercise of reason in religion. What are the data to be judged? We have a collection of writings called the New Testament. In these writings strange and unusual things are told and taught. A man named Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary. He grew to manhood and was baptized at the river Jordan. At his baptism a form as of a dove settled upon him, and a supernatural voice called him "my beloved Son." He turned water into wine on one occasion; he cured the blind with a touch, fed over five thousand people with five loaves and two fishes, and even raised the dead. He spoke such gracious words as never man spake simply, yet grandly. He claimed to be the Son of God, who existed before Abraham. He said he came down from heaven. He was once transfigured. He died and the third day rose again and appeared many times to different people. Finally he visibly ascended. These are some of the alleged facts to be tested by the reason. The rationalistic method is to judge each separate item by scien

tific and philosophic tests. The true field for the judgment is whether the records and their authors are reliable.

In solving the problem of the genuineness and authenticity of these writings several questions arise: 1. Are the records we have to-day accurate transcripts of the original records? 2. Do the original records reach back near enough to the events to be historical? 3. Were they written by their reputed authors, or at least by those who had unmistakable means of knowing the truth of their statements? 4. Are the writers veracious? Or have we followed cunningly devised fables? These questions are beyond the sphere of religious faith. They must be solved by scholarly judgment. It is necessary here to say parenthetically that every man, in order to be a Christian believer, need not personally solve all these problems. Not one in a thousand has the scholarship necessary for such a task. But all true and intelligent faith must ultimately rest on just such an investigation. As Beecher said: "It is not for me to think out the great system of astronomy in order to believe the astronomical truths of my time. I accept them at the hands of the Church of Astronomers. I accept them at the hands of the professional explorers. I trust them for the truth of these things." So with these problems of Bible criticism: the ordinary believer must trust the scholar's conclusions.

Have we reason for the hope that is in us? Let us see.

...

1. Are the New Testament records of to-day substantially the same as the originals? There are many cases of textual disagreement among the existing manuscripts. But as a whole these copies are substantially alike. They differ in no important particular. No doctrine is essentially changed by these discrepancies. Gathered from widely different countries and centuries as these manuscripts are, it is not usually difficult to determine about what the original text was. So while interpolations and errors in transcription are found, yet they are quite easily distinguished from the true text. If in four quarters of the United States a hundred men of three generations should make manuscript copies of the Declaration of In

dependence there would of course be some difference in the text of the copies. But in any given case the majority of the copies would be the same; so that it would be easy to distinguish the mistake or interpolation from the true reading.

2. Do the original records date back near enough to the events narrated to be historical? This is not the place to go into details to establish the date of New Testament books. We are merely outlining the method of procedure. Suffice it to say that, although criticism still rages about the Old Testament, all the important books of the New Testament are conceded by the great majority of critics, conservative and radical, to have been written before the year 100 A. D. The date of Matthew is quite certainly fixed at about 67 A. D., or at least before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D.; that of Mark about the same; Luke about 70; and John probably about 90; while First Corinthians, to which reference will be made later, is by all reputable critics placed at about 57 A. D., or only twenty-seven years after the death of Christ. Several of Paul's letters are undoubtedly much earlier.

3. Were they written by their reputed authors, or at least by those who knew the facts? Matthew's gospel is well attested. It was quoted by Barnabas and used by the Gnostics as early as 90 or 100 A. D. But the fact that it was used authoritatively shows that it must have been circulated much earlier. From Papias, who lived just after the apostles, "there is a continuous chain of trustworthy witnesses that Matthew the apostle wrote a gospel, and the abundant quotations of the fathers down to Irenæus and Justin Martyr prove that the gospel then received as his was the same as that which we have." Irenæus was a pupil of Polycarp, who received instruction from St. John. Marcus Dods says, "Of convincing evidence against the apostolic authorship there is none."* An unbroken tradition ascribing the second gospel to Mark, who is said to have written upon the testimony of Peter, has been substantiated by the most searching investigation of both external and internal evidence. The third gospel is freely con

*Introduction to the New Testament.

ceded to Luke, the companion of Paul, by such critics as Weiss, Renan, and Holtzmann. About the fourth gospel the critics have waged the hottest warfare. But the boldest of destructive criticism has succeeded only in establishing the genuineness and authenticity of this book even more firmly than of the synoptic gospels. It is safe to say that better proof exists that John wrote the gospel of John than that Matthew, Mark, or Luke wrote the accounts attributed to them. External evidence exists in an unbroken chain back to the apostle himself through Irenæus (c. 200 A. D.) and Polycarp, the disciple of John. And Dr. Sanday occupies what seems to me an impregnable position in his proof from internal evidence that the author of the fourth gospel was (1) a Jew, (2) a Palestinian, (3) an eyewitness, (4) John, the apostle. With the genuineness of these four wonderful books so thoroughly established against the severest of carping criticism, we certainly have rational grounds for faith.

The resurrection of Christ is the pivotal doctrine of the Christian religion. Moreover, it is the great proof of the authority and claims of Jesus. If he rose again we must exclaim with the centurion, "Truly this man was the Son of God." But to believe in the reported resurrection merely because it is related in a book called the Bible is not faith, but credulity. But having once by scholarly reason established the historicity of the writings which record this event we have intellectual ground for faith.

Is, therefore, Christ's resurrection a fact? As shown above we have invincible proof of it in the four gospels. Yet some critics have produced reasons for not accepting these records as genuine and authentic. Very well, we can still prove it by their own admissions. It is universally admitted that First Corinthians was written by Paul about 57 A. D. Opinions have varied between the years 54 and 58. A writer in the International Cyclopedia says, "The genuineness of the epistle has never been doubted." Renan, who certainly was not prone to admissions favorable to the reliability of the New Testament, classified it along with Romans, Galatians, and