Chapter I: Free From The Yoke Of The Supernatural (2)

And how are these theological discoveries proven, what sources are
quoted in substantiation? By some arbitrarily selected passages of
the Scriptures, that one must hate father and mother, wife and
child, brother and sister; that the poor in spirit are blessed,
that the lust of the eye is sinful, that evil should not be
resisted; and in quoting these passages all scientific
interpretation is carefully avoided, all the writers who have
amply explained them are ignored. And what the scriptural passages
fail to prove must be demonstrated by some extreme statement
borrowed from _Tertullian_, who is generally prone to
exaggeration. As a matter of course, gloomy Christianity then
seems inferior to the brilliancy of Greek paganism; Christianity
is directly a danger to civilization; it may be good enough for
those tired of life. “The objection has been made that the
fulfilment of this command would destroy our entire civilization.
Most probably this would be the case. But where is it written (in
Holy Writ) that our civilization must be preserved?” We have here
the picture formed of the doctrine of Christ by the world, whereof
the Lord has predicted: the world will hate you. _Paulsen_ admits
frankly: “Whence this hatred? Because the Christian despises that
which to the world is the highest good. There can be no better
reason for hating any one....”

It is easy to understand that one who has for a long time mentally
abandoned his Christian faith, cannot carry in mind its picture as
undistorted as he did in his better days, and as would conform to
reality. But it is reprehensible to exhibit in public this
picture, without having previously and conscientiously examined
the main lines, to see whether they are not caricatures. And they
are caricatures, traced by a hand that is led by the mood of a
secret anti-Christianity.

A treatment identical with that of its view of life is accorded to the _doctrine and history of the Christian religion_. Not science and uncorrupted truthfulness, but antipathy, presumption, harsh denial of everything divine, only too often point the way. Let us listen again to the author named above, since he knows to express modern thought with a clearness and precision almost unequalled by any one else.

It made a painful impression to find in the Christmas number,
1908, of the liberal-theological “Christliche Welt” a posthumous
article by _Fr. Paulsen_: “What think you of Christ: Whose Son is
He?” The article was without doubt one of the last he had written.
It contains the program of modern liberal science. “With the
seventeenth century,” we read there, “begins the reorganization of
the theory of the universe by science. Its general tendency may be
described by the formula: Elimination of the supernatural from the
natural and historical world.” “Consequently, no miracles in
history, no supernatural birth, no resurrection, no revelation, in
fact no interference by the Eternal in temporal events.” Hence,
the man who “thinks scientifically _in this wise_ can have no
doubt that the old ecclesiastical dogma cannot be reconciled with
scientific thought.” This, of course, amounts to a complete
renunciation of positive Christianity.

This scientific thought, in the words of _Baumgarten_, “rejects
any projection of the supernatural into tangible reality”;
especially is “the metaphysical genesis and nature of the Saviour
highly offensive to our ethical consciousness,” even “absolutely
unbearable.” The Christian religion can no longer be permitted to
overtower other religions by its supernaturalness. “The
distinction between a revealed and a natural religion becomes an
impossibility,” says _W. Bousset_. And _Wundt_ declares:
“Christianity, as an ‘absolute’ or a ‘revealed’ religion, would
stand opposed to all other religious development, as an
incommensurable magnitude. This point of view, evidently, cannot
be competent for our speculations.”

Having become the ruling mode of thought, these presumptions determine from the outset the results to be obtained by “research,” and they force it to violate its own method, so that it may be dragged along the by-ways and false ways of a mistaken, philosophical a-priorism, thereby making freedom of science a mockery. From the abundant material at our disposal let us take only one example, viz., the _Modern Criticism of the Gospels_.

The Gospels contain many records of facts of a supernatural character, of miracles and prophecies. That these records are necessarily false is the first principle of the historical, or critical, method, as it is called. “As a miracle of itself is unthinkable, so the miracles in the history of Christianity, and in the Christianity of the New Testament, are likewise unthinkable. Hence, when miracles are nevertheless narrated, these narratives must be false, in as far as they report miracles: that is, either the relation did not happen at all, or, if it did, there was a sufficient natural explanation”; “the historian must under all circumstances answer, ‘No,’ to the question whether the report of a miracle is worthy of belief” (_T. Zeller_). Thus instructed, “unprejudiced” research proceeds to construct its results of the investigation of the genuineness, time and date, of the writing of the Gospels and of the Acts, as well as of their credibility. Let us see how this is done.

The tradition of the early Church, as well as intrinsic evidence, testify that the first Gospel was really written by the Apostle _Matthew_, and this certainly before the destruction of Jerusalem. Liberal-Protestant criticism, however, assigns its origin to a time after the year 70, chiefly for two reasons: First, the striking prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, conforming so accurately to the actual event, could have been written only after the year 70; otherwise it would have amounted to a real prophecy subsequently fulfilled, a conclusion that cannot be accepted. The second reason is this: The contents of _St. Matthew’s_ Gospel is already wholly Catholic, hence it must have been written during a later, Catholic, period. For as there can be no influences from above, and as everything is evolved in a natural way, the principle must govern: that the more supernatural and the more dogmas, so much later the period in question; at first there could have been only a religion of sentiment without dogma, which gradually developed into Catholic dogmatism. Similar are the presumptions which direct modern research in respect to the genuineness of the other Gospels and the Acts. A few proofs:

Prof. _Jülicher_ thinks that, “While we cannot go prior to the
beginning of the second century, because of external testimony, we
cannot on the other hand maintain a later date. The most probable
time for our Gospel is the one shortly before the year 100....”
Why? “Because the ill-fitting feature in the parable of the
wedding feast, that the king in his wrath, because his invitation
had been made light of, sent forth his armies and destroyed those
murderers and burned up their city, could hardly have been
invented before the conflagration of Jerusalem”—a prophecy,
namely, of the coming destruction of Jerusalem cannot be admitted.
“But to my mind, the decisive point is found in the religious
position of _Matthew_. Despite his conservative treatment of
tradition, he already stands quite removed from its spirit; he has
written a Catholic Gospel.... To _Matthew_ the congregation, the
Church, forms the highest court of discipline, being the
administrator of all heavenly goods of salvation; his Gospel
determines who is to rule, who to give laws: in its essential
features the early Catholicism is completed.”

_Jülicher_ arrives at a similar conclusion in his research on _St.
Luke’s_ Gospel: “That _Luke’s_ Gospel was written sometime after
the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., is proven beyond any
doubt, by xxi. 22-24, where the terrible events of the Jewish war
are ‘foretold.’... All arguments in favor of a later date of
writing concerning _Matthew_ hold good also of _Luke_.” Even more
unreserved is _O. Pfleiderer_, until recently a prominent
representative of liberal-Protestant theology at Berlin: “In this
Gospel we find the elements of dogma, morals, the constitution of
the developing Catholic Church. Catholic is its trinitarian
formula of christening, this embryo of the Creed and of the
apostolic symbol. Catholic is its teaching of Christ ... Catholic,
the doctrine of Salvation ... Catholic are the morals ...
Catholic, finally, is the importance attached to _Peter_ as the
foundation of the Church and as the bearer of the power of the
key.” In regard to this latter point _Pfleiderer_ remarks
expressly: “In spite of all attempts of Protestants to mitigate
this passage (Matt. xvi. 17-20) there is no doubt that it contains
the solemn proclamation of _Peter’s_ Primacy.” The unsophisticated
reader thereupon would be likely to deduct: If the oldest Gospel
is already Catholic, then it must be admitted that earliest
Christianity was already Catholic. In so reasoning he might have
rightly concluded, but he would have shown himself little
acquainted with the method of liberal science. This infers
contrariwise: early Christianity must not be Catholic, hence the
Catholic Gospel cannot be so old, it must be the fraudulent
concoction of a later time; “hence the origin of the Gospel of
_Matthew_ is to be put down not before the time of _Hadrian_; in
the fourth century rather than in the third.”

_A. Harnack_ fixes the date of the Gospel at shortly after 70,
because “_Matthew_, as well as _Luke_, are presupposing the
destruction of Jerusalem. This follows with the greatest
probability from Matt. xxii. 7 (the parable of the marriage
feast).” This is to be held also of _Luke’s_ Gospel. “This much
can be concluded without hesitation: that, as now admitted by
almost all critics, _Luke’s_ Gospel presupposes the destruction of
Jerusalem.”

Remarkable is _Harnack’s_ latest attitude towards the Acts; it
shows again that the results of modern biblical criticism are less
the results of historical research than of philosophical
presumptions. In his “Acts of the Apostles” _Harnack_ admits:
“Very weighty observations indicate that the Acts (hence also the
Gospels) were already written at the beginning of the sixties.” In
substantiation he cites not less than six reasons which evidently
prove it: they are based upon the principles of sound historical
criticism. “These are opposed solely by the observation that the
prophecy about the catastrophe of Jerusalem in some striking
points comes near to the actual event, and that the reports about
the Apparition and the legend of the Ascension would be hard to
understand prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. It is hard to
decide.... But it is not difficult to judge on which side the
weightier arguments are” (viz., on the part of the contention for
an earlier date). Yet _Harnack_ is loath to accept the better
scientific reasons: they must suffer correction by presumptions.
He formulates his final decision in the following way: “_Luke_
wrote at the time of _Titus_, or during the earlier time of
_Domitian_ (?), but perhaps (only _perhaps_, in spite of decisive
arguments) already at the beginning of the sixties.” (Recently
_Harnack_ recedes to the time before the destruction of Jerusalem
without, however, acknowledging a divine prophecy of this
catastrophe.) Similar is this theologian’s proof that the fourth
Gospel could not have been written by _John_, the son of
_Zebedee_; because xxi. 20-23 (I will that he tarry till I come)
cannot be a prophecy, but must have been written down after the
death of the favourite disciple. “The section xx. 20-23 obviously
presupposes the death of the beloved disciple; on the other hand
he cannot be left out of the 21st Chapter. This 21st Chapter,
however, shows no other pen than that which had written Chapters
1-20. This proves that the author of Chapter 21, hence the author
of Chapters 1-20, could not have been the son of _Zebedee_, whose
death is there presupposed.” The whole argument again rests upon
the refusal to hold possible a prophecy from the lips of Jesus.

The main reason, however, for disputing the genuineness of the
fourth Gospel, although external tradition and internal criterions
testify to it as the writing of _St. John_, is, because it teaches
so clearly the _divinity of Christ_: and this must be denied.
Significant are, for instance, the words in which _Weizsäcker_
sums up his objections to this gospel: “That the Apostle, the
favorite disciple according to the Gospel, who sat at the table
beside Christ, should have looked upon and represented everything
that he once experienced, as the living together with the
incarnate divine Logos, is rather a puzzle. No power of faith and
no philosophy can be imagined big enough to extinguish the memory
of real life and to replace it by this miraculous image of a
divine being ... of one of the original Apostles, it is
unthinkable. Upon this the decision of this point will always
hinge. Anything else that may be added from the contents of the
Gospel is subordinate.” This means, Christ cannot be admitted to
be a Divine Being—impossible. An eye-witness could not take Him
for it: therefore, this “miraculous picture of a Divine Being”
cannot have been the work of an eye-witness.

Like the _genuineness_ of the Gospels, so is also their _credibility_ beyond a doubt. Two of them are written by Apostles, the two others by Disciples of the Apostles: they also have all the marks peculiar to writings of eye or ear witnesses, or of persons who have heard the narratives directly from the lips of eye-witnesses. Nor would any one doubt their credibility if they did not report supernatural facts. But, this being the case, infidel research is bound to arrive at the opposite result.

The writers were frauds—this was long ago the hypothesis of the superficial Hamburg Professor, _Samuel Reimarus_, whose “Fragments” were published by _Lessing_. But even to a _D. F. Strauss_ “such a suspicion was repulsive.” The Heidelberg Professor, _H. E. Paulus_, sought his salvation in trying to reduce the reports of miracles to a natural sense, by doing painful violence to the text: for instance, the Lord did not walk _upon_ the sea, but only _along_ the sea; the miracle of the wine at Cana was only a wedding joke. Then came _D. F. Strauss_ (died 1874), and he tried it in a different way. “If the Gospels are really historical documents, then the miracle cannot be removed from the life of Jesus.” Hence, it is to remain? Indeed not! The Gospels must not be accepted as historical sources. They are products of purposeless poetic legends, the miracles are garlands of religious myths, gradually twined around the picture of Jesus. Myths, however, need time for their formation, hence _Strauss_ fixes the date of the Gospels within the second century. He openly admits that his hypothesis would fall to the ground if but a single Gospel has been written in the first century. As a fact, more recent rationalistic criticism has found itself constrained to drop this hypothesis. _F. Ch. Baur_ (died 1860) fell back upon the fraud-hypothesis of a _Reimarus_. It, too, has been laid among the dead. Thus they have exhausted themselves in the attempt to shake off the burdensome yoke of truth.

Influenced by _Strauss_, _Baur_, and other German critics, _E. Renan_ (died 1892) wrote his “Life of Jesus,” a frivolous romance. Quite frank are the words he wrote down in the preface to the thirteenth edition of his “Vie de Jésus” (1883): “If miracle has any reality, then my book is nothing but a tissue of errors.... If the miracle and the inspiration of certain books are real things, then our method is abominable.” But he silences all doubts by the phrase: “To admit the supernatural is alone sufficient to place one’s self outside of science.”

The newer “historical-critical” school, while having disposed of many contentions of the old schools, is nevertheless in its research bound just as energetically by the postulate of conformity to natural laws. The fourth Gospel is pushed aside: in the others all miraculous occurrences are expounded away, till the “historically credible core” is reached.

The books of the Old Testament fare even worse, if possible.

“Does Genesis relate history or a legend?” asks Prof. _Gunkel_,
and continues: “this is no longer a question to the historian.”
Well, a legend, then. But how does the historian know this? From
his own pantheistic philosophy, which recognizes no God differing
from this world: “The narratives of Genesis being mostly of a
religious nature, they continuously speak of God. The way,
however, in which narratives speak of God is one of the most
reliable standards to judge whether they are meant historically or
poetically. Here, too, the historian cannot do without a world
philosophy. We believe that God acts in the world as the latent,
hidden motive of all things ... but He never appears to us as an
acting factor _jointly with others_ (the italics are the
author’s), but always as the ultimate cause of all things. Quite
different in many narratives of Genesis. We are able to understand
these narratives of miracles and apparitions as the artlessness of
primitive people, but we refuse to believe them.”

Analogous to Bible-criticism is the research in other branches of theology. The _origin of Christianity_, this wonderful power which so suddenly made its appearance in history and speedily vanquished a whole world, must of course not be a work of Heaven. Hence its origin must be explained at any cost in a natural way, or “historically,” as they put it. The religious notions of Christianity must not be conceded a supernatural certainty over all other religions; and “to understand an event historically means: to conceive it by its causal connection with the conditions of a given place and at a certain time of the human life. Hence science cannot consider such a thing as the appearance of a supernatural being upon the earth” (_Pfleiderer_).

And then they proceed to show that Christianity is a natural, evolutionary product of the Israelite religion, of Greek philosophy, of Oriental myths, and Roman customs. That it is far superior to all these, and that it is the opposite to them in various ways, is carefully hushed up. The inadequacy and impossibility of such an explanation is adroitly concealed. Nor could the Israelite religion of the Old Covenant, according to the naturalistic principle of liberal theology, have had its origin in revelation and the prophets; hence it comes from Babylon, as the product of natural evolution from Oriental myths and customs. Any old and new analogies, hypotheses, and fancies are good enough then to demonstrate this as “historical.”

The Truth is not in Them.

We pause here. We might thus continue for a long time; but it is enough. The patient reader, who has accompanied us on the tedious way to this point, may begin to feel tired. May he excuse the detailed recital for the reason that we had to do some extensive reconnoitring, through the precincts of modern philosophical-religious research, to avoid the reproach that we were making accusations without furnishing proofs. Our contention was, that liberal science is trying to shake off the yoke of religious truth, and to explain it away by its self-made presumptions. We believe that we have proved our contention.

We are confronted by a science that boasts of monopolizing the spirit of truthfulness; as a matter of fact, we see that it uses all scientific devices to shirk the truth and to disguise its effort. In loquacious protests it rejects the “rigid dogmatism,” the “fixed views,” of the Christian faith, and it proclaims experience and reason as the sole criterions of scientific cognition; yet it always stands upon the platform of rigid presumptions, that are derived from no experience, and which no reason can prove. It clamours for research free from presumption, and, without winking an eye, substitutes its own presumption, secretly or openly. It is _dishonest_.

It promises to preserve for man the highest ideals and blessings for which his mind is yearning, yet it has no religion and no God. It recalls to mind the words spoken by _St. Augustine_ of the philosophers whom he had followed in the false ways of his youth: “They said: truth, and always truth, and talked much of truth, but it was not in them.... Oh, truth, truth, how deeply my inmost spirit sighed after thee, while they filled my ears incessantly with thy bare name and with the palaver of their bulky volumes.” Free it wants to be, this science. One of its disciples boasted: “It has taught its disciples to look down without dizziness from the airy heights of sovereign scepticism. How easy and free one breathes up there!” Aye, it has made itself free,—from the yoke of unpalatable truth. So much more firmly is it fettered, not with the holy bonds of belief in God, but by the more burdensome mental yoke of a disbelief that weakens and blinds the eyes against the cognition of the higher truth:—and bound by the chains of public opinion, which threatens anathema to every one who fails to stop at the border of the natural. Truly free is only the science that enjoys a clear and free perception for the truth. Unfree is a science that restrains the mental eye with the blinkers of theophoby. Our age seeks for the lost happiness of the soul, it seeks longingly God and the supernatural that have been removed from its sight. But science, so often its leader, loathingly dodges God, and refuses to fold the hands and pray. As long as our age does not break with a science that refuses to know a God and a Saviour, so long will it hopelessly grope about without result, and look in vain for an escape from the wretched labyrinth of doubt.