National Reform Infidelity.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
We have just chanced to pick up an old copy of the Christian Statesman, the issue of July 7, 1887, in which there is an article entitled, “The Bible in our Public Schools.” This article is referred to editorially as “a masterly article;” and therefore whatever statements are contained in it may be considered as voicing the views of the Statesman and of its party. We have not time or space at present to review the article as a whole, but simply call attention to the following paragraph, under the sub-head, “Historical Value of the Bible.” The writer says:— “There is another aspect of this subject which seems to be generally overlooked, viz., Is the use of the Bible in our public schools entirely and exclusively a religious question?—I think not. Ought the Bible to be used as a text-book?—Most decidedly I think it ought, and for these reasons: Viewed simply as literature the Bible is a collection of valuable ancient manuscripts coming to us from a most respectable source—natural and national history, poetry, biography, axiomatic philosophy, etc. Are not the histories of the ancient giants and Noah, of Nimrod and of Babel, of Abraham, Jacob, David, and Daniel as good secular history as anything collected from ancient sources by Rollin, Rawlinson, and Layard? Is not the poetry of the book of Psalms, and Job, and Isaiah, quite as good as that contained in the works written by Homer and Virgil? Are not the biblical narratives associated with Nineveh, Damascus, and Memphis, with Hebron and Jerusalem, quite as valuable secular truth as anything recorded elsewhere about Sparta or Athens, Rome or Carthage? The earthquake of Lisbon was not a more real and historical event than that previous earthquake by which Korah, Dathan, and Abiram were engulfed; the volcanic overthrow of Sodom in the vale of Siddim is quite as good secular history as is the overthrow of Pompeii in the neighborhood of Mount Vesuvius; Robin Hood and his “merrie men” outlawed in the forest, or Rob Roy in his Highland cave with his clansman, is a story not a whit more natural or secular than David in the cave of Adullam; the ethics of Solomon are quite as valuable in a purely terrestrial sense as anything that comes to us from Socrates or Plato; the voyages of Solomon’s fleet, and the voyage of Paul from Cæsarea to Rome by way of Malta, were events quite as instructive from a secular point of view as the voyages of the ancient Argonauts, Carthaginians, or Phoenicians, or of the Puritan Pilgrims across the Atlantic. The God of Sinai is quite as respectable (and probably quite as real) as any deity of Olympus; and the religious ceremonies of the tabernacle in the wilderness, as the temple on Moriah, form as real history and quite as good secular morals as anything religious emanating either from Egypt or from regions called classic. All the biblical narratives (I wish to emphasize) are genuine secular history in these senses, viz., the events occurred on earth; the actors and writers were real men and women; those events, those facts; those literary productions, those religious ceremonies, occurred during certain secular periods within certain geographical limits, and are not to be relegated to the transcendental and prehistoric regions of the legendary and mythical. Nay, I fearlessly assert that the story of Jesus of Nazareth is, in the proper sense, as good secular history as that of Julius Cæsar, or Ghengis Khan, or Napoleon; and the apostolic narrative called the Acts, as any extant chronicles of the Heptarchy or history of the Plantagenets.” Just think of it, the Bible placed on a level with secular history, and declared to be secular history! the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah compared to the overthrow of Pompeii! Robin Hood compared with David! the Proverbs of Solomon compared with the sayings of Socrates and Plato! and to crown all, the blasphemous comparison of the God of Sinai with the deities of Olympus, and he placed on a level with them! and the incomparable story of Jesus of Nazareth compared with Julius Cæsar, Ghengis Khan, and Napoleon! We say that such comparisons are simply blasphemous; and no one who has any respect for sacred history will dissent from the statement. There is no likeness whatever between the biblical narrative and the tales of secular writers, except that they were real occurrences. But this point we would emphasize, and that is that, apart from the religious features of it, the historical narrative has no point whatever. The simplest historical statements of the Old Testament were written by inspiration of God as much as the highest flights of Isaiah or Ezekiel. They are written for the spiritual encouragement and the moral upbuilding of those who read them; and they derive their whole force and importance from their religious character. To teach them as mere secular history is to lose sight of the real object of them. Nay, more, it is to lower the Bible to the level of human productions. We know that a great deal is said about the necessity of a knowledge of Old Testament history in order to a liberal education. But we affirm that one might as well not study the Bible at all as to study it from a mere secular standpoint. The Jewish nation was not a vast one; they were, as Moses said, “the fewest of all people.” Their territory was exceedingly small, and their place in the history of the world is exceedingly insignificant, if we separate it from the vital religious truths that their history is designed to convey. Looking at it from the standpoint of inspiration and religion, their history is the most important of all history; and the Bible narrative is the key which unlocks all history; and the Bible is the point from which the study of all history should begin; but divorced from religion it means nothing whatever. It would be utterly impossible for anyone to bring a stronger charge against the movement to teach the Bible in the public schools than is afforded in the paragraph above quoted. The advocates of that movement may style its opposers infidels if they choose; but in the face of such a lowering of the divine word, and of such secularizing on the Bible, we think that all thoughtful Christians will unite with us in saying that the movement is an infidel movement from beginning to end; and that the success of the National Reform movement to have the Bible taught in the public schools would mark the inauguration of a period of infidelity that could find no parallel outside of France in the time of the revolution. In the face of articles that show such an utter ignorance of the true character of the Bible, so light a regard for it as to compare it, not simply with secular history, but with the narratives of fiction, we think we are justified in declaring the so-called National Reform movement to be not Christian, but infidel and atheistic in its tendency. Let the National Reformers clear themselves from this charge if they can. E. J. W.