Article December 20, 1913 Issue

A recent critic, who signs himself "A Student of History,"...

Frederick Dixon—Ashford, England

Kentish Express

A recent critic, who signs himself "A Student of History," presents five dilemmas, which he hopes, I imagine, rather than expects, I shall be unable to reply to. He says that for one posing as a teacher I am very ignorant in mixing up Christian Science with historic Christianity. Now we will see about the ignorance presently, but I have not posed as a teacher. I have never written one word in this paper except in reply to attacks. In doing this, I have, I imagine, exactly fulfilled the demand of a certain historic Christian, named Peter, "to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you."

On the other hand, I am not aware that there is anything in historic Christianity which would support the habit of making anonymous attacks on other people,—imagine an apostle with an alias! Let me hasten to add that sobriquets, like "Boanerges," were not intended to conceal identity. Giving a reason for the hope that is in me, I repeat that historic Christianity is the Christianity taught by Jesus. The test of that Christianity is the ability of those who profess it to perform miracles. The rest is all talk. Any one can say that Jesus taught this or that; Jesus demanded that they should prove it. Denying that the command to heal the sick and raise the dead is operative today, is the most antichristian reading of history imaginable, and it is commonly supported by abusing some one else for endeavoring to do it. Centuries of burning and murdering dissenters from the chameleon of orthodoxy have never succeeded in healing the sick and raising the dead, nor will merely dogmatic statements, delivered with the full authority of anonymity, replace the historic Christianity of faith, demonstrated in deeds, by the pulpit Christianity of that faith without works which is dead.

Secondly, I am told that I am ignorant of the maxim that "the exception proves the rule," or I would never have quoted Mr. Haweis on the Athanasian creed. Now, to begin with, does your correspondent believe that Mr. Haweis was the solitary swallow of a non-Athanasian summer? He was, on the contrary, only an example of a colossal migration. Nor is the exception which proves the rule logic; it is purely a popular epigram, without its Latin origin quite as inaccurate as such things commonly are. Does your correspondent really think that it would prove two and two to be four if they were occasionally five?

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

A recent critic, who signs himself "A Student of History,"...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access