"The Polytheism of the orthodox Church," he says further, referring to the mystery of the Trinity, "is irrational"; for "Common Sense says that 3 is not equal to 1, nor 1 to 3," and this is sufficient for _Plate_. "Trinity, the Incarnation of the Son of G.o.d, Christ's Ascension and His descent into h.e.l.l, Original Sin, Redemption from sin by Christ's sacrifice, Angels and Devils, the Immaculate Conception, the Infallibility of the Pope, all these and many other doctrines of the orthodox Church are thrown to the winds by anybody convinced of the permanence and imperviousness of the natural laws." This again is sufficient for him. "The question whether G.o.d is personal or impersonal," says he, in another place, "should never be raised: it is just as preposterous as the question whether G.o.d has eyes or not." Another of his arguments reads: "If the body after death can become dust by natural means, then there must have been conditions under which the dust became by natural means a body." An a.n.a.logous argument would be: "If a book can of itself finally wear away into withered and loosened leaves, then there must be conditions under which the perfect book could originate all by itself, and without Prof. _Plate_, out of withered, loose leaves."

_Plate_ a.s.sures us: "I do not know anything about metaphysics." We do not want to dispute that. It is regrettable that so many scientists of our times are betraying a pitiable lack of philosophical training, a lack which becomes a social danger if they, nevertheless, yield to the temptation to invade the domain of Philosophy. Even the Protestant scientist _G. Wobbermin_ in referring to the above-mentioned discussion remarked: "_Wasmann's_ opponents on that evening have betrayed without exception a really amazing lack of philosophical training." In glaring contrast with this ignorance stands their intolerance for any different theory of the world. Because he thinks as a Christian, _Wasmann_ is peremptorily expelled from the ranks of natural scientists.

"_Father Wasmann_ is not a true natural scientist, he is not a true scholar." With this crushing verdict Prof. _Plate_ concluded his speech. He repeats this finding on the last page of his book in conspicuous type: "_Father Wasmann_, S. J., no true natural scientist, no true scholar." That his opponent, in answer to questions that go beyond mere natural science, is giving philosophical replies, in accord with the doctrine of Christianity, is explained by "his voluntary or involuntary submission to the Church," "natural science bows to Theology." He therefore lacks "the freedom of thought and of deduction."

Sophistical stunts in the service of intolerance! But let us proceed on our way.

The compulsory dogma of the inadmissibility of a supernatural order of the world, and of its operation in the visible world, becomes most manifest when liberal science comes in contact with the miracle. Forsooth, it shirks this contact. But time and again, now and in the past, it is confronted by clearly attested facts and it cannot avoid noticing them.

However, it is determined from the outset that miracles are impossible. Of course, this cannot be proved except by the presumption that there is no supermundane G.o.d. Even the agnostic _Stuart Mill_ admits that if the existence of G.o.d is conceded, an effect produced by His will, which in every instance owes its origin to its creator, appears no longer as a purely arbitrary hypothesis, but must be considered a serious possibility (Essays, 1874). Generally, however, liberal science does not try hard to demonstrate in a scientific way the impossibility.

"It is my unyielding conviction," so speaks _A. Harnack_, and his is perhaps the most telling expression of this dogmatic mood, "that anything that happens within time and s.p.a.ce is subject to the laws of motion. Hence, that in this sense, _i.e._, of interrupting the natural connection, there cannot be any miracles." One simply does not believe such things. "That a tempest at sea," thus _Harnack_ again, "could have been stilled by a word we do not believe, nor shall we ever again believe it."

Similarly reads _Baumgarten's_ declaration regarding the resurrection of Christ: "Even if all the reports had been written on the third day, and had been transmitted to us as a certainty ... nevertheless modern consciousness could not accept the story."

And _W. Foerster_ writes: "The supposition that such interferences do not occur, and that everything in the world is advancing steadily and in accordance with fixed laws, forms the indispensable presumption of scientific research." And _H. von Sybel_ holds "An absolute concord with the laws of evolution, a common level in the existence of things terrestrial, forms the presumption of all knowledge: it stands and falls with it."

This is the presumption, from which is drawn the most extravagant conclusion, which, though so manifestly improper, is made the basis for rejecting the entire supernatural religion of Christianity. Because G.o.d's Incarnate Son, in a small town of Palestine, once turned water into wine, will the Christian housewife lose her confidence in the stability of water? When it was suddenly discovered that the orbit of the planet Ura.n.u.s was not a perfect ellipsis, as required by the law of _Kepler_, was it thought that these deviations are impossible because there must not be any exception to the law of perfect elliptical movements? Happily, this law continued to be accepted without deeming an irregularity impossible, and shortly afterwards Neptune was discovered and found to be the cause of the disturbance. But anything miraculous, no matter how well proven, must be considered unacceptable by reason of such unsound presumption.

Philosophical a-priorism is superior to facts.

Thus _St. Augustine_ tells in his work "De civitate Dei" (1. xxii.

c. 8) of a number of miracles happening in his time, of which he had knowledge either as eye-witness or by authentical reports from eye-witnesses. _E. Zeller_ renders judgment on the historical value of the statement as follows: "The narrator is a contemporary, and partly even an eye-witness, of the events reported: by virtue of his episcopal office he is particularly commissioned to closely investigate them; we know him as a man overtowering his contemporaries in intellect and knowledge, second to none in religious zeal, strong faith, and moral earnestness.

The wonderful events happened to well-known persons, sometimes in the presence of big crowds of people; they were attested and recorded by official order." Hence the statement must be accepted without objection. But must it not also be believed? is the query of an unbia.s.sed listener. Not in the judgment of one who is in the tyrannical yoke of his presumptions. "What are we to say about it?" continues _Zeller_, and finds that "in this unparalleled aggregation of miracles we can after all see nothing else but a proof of the credulity of that age." The report is incontestable, but it must not be believed!

In our times _Lourdes_ has become the scene of events which are founded on facts, and the miraculous character has been proven at least of some of them. _Bertrin_, in his "Histoire critique des evenements de Lourdes," deals with the att.i.tude of the physicians toward the miracles. The believing physician can enter upon his investigation without prejudice: not so the unbelieving physician and scientist, who is shackled by his prejudice against the possibility of miracles. Of this a few examples:

"How did you get cured?" was the question put by a physician to a young woman who, after having suffered for four years from a suppurating inflammation of the hip joints, complicated by caries, had a few days previously suddenly regained her full health. Pains and sores had disappeared. "By whom was I cured? By the Blessed Virgin!" "Never mind the Blessed Virgin," replied the physician.

"Young woman, why don't you admit that you had been a.s.sured in advance that you would get well. You were told that, once in Lourdes, you would suddenly rise from the box wherein you were lying. That sort of thing happens-we call it suggestion." The girl replied, unhesitatingly, that it did not happen this way at all.

Finally the physician offered her money if she would admit having really been cured by suggestion. The girl declined the offer.-Another girl arrived in Lourdes, with a physician's attestation that she was a consumptive. She is cured after the first bath. At the bureau of verification her lungs were found to be no longer diseased. Her physician's statement having been very brief, a telegram was sent to him as a matter of precaution, asking him for another statement without, however, informing him of the cure. The physician immediately wired back: "She is a consumptive." This was also the opinion of other physicians who had treated the girl. The girl joyfully returns home, and hurries to her physician, requesting him to certify to her cure. He does so quite reluctantly. Upon reading his certificate, she discovers that it said she had been cured, but only of a _cough_. The case of consumption of his original testimonial had changed into a cough. His dread of a miracle had induced this physician to commit a falsehood.

_A. Rambacher_, as he relates in a pamphlet, sent the scientific treatise on Lourdes by Dr. _Boissarie_ to Prof. _Haeckel_, with the request to read it, in order to gain a better notion of the existence of a supernatural world. After some urging he finally received the following reply, which speaks volumes for the att.i.tude of the natural scientist towards facts: "With many thanks I hereby return the book by Dr. _Boissarie_ on the Great Cures of Lourdes which you sent me. The perusal of the same has convinced me anew of the tremendous power of superst.i.tion (glorified as 'pious belief') of nave credulity (without critical examination), and of contagious collective suggestion, as well as of the cunning of the clergy, exploiting them for their gain.... The physicians, said to testify in behalf of the 'miracles' and the supernatural phenomena, are either ignorant and undiscerning quacks, or positive frauds in collusion with the priests. The most accurate description of the gigantic swindle of Lourdes I know of, is that of _Zola_ in his well-known novel.... With repeated thanks for your kindness ... _Ernst Haeckel_." Against all the facts in evidence this dogmatic scientist was safely intrenched behind the stone wall of his presumptions. He knew in advance that everything was superst.i.tion or the fraud of cunning priests, that all physicians who certified to cures were quacks and cheats. _Zola's_ tendentious romance considered the best historical source! Mention should be made here how this celebrated novelist dealt with facts at Lourdes. In the year 1892, the time of the great pilgrimage, _Zola_ went to Lourdes. He wanted to observe and then tell what he had seen. An historical novel it was to be; time and again he had proclaimed in the newspapers that he would tell the whole truth.

At Lourdes all doors were opened to him; he had admittance anywhere; he could interview and obtain explanations at will. How he kept his promise to report the truth may be shown by a single instance: _Marie Lebranchu_ came to Lourdes on August 20, 1892, suffering from incurable consumption. She was suddenly cured, and never had a relapse. One year after her cure she returned to the miraculous Grotto. The excellent condition of her lungs was again verified. Now, what does _Zola_ make of this event? In his novel the cured girl suffers a terrible relapse upon her first return home, "a brutal return of the disease which remained victorious,"

we read in _Zola's_ book. One day, the president of the Lourdes Bureau of Investigation introduced himself to _Zola_ in Paris, and asked him "How dare you let _Marie Lebranchu_ die in your novel; you know very well that she is alive and just as well as you and I." "What do I care," was _Zola's_ reply, "I think I have the right to do as I please with the characters I create." If a romancer desires to avail himself of this privilege he certainly has not the right to proclaim his novels as truthful historical writings, much less may others see in such a novel the "most accurate description of the events at Lourdes."

_Renan_ at one time said: "Oh, if we just once might have a miracle brought before professional scientists! But, alas! this will never happen!" He borrowed this saying from _Voltaire_, with the difference that the latter demanded G.o.d to perform a miracle before the Academy of Sciences, as if there were need for miracles in a physical or chemical laboratory. Those who desire in earnest to investigate miracles ought to go where they are performed. And even there, where the eyes can see them, it also takes good will to acknowledge them. In this respect an interview is instructive which _Zola_ once had with an editor. The latter asked: "If you were witness to a miracle, that would occur under strictest conditions suggested by yourself, would you acknowledge the miracle? Would you then accept the teachings of the faith?" After a few moments of serious thought, _Zola_ replied: "I do not know, but I do not believe I would" (_Bertrin_). On April 7, 1875, there came to the Belgian sanctuary, Oostacker, a Flemish labourer, by name _Peter de Rudder_, whose leg had eight years before been broken below the knee, and who was then suffering from two suppurating cancerous sores, that had formed at the place of the fracture and on the foot. He suddenly was entirely cured. The case was investigated in a most exact way. In 1900 a treatise concerning the case was published by three physicians. _E.

Wasmann_ had as early as 1900 published a short extract of it in the "Stimmen aus Maria Laach." In February, 1907, when, at Berlin, he delivered his lectures which were followed by a discussion, his opponents, headed by Prof. _Plate_, did not know of this article.

When they learned of it, some time afterwards, he was put under the ban because he "had degraded himself to the position of a charlatan by vouching with his scientific repute for the happening of a miraculous cure"; and they said "they would fight him in the same way as they would fight every quack, but as a scientist he was discarded." _Plate_ had on the evening of the discussion asked of the a.s.sembled scientists the question: "Have we ever observed anything like a suspension of the natural laws? The reply to it is an unconditional 'we have not'; consequently Theism becomes inadmissible to the natural scientist." Here, in the _de Rudder_ case, is found the required instance. But _Plate_ knows, in advance of any investigation, that it is a fairy tale, believed without critical examination. And Prof. _Hansemann_, another opposing speaker of that evening, subsequently sent word to _Wasmann_ that: "One can pretty well judge what to think of a natural scientist who publishes such stuff. For this reason I now declare that I shall never in future, no matter how or where, enter into discussion of matters of natural science with Mr.

_Wasmann_." When on a certain occasion _Hegel_ was advised that some facts did not agree with his philosophical notions, he replied: "The more pity for the facts."

The English natural scientist, _W. Thomson_, once said before the British Society at Edinburgh: "Science is bound by eternal honour to face fearlessly every problem that can be clearly laid before it." The equally famous _Faraday_, in the name of empirical research, demands of its adherents the determination to stand or to fall with the results of a direct appeal to the facts in the first place, and with the strict logical deductions therefrom in the second. In general these principles are adhered to so long as religious notions are not encountered. But as soon as these are sighted, the engine is reversed, and all scientific principles are forgotten.

A science led by this spirit will set out to emanc.i.p.ate man's moral conduct of life from G.o.d and religion. Indeed, the first postulate of modern ethics directs that _morality_ must be _independent of religion_.

That G.o.d and eternal salvation is the end of man, the ultimate norm of his moral life, that G.o.d's Command is the ultimate reason of the moral obligation, and divine sanction its strongest support, it does not want to acknowledge. Here, too, we find the principle of natural causality in operation. "As in physics G.o.d's will must not be made to serve as an explanation, so likewise in the theory of moral phenomena. Both the natural and the moral world, as they exist, may point beyond themselves to something transcendental. But we cannot admit the transcendental ... a scientific explanation will have to be wholly immanent, and anthropological" (_Paulsen_). According to this approved principle of ignoration, the supreme aim and law of a morality without religion is _man_, his earthly happiness, and his culture.

Its aims, according to Prof. _Jodl_, one of its noted champions, are: "Promotion of moral life, fostering of a refined humanity, development of a true fellow-feeling, without the religious and metaphysical notions upon which mankind hitherto has mostly built its ethical ideals." _Kant_ was the pioneer here: "In so far as morality is based on the conception of man as a free, being, it requires neither the idea of a superior being to make him cognizant of his duties, nor any motive but the law itself in order to observe it ... hence morality for its own sake does not by any means need religion." This is the viewpoint of the autonomous man, who is his own law. "From the viewpoint of authority," so tells us _E. von Hartmann_, "autonomy does not mean anything else but that in ethical matters I am for myself the highest court without appeal.... The G.o.d, Who in the beginning spoke to His children from a fiery cloud ... has descended into our bosom, and, transformed into our own being, speaks out of us as a moral autonomy." _Diis extinctis successit humanitas._

"Although an individual representative of science may be a believer in G.o.d in his private life," so argues the English philosopher, _W. James_, "at any rate the times have pa.s.sed when it could be said that the heavens announce to science the glory of G.o.d, and that the heaven shows the works of His hands." The flight from divinity, atheism open or disguised, is the psychological effect of the liberal principle. Free thought aims to free man of all authority, it aims at severing from religion his entire existence, marriage, state, schools, and likewise science. "It is undeniable," we hear from the lips of champions of modern man, standing on the pinnacle of religious liberalism, "that there is a certain forsakenness in this existence of man, as compared to a life brightened by the idea of a G.o.d," but that forsakenness is not purchased too dearly, for "it is the solitude of autonomy, a possession so precious that no price for it could be too high" (_Carneri_).

Indeed, these modern men use even plainer language: science is applauded for having at last freed man from G.o.d. With _Kant's_ principle that we cannot know anything of the supernatural, we are told, there "were thrown overboard the cosmogonic notions of the Semitic races, notions that have so severely oppressed our science and religion, and are still oppressing them.... By this insight an idol is smashed. In a previous chapter I called the Israelites the worshippers of abstract idols; now, I believe, I shall be fully understood." Indeed, we understand. It means: Away with G.o.d. "This German metaphysics frees us from idolatry and reveals to us the living divinity in our own bosom" (_Chamberlain_).

This is the manner in which this free thought, within science and without, is fulfilling the earnest admonition of the Psalmist: "Seek ye the Lord and be strengthened: seek His face evermore" (Ps. civ. 4), and it turns into irony the words: "This is the generation of them that seek Him, of them that seek the face of the G.o.d of Jacob" (Ps. xxiii. 6).

"I Know not Jesus Christ, His Only Begotten Son, Our Lord."

Where the thought of independence and of this world enslaves the minds, and holds them captive in harsh aversion to the supernatural, an objective judgment on the nature and history of the Christian religion, to say nothing of the Catholic Church, can hardly be hoped for. What may be expected is that we will also meet here with a science which, with its hands held before the eye that fears the light, wards off and combats everything that is specifically Christian. It is to be feared only that it will turn light into darkness regarding the view of life, as also the doctrine and history, of the Christian religion.

Regarding the Christian view of life we need only read the superficial and yet so arrogant discussions of Christian philosophy, as found in _Paulsen_, _Wundt_, or _E. von Hartmann_. From this judicial bench the wisdom of Him, of Whom it is said "And we saw His glory, full of grace and truth," we see condemned, if not even treated with subtle ridicule.

Let us for instance take _Paulsen's_ presentment of the "View of Life under Christianity." Whoever reads it, and believes it, to him the teaching of Jesus Christ can only be, what the Apostle said it was to the heathens, foolishness. No longer can he have adoration for its Founder, but rather the pity that one has for an enthusiastic visionary devoid of any knowledge of the world and men. The wisdom taught by Christ is distorted into a sombre grimace, while side by side with it the conception of life of h.e.l.lenic paganism is transfigured into a beautiful ideal.

We are told there: "While cla.s.sical antiquity saw as the task of life the perfect development of the natural powers and talents of man, ... Christianity with clear consciousness makes the contrary the goal of life." "The cultivation and exercise of intellectual faculties was of great importance to the Greeks.... Primitive Christianity looks upon reason and natural cognition with indifference, even with suspicion and contempt ... indeed, natural reason and knowledge are an obstacle for the kingdom of G.o.d.

Christianity at first was indifferent, even inimical, not only to philosophy and science, but also to art and poetry. It cuts off not only sensual but also aesthetical gratification," because _St.

John_ condemned the gratification of the eyes (which means something quite different from aesthetical gratification) Christianity is said to reject "the arts of the Muses and athletics: they belong to that sowing of the flesh of which the harvest is perdition." "What the Christians valued highly was not erudition and eloquence, but silence. Silence is the first thing recommended by _Ambrose_" (and he the great and renowned representative of early Christian eloquence!). There is more: "In the primitive view the first virtue was valour, especially valour in war; indeed, in Greek and Latin speech the word 'virtue' meant valour; the Christian's virtue, however, is patience and endurance. He does not draw the sword; to him are expressly forbidden not only anger, hatred, and private revenge, but even litigation."

In this tendentious strain _Paulsen_ continues, with exaggerations and misrepresentations that have nothing in common with science.

According to the Greek view, he says, high-mindedness was a great virtue, but, naturally, the Christian is not allowed to have it; "the virtue of the Christian is humility," _i.e._, in _Paulsen's_ sense low-mindedness; this is "the starting point of Christianity." True, the author a.s.sures us that Christianity of to-day is no longer the one he is describing; it has adapted itself more to the world. But it is sad to have this gloomy, visionary fanaticism described to us as the one which was taught by the words of Jesus Himself.

The adherent of this Christianity looks upon governments and their aims as something essentially foreign to it, even to be an official "would doubtless have been felt as a contradiction"; but a sudden change is said to have taken place under _Constantine_.

Earthly joys and benefits, the holy ties of the family, those that Jesus in person blessed at Cana, they were, according to _St.

Paul_, so we are told, in the spirit of Christ things to avoid and condemn.

And how are these theological discoveries proven, what sources are quoted in substantiation? By some arbitrarily selected pa.s.sages 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 l.u.s.t of the eye is sinful, that evil should not be resisted; and in quoting these pa.s.sages all scientific interpretation is carefully avoided, all the writers who have amply explained them are ignored. And what the scriptural pa.s.sages fail to prove must be demonstrated by some extreme statement borrowed from _Tertullian_, who is generally p.r.o.ne 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 circ.u.mstances 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, a.s.signs 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: