Page:The Collected Works of Theodore Parker Discourse volume 1.djvu/222

Rh Of late years it has been unpopular with theological writers to rest the authority of Christianity on its truth, and not its truth on its authority. It must be confessed there is some inconvenience in the case, for if this method of trusting Truth alone and not Authority be followed, by and by some things which have much Authority and no Truth to support them, may come to the ground. The same thing took place in the middle ages, when Abelard looked into Theology, explaining and defending some of the doctrines of the Church by Reason. The Church said, If you commend the Reasonable as such, you must condemn the Not-Reasonable, and then where are we? A significant question truly. So the Church “cried out upon him as a heretic, because he trusted Reason more than a blind belief in the traditions of men, which the Church has long had the impudence to call “Faith in God.” It is often said, in our times, that Christianity rests on miracles; that the authority of the miracle-worker authenticates his doctrine; if a teacher can raise the dead, he must have a commission from God to teach true doctrine; his word is the standard of truth. Here the fact and the value of miracles are both assumed outright.

Now if it could be shown that Christianity rested on Miracles, or had more or less connection with them, it yet proves nothing peculiar in the case, for other forms of Religions, fetichistic, polytheistic, and monotheistic, appeal to the same authority. If a nation is rude and superstitious, the claim to miracles is the more common; their authority the greater. To take the popular notion, the