The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-02-18

| WT,
wicked tempter He tells us that had the hero
remained in absolute unstained virtue of
been eS no blessing. How thoughtiessiy nave nave
many people praised this book and others
Let us beware DO you not see here an utter
removal of the distinction between good and
evil? EVIL, in this view, comes from God, and
is the fierce, necessary fire in which souls are
to be purified There is here no real moral diff
ference between robbery and fever; drunk
equally with prayer, lead us to God SO that
the feeling of sin, the voice of conscience, the
pangs of repentance, are only arttices of God.
There is no sin in the sense commonly under
stood, and therefore no virtue; morality means
This is the dreadful vortex on the edge Of
which young people play, when they drink in
the teachings of such a book as Bitter Sweet"
however daintily mixed with the perfumed
and sparkling waters of poetry.
This great wickedness, thus handsomely and
temptingly set of with music and song, is more
coarsely repeated and carried out in the pub
lications of spiritualism. What the author of
bitter SWEET states dehcately, as If shrinking
from the consequences of his own lessons,
modern SpLrftudttSnb boldly and shamelessly
avows; Ihe authors OF the chief publications.
OF splrltualism deny Christ with Strauss and
Renan, and abuse Him with Paine. while, with
Dr. Holland, they also repudiate all moral dis
lnctlons Their greatest authorities say that
what we call sin and evil in human actions is
O necessity, and therefore lawful and right
that Judas Iscariot was no worse than John
the Divine, nor Herod than Fenelon; that
Fenelon is no nearer to God than Herod." AS
might be expected from such n foundation in
morals, we nave blasphemy against God and
Christ, open derision of the Bible, bitter and
obscene denunciations of marriage, and prac-
tlee in perfect conformity with the revolving
theory. DR.. Hatch, reformed spiritualist,
AYERS that the chief bond of union among
We cannot go further in this description. We
are anxious to show you only the rotten core
OF the spiritualistic literature which the Banner
Of Light, Andrew Jackson Davis, and host of
their imps are scattering over the land.
Agassiz has discovered, he assures u.s. that
God created more than one Adam; that all the
different races of men sprang from different
Adams; and while, to the alarm of timid Chris
tians he proceeds to prove his position from
different shaped human skulls, and shinbones,
and the like, Darwin comes along with quite
another theory, which contutes Agassiz, and
leaves even miles of margin. He teaches not
only that all men may have come from one
pair, but that all living creatures may be orgi-
cal as the other, but has the advantage for us OF
contradicting it. While these two SaDqnS fight
out their difference, and each proves the other
to be a mere wild guesSer, the Bible comes by
its own, and proceeds quietly on its course;
Sir Charles Lyell and other geologists think
they have found human remains which ante
date the Mosaic account of the creation of man
produced restlessness in certain quarters. But,
my young friends, possess your souls in
patience. The Bohemian notices of these
alleged discoveries have indeed been gay and
lauuatory in q high degree, but the Bohemian
must not be allowed to carry fiction into the
realm OF science, and to create where only
bald, naked proof is demanded. To this hour
these So-called discoveries lack two important
elements. First, the supposition that these
human remains are older than the beginning
of our received chronology is mere hypothesis,
resting upon a thousand contingencies and
opposed by as many improbaUilittes. Second,
if chronological calculations, supposed to
be based scientific history, were all upset,
it would not interfere in the least with the
solid foundations of Biblical and Christian
truth. AS the earlier discoveries OF geology
required new theory of the Mosaic account of
the creation, so the proven truth OF recent
statements as to the antiquity of man would
only require q different chronology which
would not affect in the least the perfect whole
ness of the Scriptures. When the philosopher
affirmed that the earth turned, the Pope was
alarmed for the Bible; but it was the Pope, not
the Bible, that was hurt.
We may mention in this connection that
most OF the magazines published in this coun-
try, as also some of the literary weeklies, have
very distinct skeptical leanings HcUper'S
MagGzinc and Weekly, however, are not liable
to this charge We do not mean that the lite
Tary periodicals referred to are always attack
ing Christianity. Their hostility only crops
out clearly now and then. But there is about
them constant odor of unbelief, sort of party
suppressed consciousness that skepticism is
essential to literary respectabillty. Why this
is so may be hard to tell. 1t may be, in part,
owing to the fact that the Unitarians of New
England, who control Harvard College, and
who constitute the highetr literary circles of
Massachusetts and of the country generally,
besides owning some of the largest publishing
houses, and being the publishers of some of the
most popular magazines, furnish, also, a large
number OF the more popular writers. Unitarian,
ratiOnaliStic Harvard is eminent for aesthetic
culture; she lays out her strength upon that
aspect of education, and with such men as Long
fellow, Holmes, and Lowell she not only fills
Jne WOrIu Win ner literary renoWn not only
sWays 1t by her example, but furnishes large
proportion Of the men who fill editorial chairs,
and supply matter for our critical and other
journals. These being trained for latitudina-
riantsm in religion, of course to lmpregnate the
current literature more or less with their own
views.
Besides, Unitarianism being scarcely at all
religion, but rather a mongrel resulting from
the union of taste and philosophy with a
sprinkle OF Christian ethics, knows nothing of
the Divine call to the ministry, or the sacred
obligation to preach. While Yale, the COM
petllor OF Harvard, has her graduates in pulpits
all over the land, and in innumerable foreign
missions, Harvard only supplies q portion of
New England, with only church here and
England, for in the whole State of Connecticut,
right at the door of Unitarian headquarters.
There is not solitary Unitarian church. This
proves our assertions that Unitarianism is very
llttle religion. 1t contains no grand interior
life; no overwhelming spiritual convictions,
lmperiously urging its followers to go out, as
did Christ and the Apostles, toseelk and to save
the lost. 1t never cries out in anguish, "Woe is
me If preach not the gospel" Holding its reli-
glon, therefore, under perfect control it is free
70 follow its aesthetic bent, and to give to letters
those inner forces which other churches devote
TO the conversion of the world.
Yes, Unitarianism is rather dIetta1lG than
reuBlouS. She does not behave like an earnest
Church; she makes no effort to convert the
W0Tla 10 christ When she begins TO do so, she
VIII De her own first convert. Even her prose-
lytlsm has none of the earnest boldness which
prOclalmS profound conviction. The truth Is,
sne uoes not retain enough of Christianity 70
move her to conquests. She is content for the
most part, to let her religion play the part of a
modest handmaid to her literature. And when
you md what may be called O piOuS Unitarian,
10 orthodoxy. Such q Unitarian always holds
nrmly and reverenty to the verify OF The
miracles he always denies that Christ was a
| mere creature, and draws near to the cross WIN