, 1873-03-16
RAT1cNAL16M VS.. CHRISTIANITY.

NAOA1%eN
Aqe the most rational defense Of Christianity
against tho assaults Of Raioualism that has lately
appeared It is 4 reply to Mr. Francis E. Abbot's
" Impeachment Of Christianity" published
originally in the Toledo Under, aud subsequent
ly reproduced in pamphlet form. Alr. Alb
bots impeachment embodies twenty counts,
the moro important of which charged that Chris
tianty is the great organized superstition Of the
Western World; that it is the great enemy Of
science rotartlipg the spread of tho knowledge
Of Nature; that it is obstacle to civilization
that it teaches that the virtues Of the Savior can
he substitute for tho virtues Of the saved; that
it spreads gloom over nyriads Of minds
by horrible theology; that it commands
supreme loyo to bo rendered to q God
altogether unloyely; that it proclnims ideas Of
God which would drive every rejecting mind
into atheism we're it not that modern knowledge
furnishes the elements Of far higher idea Of
God. etc, etc.
Mr.. Crozier meets those charges and many
others by replying that, if they were all true
(Which be docs not admit), they would provo
nothing against Christianity at it's fountain-
head, however they might impeach tho channels
through IF hich it has flowed. They may impeach
Calvinism. Catholicism, or any other ism going,
but cannot impcach Jesus of Nazareth or the
doctrines taught by him. To the specific alle-
cations OF Mr.. Abbott he opposes tie sayings
and doings Of Jesus, With more perspicuity and
less dog1natisn than is usually found in relis
ious controversy, and the argument thus far is
assured1y On his side.
In one point, however, he misstates, or rather
fails to state, the real position Of his ADVERSE
ries. He accuscs them Of applying tests to
Christianity which are not applied to any other
religion, to any system Of philosophy, science,
or branch OF thought. "When treating of
Brahninism or Parseeism," he says, they up
ply the scientific method. Even q few grains Of
wheat in Epictetus, or Marcus Aurclius, or Plato,
or sorna Unknown aeer or sybu, they sift ont
the seod corn Of humanity. without
which the souls of the race would
perish for want OF nutriment. But when they
approach Christianity the scientific method is
dropped They look for chat instead Of wheat ;"
etc. Quite true q; but aro they not warranted in
doing so when Christianity claims that the Scrip
lures are divine1y inspired, in such way as to be
absolutely true in all parta7 No such claim WAS
over set up for Plato, OF Epictetus, OF Marcus
Aurelus, whose teachings, as regards human
conduct, arc in harmony with those Of Jesus
Christ, and as regards the Deity are oftener in
harmony than in opposition, and ought there
fore to receive q joyful rather than q
reluctant recognition from Christians. No such
claim il set up in tho Western World at least, for
Brnhminism or ParseeiBm. Therefore, it is not
without reason TINT h1r. Abbot and his like
single out what they deom the weak points, or,
as Mr. Crozier says, look for chaff instead Of
whcat: II Alr. Crozier Gusts aside the tenet Of
inspiration, as it is commonly received, he can
show that his adversary has adopted an unscien-
tifc method Of argument. But If he holds to it
he cannot. "
Nevertheless, his argument is sufficiently novel
and trenchant to call fur attention in the
columns Of the secular press, and accordingly
we give it place III The TRIBUNE.