, 1873-01-26

ants, where pious devotion is the common mo
tive OF shepherd and flock, undisturbed by tile ad-
vance ofreason and science. It is not however the
kind of Argument that will check the progress of
thought from out Of the thraldom Of church
dominion. This dominion mny be right, and
healthfu1, and desirable; but, il itbe all this,
there are still diesenters, increasing in numbers
: and growing in conviction, who IRE not to be led
back by general assertions. OF by feeble warn
ings that thoy ars on ground that is both dan
gerous and uncomfortable There are few
people who have advanced so far in the domain
Of free thought es not to be willing
to concode that abiding faith is the safer and
more cheerful harbor, it they could always steer
for it, The trouble is, that whom adverse winds
come they cannot always be dissipated by tho
breath OF Clergyman or the protest OF British
Primo Minister.
It is not probable that Mr. Gladstone and DR..
Strauss would disagree On the general proposition
that it is well to hold fast to the truth. The dif
AoA0ACo - % W t40 kIOtu 1k6e4. 4A4s NARA1to40
has been reared in the belief that Christ is the
Lord and Savior; his mental character has
been such "a to- rest content with what his
Church has taught him; his pursuits havo been
Of kind that did not bring him into conflict
with the precepts Of his youth DR.. Strauss, on
the other hand, has been searching student in
science and philosophy. He has leaned 70 re-
gard the Same person who is 20 sacrcd to Mr.
Was put to death forpoltical reasons. and who be-
came the principal parsonage Of a legend, whose
exact relations to fact can no longer be demon
strated. Here ia one Case. We may find another
conservative religionist who has faith that the
Council OF Nice discovered tho truth, and that
there ii no appeal from its decision. Opposed to
him, ne find . nationalist, Who has followed the
Later discoveries in science, ind the later de-
crees Of the Council Of Nice as final. Botweon
these two TIC ind queermi1tures OF faith andrea
son, which reject certhn articles Of faith because
they cannot comprehend them. and accept others-
TAAGA AuQaC tEA6OA4oy
to bo consistent with themselves, must be incon-
sistaht enough to the rest Of the world to admit
that faith then is, In some measure, the depend
ent Of evidence which appeals to the REASON
The subject becomes confusing enough when
VIC think Of the number and variety Of the 1elig-
ious doctrinasieB.
Tho point which scoms to be mnde prominent
", however, is, that tho orthodox rolgionistsaro
not vanqushing their opponents by the use Of
general denunci.tion. It is notable that the
scientific or rationalistio religionists do not
adopt this Teapon Of warfare, and it is evident
that they ale not afraid Of it. A large body Of
the Christians, including very many who would
still adhere to the Roman Church, were scam
dalized at the Ecumenical proclamation Of the
Pope's infalhhi1i.y. We do not see, how
ever, that this new dogma was any,
ening the foundation OF arguments which
are used by orthodoxists in general when they
are called upon to confront the scientists and
rationalists; It WAS wall, behind which the
Catholic Church could lntranch itself and make
faith with the Church not only traditional, but
lasting aud progressive. Those Christians who
decry infalIbinty in the present seem to moet
the infdels with the infalIbility OF the past.
Neither argument, II it may be called argument,
serves the purpose for which it is in
tended. We certainly believe that the growth
and spread Of liberalism in all di-
rectionB will force the orthodox reigionists
from their fasenesses to como out and explore
tho new ground that has been gone over in
scionce research, and reasoning. Dr.. Strauss
msy be all wrong, but he will never be con-
vinced OF it by the mere telling; nor can doubt
threats or warnings.