The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1879-04-26

This Is o phenomenon SO visible and 50
manifest that It admits Of no debate.
Since It Is not upon one question alone,
but upon the basic problems Of all our
creeds that the spirit Of investigation, dis
cussion, reformation and reconstruction
Is actively at work, tis not only possible,
but inevitable, that q great number Of
persons should be staunch conservatives
in the majorites Of their beliefs, but
thoroughgoing sCeptics or radicals upon
some particular theme.
We use the word "scepticism" in no In
vidiOus orcondemnatory sense. 1t is,when,
accurately employed, a good word, and
expresses habit Of mind which no man
need be reluctant to avow. As is known
to all etymologists and students OF history,
the ancient school Of philosophers called
"sceptics" employed that term not 10 de-
note negation or opposition to any
particular body OF doctrine, but
70 characterize their mental at
titude upon oil qnestions-an attitude
Of resolute observancy or waiting for the
proofs In the exact accordance Of the
apostolic mandate, "ProVe all things;
hold fast to that which istrue."
In modern times this term, the synonym
OF q commendable intellectual modeSty,
has been perverted so that It has become
in popular parlance the synonym Of mega
ton, and In that sense has been eagerly
appropriated by the upholders Of religious,
political and scientific orthodoxy, in order
TO throw slur upon their opponents. II
was in this opprobrious sense that the
term In question was employed by DR..
Phillip Brooks in the notable article upon
1.-THE Pulpit and Popular SceptiCism,"
which served us as point OF departure in
these columns few days ago. To DR..
Brooks popular scepticism" implies not
a rigid scrutiny, nor even OF doubt, but
one Of denial. ut rejects" said he, mot
certain doctrines, but the whole body Of
the Christian faith"
Against this sweeping allegation we en-
tered protest, believing. that 1t did signal
injustice to many earnest and thoughtful
men and women who participate in the
characteristic intellectual movement OF
the times, but who are far from cherishing
hostility to the Christian faith. Before
making such charge II would have been
we'll for the learned and candid essayist
to define what he meant by the "Chris-
tian faith" There is scarcely a doctrine
to be found in the creeds Of any Of the
churches which has not at the same time
been vigorously denied by other churches
claiming the title Of Christian. Tho at
tempts so often made to lay down mar.
row canon OF dogma as the test OF Chris.
tan belief Is laughed to scorn by all who
are familiar, even in slight degree, with
the immense mass OF controversial the
ology which passes current as Christian
literature. There are those who believe,
and are prepared to quote chapter and
verse in support Of their belief, that all
the churches, without any exception,
have departed widely from the simple
basis OF primative Christianity
Whsther the "Church OF the future Is To
be dIstinctively o Christian church de-,
ponds entirely upon the significance to be
given to the fundamental term. II the
present representatives Of the sects are to
be allowed to claim a monopoly of Chris.
tianity for their characteristic views, and
to exclude from the fold the millions who
differ from them on the fundamental
points, then assuredly the Church OF the
future will not be q Christian one. By the
same logical process every existing church
is pronounced anti-C Christian by millions
Of dissenters. They can say no more OF
the evolutionists or positivists. The fact
Is, that the doctrines OF the evolutionists
are not necessarily non,C Christian, still less
anti. Christian. There are scores OF thou
sands within the communion OF every So
called "orthodox" church who openly
avow those doctrines to the fullest extent.
II those eyolutionists who are outside the
churches too frequently renounoe the
Christian name 1t is less because OF any
repugnance to what they may regard as
real Christianity than because the self
constituted opponents Of that faith have
assumed to excommunicate them, putting
forward their exclusive definitions.
The grand reconciliation Of science and
faith which forms the burden ofcurrent re-
ligious literature can assuredly not be ef-
tected, without taking cognizance OF the
fact that the churches and the clergy
themselves are largely participating In
that intellectual movement to which we
have adverted. The attitude OF great de-
nominations has changed upon doctrines
OF the utmost importance within living
memory, and the process is now going on
apace. OF course such q revolution must
affect majority OF the members OF the
several churches before It can make any
change in the creeds. Consequently we
see everywhere multitude OF pastors who
have one creed in their study and an other
| in the pulpit They are perpaps bound hv
some ordination oath to teach from the
pulpit the traditional creeds as laid down
hundreds Of years ago, but they do it with
mental reservation. That this Is an unsafe
and unhealthy attitude Is admitted, but It
is often from the lips OF just such pastors
that we hear the most eloquent denuncia-
tons OF popular skeptiCism." Let the
skepticism OF the pulpit fully and frankly
declare itself, and 1t will have but little ill.
fIculty in etfecting a cordial understanding
with the millions Of alleged non.C Chris.
tians who only require a more Catholic
platform to ayow themselves Christians.
We cordially agree with our correspon-
dent and with Mr.. Brooks in believing that
one OF the urgent necessities OF the times,
for Christians and mont Christians alike, Is
that "the seeker say what he thinks, think
what he says and call things by their
right names" 1t is for this reason that
we urge the pulpit to afford much need.
ed example OF sturdy honesty ia proclaim.
ing just what are the conclusions at which
the pastors have individually arrived, feel.
ing certain that no more valuable contri.
buttons could DO made to liberal thought.