The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-11-29

Il
successfully dealt with by Clarke, Sher-
lock, Lardner, Butler, and others. In
our day we have had great philosophical
apologists like Chalmers, Whately, Isaac
Taylor, Alexander, McCosh.
The Church has in this period been
the depository of the learning of the age.
In metaphysics, in letters, in classical
and historical lore. the great scholars of
the Churches of England and Scotland
were better furnished and stronger than
the assailants of Christianity.
But the theatre of the war has changed.
In the past twenty-five years the attack
on Christianity has come from the spe-
clalists of natural science, and the train
ing of our divines is not in this direction.
Consequently, a very unequal contest has
been in progress. Hitchcock and Hugh
Miller (like the author of the Restora-
ton of Belief were from the ranks
OF the laity. We are by no means of
the opinion that knowledge of natu-
raj science is necessary to qualify a
man to preach the gospel, but those
who insist on the indispensable i'm
portance of a knowledge of Hebrew,
and Greek, and Latin, and Moral
Philosophy, would find it difficult to
omit from their list of accomplishments
an acquaintance with biology, natural
history, and archaeology. Whether the
Church can afford to go on without max.
ing any provision for the training'of
new school of Christian apologists, is the
question.
One of the great offices of learned
ministry in the past has been to protect
Christianity from the attacks of learned
infdels. 1t is very certain that the the
illogical schools of the present day in
large measure furnish men with learn
ing that falls short OF the issues which
unbelief is pressing upon the attention of
the reading public.
If it is necessary to have scholars who
can cope with the New Criticism of
Wellhausen and Robertson Smith, must
we not have students who can cope with
Marsh, and Whitney, and Huxley, and
Geikie, and De Mortillet, and Marietta
Shall we stand and take this fire without
returning it? or shall we reply to the
modern breech-loaders with the harque-
buses of past age?
We have been told that the Bible will
take care of itself, and that we are need
lessly disturbed about the assaults of
science; are told often from the pulpit
that tie Church is advancing and that
there is no occasion to apprehend any
thing from the infdel textbooks of the
day.
Those who mingle with the world and
read the periodical literature, as we'll as
the books which daily issue from the
press see the mischief which is in pro-
gress, and know that the faith of vast
proportion of the growing generation is
seriously unsettled.
We know very well that the Bible
will stand, and that Christ will triumph
but must we, therefore, sit down supine-
ly2 The same argument would have
silenced the pen of Tertullian, and that
of Origen; and Bishop Butler would
never have written his Analogy if the
idea had been accepted that men have
no part to perform in defending Chris
tianity.
When we observe men like Henry Ward
Beecher and Dean Stanley, and papersl like
the N. Y. Independent. swept into the cur
rent of the Darwinian theory Of the origin
of our race, it is time to examine our for
tifcations and not to expect that they
will be miraculously protected.
We will add one single observation
when the clergy Of the Christian Church
can furnish no champions able to defend
Christianity on every arena, the pulpit
will lose its former power, and thousands
will look elsewhere for teachers.
MOpr ILL., 6o1f &c IL -. l.. - A.