Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1883-12-01
MORALITY AND RELIGION.

MURAIlIY AMI HELlGlUN.
Under this head Mr.. f. A. Kiddel
and Prof. A. A. Hodge, of Princeton
College, i'll the last North American Re-
view publish two papers, the first al
agnostic composition and the second 8
reply thereto. Prof. Hodge so vel
sets forth Mr.. Kidder's position that il
is unnecessary even to fairness to repro
duce that gentleman's article. The re.
ply by Prof. Hodge is we'll worth read.
ing and carefully considering. 1t is
as follows:
1t quite possible that during the long
= history of theological disputation, some
orthodox dogmatist may have equaled
Ill disconnected utterance of improved
assertions the agnostic text furnished
us, in the stead of a subject, as a basis
for this discussion; but it is impossible
that any one of them could in this re-
gard have surpassed it. From the eddy
: of remark we disentangle three unsup-
ported assertions, each of which could
be adequately met by simple denial.
First. 1t is asserted that the designa-
ton of those who reject as untrue the
common faith of Christendom, by the
term sintidel," is unjust, and that "the
difference between them (Christians
and nom Christians) is not that one be-
lieves and the other does not believe.
but that they do not believe alike"
Now, this has always been understood
equally by both parties in the use of the
word. We maintain that when the
epithet s'infdeF' is applied, as is uni
versally intended, to one who holds the
characteristic truths of either or both
natural or revealed religion to be in
credible, it expresses with scientific ac-
curacy the facts of the case and moth
ing more nor less. These persons are
"in6dels'' in relation to those objects of
faith understood definitely on each oc-
casion of its application. The radical
significance, the infinite Importance,
the practical consequence of the truths
rejected; the millennial continuity, the
catholic consensus, the venerable dig
nifty of the church; the substantial
agreement Of the vast majority of the
European peoples-require that dissent
from this faith should be emphasized as
the ''infidelity." AS believers, we wish
to be known only precisely for what
we are. Why should skeptics desire
to apply to themselves the designations
| which centuries of associations have in
separately bound to the faith they de-
spise? If the term sinfidel' carries
with it unpleasant suggestions, arising
from historical associations, which
party is to blame for the fact?
Second. 1t is contended that the re-
suit OF scientific progress and Of criti-
cal investigation has been to render in
| credible the distinctive doctrines of the
Christian church, and that this is re-
cognized not only by the highly cul-
tured, but also ''by the intelligent com
mon sense of the mass of mankind."
This involves the claim G) that men of
high culture, as such, see the impossi-
bility of the truth of Christianity, and
(2) that the power of Christianity as u
living system of faith is visibly declin-
ing among the mass of civilized man
kind; and the scope of the contest in
volves the claim that this disillusioniZ-
ing effect of modern enlightenment ex-
tends to the whole field of natural as
we'll as OF revealed religion. No evil
dence of either of these assertions is
suggested, and each alike is preposter-
| ously untrue. AS to the former it is
answered that, Of course, skeptic
may also be a man of science; but to
claim that culture renders Christian
faith impossible is merely to beg the
question, by making skepticism part
OF the definition of culture. 1t is abb
surd to claim that the highest culture in
this age renders faith impossible, when
Gladstone and Bismarck are orthodox
Christians; when Agassiz, Herschel,
Sir William Thomson and Owen are at
least thorough theists; when Cuvier,
Henry, TAFT, Balfour Stewart, Clerk
Maxwell, Asa Gray, Guyot, Mivart,
(the most advanced of English evolu-
tionists) are but specimens of great
multitude of earnest Christian profess
sors who maintain their position at the
forefront OF scientific progress. Null
titudes of the highest scientific author
tiles assert that the proved results of
science present no obstacle to faith.
The protest against it comes with no
force higher than that derived from the
vagrant speculations of transient
against Christianity, which for two
millennlums has retained her serene
throne, while countless succession of
such philosOphic tides have ebbed and !
flowed around her feet.
The church, of all interests, has least
need to fear the effect OF culture. Plato,
Aristotle, Bacon, Descartes, Leibnitz,
Kant have all in succession brought
their tribute to her temples. Our
ground of complaint is that our oppo-
nents are only half educated specialists
They study the physical sciences and
not the humanities: they use the senses
and not the intuitions; they prophesv
the future, but do not critically study
the past; they read the attacks upon
Christianity, but net their refutations.
We claim that the great conquests of
science have been confirming the truth
OF Gods existence and manifesting the
glory Of His attributes beyond our
fondest dreams. We claim that the re-
suits OF historical and literary criticism
have laid bare the foundations of our
faith, and i'll doing so have confirmed
their strength and exhibited their Gre
dentials i'll an exact scientific form.
Those who take in the whole field of
Biblical criticism, not merely one side
OF 1t, know that the drift is now de-
cidedly against the post-exilic origin of
the Pentateuch, and in favor of the
Apostolic origin of the New Testa-
ment. Luthardt, Dillmann, Keil, De-
iitzsch, Lightfoot, Westcott, Weiss,
Ezra Abbott, and others show the
claims OF victory set up by the oppo-
nents of our faith to he very prema-
ture. Zoeckler, in review of the Old
Testament literature of 1882, in the
january QSS3) number of "Luthardt's
Zeitschrift," says: "The works of last
year centroverting the views OF Well
hausan and his school preponderate
very decidedly, both in number and in
scientific merit, over the works on the
side" See also the encyclo-
p9dic resume OF the History of Bibli-
cal Criticism, in the PRESBYTERIAN Re.
view," january 1, 1888. j
AS 10 the second point asserted, viz.
that the power OF Christianity as a
living system of faith is visibly declin-