The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-06-19

cars than our forefathers did with their OK
teams, but doubt whether we are more in
tellectually sincere. You say, Woe to
the theolOgian who attempts to fol-
thoughts as expressed and typifed
in scientific research" Yes exactly, woe"
The scientist, in a sense, is responsible to no
one but himself. The preacher is. The
scientist is dealing with inanimate things
whose nature, by his character, he cannot
change. The preacher is dealing with i'm
mortal souls whose destiny his conduct will
modify, The result of the scientist will not
change the order OF nature But no moral
teacher of the people ought to bring forward
untried thought instead of the old we'll
tested truth. He can not be tickle in his
opinions, for so he would make skeptics and
unsettle the firmest belief of his hearers. If
you were in the preachers place and had a
sermon on cosmology, which of the six
modes of evolution would you adopt and
substantiate for your people as the truth?
To account for the origin of life would you
take the energy of "star dust" or "bathyb-
luis" or "protoplasm" or molecular forces,
or ''the creation of few germs" or abso-
Lutte creation? To account for the origin of
species, would you have internal or external
influence or the innate tendency of Parsons
d Owen, or exceptional births and further
genesis of Mivart 81 Ferris, or acceleration
and retardation of Hyatt e. Cope, or Buckles
Walace's selection or Darwin's fittest MEM
Der? If you desire as preacher to be among
the advance thinkers, would you teach
that religion was an instinct or
a germinal development, as Max Null
Ter, or caused by dreams and fears
as taught by Feuerbach; or something rising
out of mere gratitude, as asserted by Strauss;
or faith in the moral order of the universe,
as believed by Fichte; or God coming to self
consciousness, as declared by Schelling? Ii
you had occasion to preach on the life of
Christ, would YOU take the accommodation
theory, or that of imposture, or that of the
mythical, or-as Rohr says-that Christ was
a great nationalist, or the theory OF Baur or
Paulus or Bahrdt or as Clarke says, that he
a spiritual medium? Which of these
great 81, non-dogmatic (?l, advanced (?) evo-
luted theories would you present to your
congregation when they ask of you for the
bread of life? When they ask, how can we
be saved? How live virtuous? How to be
consoled in trouble? Have you a right to
bring forward your doubts, your guesses, and
call it advanced thought and ask the people
to accept it as the truth, when not PROPOSE
theologian who attempts to follow the cur
rent of the worlds thought"
He would breed skeptics, gloom, hbertin-
ism, responsibility and murder the
fruit of all such teachings everywhere.
You say that there is evidence of progress
you that? In that narrow e. bigoted (?) and
conservative seminary at Princeton l was
taught differently. | was taught to believe
that there was wonderful progress made in
archaeology bearing on biblical interpreta
ton and confirming the old truths; that
there was a new realm of thought in COM
parative philology, in comparative religion,
in the study of the rise and growth of re-
ligion in the sociology of primitive races,
in the study of early PHILOSOPHERS customs
habits and lands progress in better knowl-
edge of Greek Arabic, Hebrew and kindred
languages all bearing on the progress of re-
ligious thought; and what there was con-
firmed in geology, astronomy and the ex-
perimental sciences enhanced the thoughts
Of theology. l was taught that all through
the ages there were wonderfully increased dis
closures of the PROJECTIONS of God all the
way from Genesis until we meet the devel-
opment of the missionary spirit of the pres
ent age.
You speak of evolution and Lyell. The
facts are that Lyells First Principles we're
scarcely out in print when such men as
Dawson demonstrated their false deductions
You carry the idea that evolution is some
thing new. Narrow theology has studied
it for 2 900 years, as it came from the brain
of Aristotle and DemOcrtus. Aristotle said
that first appeared nutrition and reproduc-
ton, then sensation by touch, followed by that
of the other senses then desire and aversion,
faint memory and conception, then intellect
recipient, then intellect active. Add to this
the theory of Democritus concerning atoms,
and you have the principle and thoughts of
evolution. 1t would be ridiculous if 1000
years add nothing to demonstration or facts
or experiments or research.
You say that there is progress in general
ethics" Outside of the church, l ask You,
where? All systems of ethics can come I'M
der the Socratic the Aristotefian, the mod
ern utiitarian, and the Christian. Do you
think that the utilitarian is an advance
on the Socratic? Is expediency better
guide to virtue than fixed principles? Since
the days of Hobbs there have been about
thirteen things assumed by different authors
as the ground of moral obligation; yet all
that have any show of acceptance have come
back TO revelation for their confirmation.
What progress has there been made since
Shakspeare's time in revelation of human
character? Viii you tell me what
method of saving the soul has there been
made since the revelation made by Jesus
Christ? If you have anything better | am
anxious to know it; for am seeking the sal
walton of men.
You say that there is a tenth command
ment before the eleventh. Yes which is the
eleventh? We are told in Leviticus to love
our enemies, and in the ears of men nothing
higher has ever been uttered. Where is your
development?
You ask, "Why have not Mr.. Beecher Mr..
Swing, Mr.. Thomas Mr.. Heber Newton and
George Morebeck the same right of progress
sion in theology that marks the leaders in
other sciences?' You call these great and
eminent men. I admire many things these
men say. But about a year ago You said
that Mr.. Thomas was mot a profound
thinker, or scholar" Have you passed
through so many phases of thought during a
year that you do not recognize yourself? If
my memory is correct, in less time than a
year you have accused Beecher of perjury.
of being whimsical and poor leader of pub
lie opinion. The Christian Union accuses
Newton of being rude in criticism" and in
thoughts. Beecher's paper. You seem to
mink these men are advanced thinkers in