Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1895-01-31

college
s.And he said uu.o-ts ata, Therefore every
scribe who hath ugeu made e disciple to the
Kingdom uf heaven i like unto man that Is I"
householder which lf5H-stA forth cut oil MS
treasure thing new an I 9=ltz --''a..' ''5t3-.
The world always has been, IS now, and
probably always viii be divided between
two tendencies: the conservative cling
ing tenaciously, and often hlindly. TO the
old; and the liberals pressing eagerly ana
often recklessly. toward the new. Jesus
in His day refused to be classed WITH
either group. He made all things new
and gave he world that mightiest onward
impulse of any character III history al
He held fast TO the old; declaring that lie
came not to destroy, but to futhil the
priceless traditions of His race. Ana III
the passage | have taken as a text ne
tells US that if we are really instructed III
the principles OF His kingdom ana nave
attained His spiritual point OF VIEW We
also shall unite in our thought and lie,
reverence for the wisdom and piety OF the
past with receptiveness for the discoveries
and tendencies ofthe present. Our peilel
in the sanctity of bygone ages Will teaeh
us to recognize the sacredness OF the
forces that are at work to-day. And the
more highly we prize the latest pfoaucts
of evolution, the more keenly shall we
RECOGNIZE that as there were brave men
before Agamemnon, so there was tIuth
before the synthetic philosophy
1t is useless either to disguise or TO Ia
ment the fact that to-day there are repre-
sented in the Christian church two types
and tendencies of religious thought. 1t Is
timely and profitable for us to face the
fact squarely; and consider how far II Is
possible for the scribe OF TODAY 10
include a reverent regard for both types
of thought. Our first duty Is to see
clearly and comprehenslvely Just what
the points of difference are. And we
shall arrive at these points OF difference
most sharply. not by vague general
description OF these tendencies as Wholes,
but by taking up. one by one the funda-
mental doctrines of our faith, and seeing
the difference between the two tendencies
as they are applied to these doctrines:
Not for discussion, but simply by way OF
ilIustrat ion let us arrange IN parallel
columns as it were, the old tendency and
the new with reference to GOD creation
of the world and lis government OF men
the person of Christ and the process OF
redemption; the Holy Spirit and regen-
Grafton; the church and salvatloni the
bible and eschatoogS=
The old view of creation Is that God
made the world piece by piece, at stated
intervals. as a carpenter builds mouse Il
ateh-maker makes a watch. inc ne"
view of creation is that God made the
world by a continuous process OF deNel7
opment as a seed grows into tree. and
the germ grows into the animal. And
when we come to the higher forms OF
life, the old view holds that organs We're
created first, and functions followed.
The new view holds that the impulse to
perform functions Was implanted first,
and the organ was m0dIned TO serve the
desired function. Both views agree that
the origin OF all things meterial and
mental is divine; they differ as to the
methods of working and the order of
production. With reference to Gods
government of the world, the old view
sees chiefly the justice of God ; rule.
Justice i'll matters political and social was
the highest ideal of the ancient and me-
diaval world. The Greek or Roman Who
could see justice in the rule of archon or
emperor, had reason to he SO thankful
that TO ask for more would have
seemed an impertinence. And the old
view of the divine government was
thankfully content To trace even handed
Justice in the Ruler of world.
But since the revolutions in France and
America, the rise of constitutional liberty
in England, and the spread of socialistlc
doctrine eVeryW here, men have come
more and more to recognize that right
derives its content and meaning from the
good which lies beyond 1t as its end and
aim; justice is compelled to justify itself
by an appeal to beneficence. The divine
right of human kings and lords is re-
spected only so far as it promotes the
we'll being of their subjects. W hat
wonder that this same tendency and
spirit, applied to theology, appeals from
the justice to the love of the Divine
Ruler; and calls him not governor, but
Father, as Jesus, anticipating by almost
two thousand years the trend of human
thought, taught men to do.
Here, then, both tendencies agree in
affirming that the world is ruled in
righteousness and that penalty must
follow sin as inevitably and universally
as fire burns and water flows. Both see
the tremendous cumulative power of sin
and fear that il may pass beyond the
possibility of penitehce, and so make
penalty eternal. They differ as to the
ultimate end and aim OF Gods just deal
ings with His children; one finding that
end in retribution; the other believing
that God cherishes to the last the pur-
pose of redemption, and the readiness to
welcome with open arms and robe and
ring every prodigal Who in any far of
place or time, shall be morally and spirit
ually able to arise and leave his sin and
shame behind him, and come back to his
Father and his home.
The old view of the person of Christ
sees His divinity chiefly in consequence
OF the miraculous foretelling of His com
ing, His miraculous birth, His miraculous
deeds, His miraculous resurrection. The
new view sees His divinity chiefly in the
profoundness of His insight into spirit
usl truth, the depth of His tenderness
for human sorrow, the strength OF His
resistance to every form Of evil, the her
oism of His devotion to every call OF
duty, the sureness of His trust in His
Heavenly Father, the fullness of His love
for the lowliest of His fellowmen. The
old view accepts the Divinity of Christ
mainly because He came, and acted, and
went away, as according to its concep-
tions God would come and act and go
The new view accepts the Divinity Of