New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-12-27
THE APOSTLES CREED.
REPLY TO THE REV. DR.. sAvAGE's con-
TENTIONS REGARDING 1T.
To the Editor Of The Tribune.

form:
First-It Is evident from the general tone OF Dr.
Savage's contributions to theological discussion
that Unitarianism in spike OF its (theoretcaD gen.
crosby and hospitality. is practically one OF the
most intoerant OF systems. Whatever its large
mindcdness toward the future. there seems to be
feeling about anything in particular that
has ever been believed before
Second-But DR.. Savage's wel-meant desire to
represent the attitude Of his denomination must
not be taken too seriously. Unitarians about the
city OF Boston where he so long lived. have ear
nestly protested TO that Or. Savage does not
truly represent either the spirit or the attitude 81
the Unitarian Society This should be said In JUS
tice to Unitarianism.
Third-I glad that the well known clergy OF
the Episcopal Church in New-York City have been
silent under Dr.. Savage's sermons. In such dis
cusslon DR.. Savage has nothing 10 lose and every
thing TO gain for the reason that he has not very
much $50 far as appears) which ne does beIleVe,
and he is by no means sure that he VIII believe
even that tomorrow. Controversy. said DR.
Holmes. puts the wise man and the fool on the
same leve-an nd the fool knows it, As do not
desire intend 10 hur rough language nj d..
Savage. | especially request that the reader. Tor
the word fool in the above sentence. Will suosu-
tuto the WORDS Theological free-ance.
Fourth-I have never known scholar or cler-
gyman Of the Episcopal Church 10 maintain that
the Apostles Creed was composed by the Apostles
by its present name not because It represents the
actual work OF the Apostles but because 1t fairly
represents the testimony and the teaching OF the
Apostles.
Fifth-It is a creed. like that commonly called the
Nicene Creed which leaves side the harsh
doctrines and the Calvinistc theories to when D''
Savage Is so bitterly opposed. These creeds. ana
these creeds only represent the test of Clerical con-
forrnty In the Episcopal Church The Apostles
Creed itself the only ultimate doctrnai stanharu
OF Church membership No other has ever oeen
demanded OF the candidate for baptism. These
creeds contain rigid doctrine OF me Bioie' TO
doctrine OF atonement no doctrine or hell Inc"
essential and distinctive subject is the Christ
SIXTH think We would all he Interested In A
statement OF what Or Savage does believe DOES
he believe IN God? Does he believe In the person
ality Of God: Does he believe that the term
Father" as applied to God. Is really more than
figure CT speech? Does that term describe any
thing objective essential and eternal in the char
acicr of God? For illustration: When | say that
the rose f. red. every intelligent educated man
knows that the color Of the rose has no objective
or external existence II IS subjective impression
II IS merely verdict Of my own sensations II mas
no real existence of Itself Now. when DIR. Savage
uses tho word God" docs he mean tina: God ex-
lists personally and ciernally. In Independence or
the thoughts and feelings Of men? Would lie exist
eiernnily and personally II the human race II al
other conscious or self-coascous NE should 80 OUT
OF existence? or IS God just the larger shadow OF
the human heart? When. moreover, DR.. Savage
says TINT God IS tho Father OF men, does he also
moan tina, flthcrhood IN God. Is an eternal. essen
ual objective quality and capacity OF the divine
character? or does he mean no more "hen ne cans
G,d his Father than when he says that the rose Is
redo Axe the existence and the fath"Ihood OF "ou
on', tcont,,,.l and comforting subjective impres-
stems o. objective realities Ard IS the evidence IN
support Of Dr. Savage belle: about such questions
III he has any positive hcicO % very inuch more
afap.. and more coseut than the evidence i'r 'he
great distinctive articles OF the Apostles ''''u'
These question may seem. a. hFsi glance " H'''e
theoreticli but II The Tribune Will permit mo ~
contribute 20 the discussion. AFTER D'' S'''se a'
replied think can show that they nave CERTAIN
very pract.cal and pertinent applications
seventh pr Savage has laid ,sp'clhI sF'S' uP''
IT'S own criticism Of those who use ono % '"e
minor clauses ot The Apostles Greco ,n"' ,
ing the resurrection IL he body p'. saNase 0''''
that W. VINO actep, thls article OF inc Greco az
not accept It IN IT'S historic and INTENDED sens ,.,
80 d1.uy he assume OF course. that ne himseiIi
personally knows not only VIVA, we Tcan NV ,hosr
v,tn ar raye u the article meant by u anu uIu
rof in.Aa by ii-aouc sixteen or t;N h',t' ,n,
ago J may hc icrnit''t 10 a,.,, hoih xyhof
own satisfaction. I also hay" known po'n wna
moan hy ne expression aud what those meant %
~ VIA put II IN the cIecds. II has seemed 10 me
that Fundamentally a,d Pr.in' i?n;os,icism 81 the
ncri,i- ia. rhe-e g.. no essential antngonisin pc
tween frrit ana mater nat masr Is nI' bt
li'aIn,d ~ rs psesen and continuing alliance
,Sc ,,rs IN fhclr Intended and historic sense, are
in nv iuagmcru OF the most heroic uttethCes
nj trit1,t... Christianity ana the truth Tor when
"a - 49, b,- mad an influence In the development
Of ant and above nll 81 TIE fanctl'at'9' -, .V.'i
mon lfe which is simply incaicu able Let us re-
rg,u.,.r moreover that while the men 81 that ear
d,v may have hai wrong notions IN 'h''' N'''a
upon the subject u organic chcmis'ry' {et wnch
ration ~ Tho crce1 "" cnnrpi =" ms w. INK ny
Irnt inai what they Intended was The oppression OF
the mind Of Jesus Chfis,. h'S M !, No., ,o,,r
nothing los and nothing more " was III Il' III
oc tos words i4' ny u'f thn hS. imposed
them It for Hs meaning and HIS meaning pny
in her INTENDED" use Of thcm "a, me Cnnr, ,h
has stood ~ the second century IN M nm, ,rhn
century and IN all the centuries between. dhc
I'm using those words OSitn whateve! private inter,
rrcfaiIonl has seemed to use them ingenuousy, ana
n,SmScy and authority OF he Divine Christ.
Eightb-lt IS however. not WIN NE NM, al go
dsr.anhl'on '1 mon NE f,c thar for two or three
Church with reference 10 the nature OF Jesus
Christ and TO The theory ana theology % ,iis
Dr Savagc's representations on this subject. In so
f,r as thcy are rue are not new. 80 on" In the
Eriscopal church n; least. has ever attempted to
conceal these iacts. There IS not thcoiosicai
scininary which does not teach them there is not
/, cIorgyman Of the Episcopal church to' ms nc;
quanarccJ who has not again ana again insttuot.d i
his pcop.c In regard TO th"m For III me s,roh ,s
place there Is no reason whatever why they should
he concea ed Facts always go before NE scl,nce
nc IN. facts The order OF nature and or ne Is mrs.
The r,tIcu-and then botany. hrst the ilow.is-hnd
thcn tho true classincaiions and the settled expa-
ma lions The oder Of Revelation "iso IS mrs nrs'
faci and then tho science OF the fact; hrst me
Christ ami then the 'ru" theology or me tnriSt.
first IN. living and historic Jesus. and then inc
crcods when the Church On spite OF past coniro,
VERSES accepts the hnality or certain uheo!osicai
judgements she H. doing just what We all 90 wneh
we accept the nnaty Of certain scientific juds-
fn,,Icd .rutho, settled truth teach It'll spite
~ thc fact that there men who called me
law in question In the third place. however )r
Savarc's representa- tions-in the impression my
convev-are not wholly true. lie means to be fair
I,ut he has missed the point In the story OF me
primitive controversies concerning the nature oi
J,su. There was doubt There were differences
There were violent antag onisms. There were encx-
cusablc rccrlmination5. Eut nobody agreed WIN
DR. Savage. The usual Unitarian conclusion about
I's,ro is wifhou, champion within the Church Of
Christ IN all the age Of the councils that concin-
sion has not one Christian disciple. II II was any.
I.nn tnntl Inf