The record-union., 1897-02-14
In RELIGIONS REALM.
Expressions From Various Religious
Newspapers.
The Religious Thought of the Day
as Expressed in the Sec
tartan Press.

Observer, is undoubtedly right" says
observer" is undoubtedly right" says
the Christian Register (Unit) of Bos-
ton, in its conclusion that Unitarian
anthropology conducts to a Unitarian
Christology. The work which Unitarian
ism has done, and to which Charming
contributed so much, in teaching the es-
sential dignity of human nature and the
natural goodness of man, has not beer
unfruitful. The orthodox anthropology
was not based on human facts of human
nature and human experience. The doc
trine of total depravity was neither
Scriptural nor rational. The religious
teaching founded upon the dictrine was
essentially false. Nothing could be
further from the teaching of Jesus on
the one hand, or from the Judgment OF
history and experience on the other 1t
is not true, however, that a rational
view of the doctrine of generation and
heredity is incompatible with a rational
and spiritual view of the doctrine of re-
generation. The Jews believed strongly
iE heredity. Two of the Gospels-Mat-
thew and Luke-each tries to furnish
the genealogy of Jesus. Though there
are irreconcilabIe differences between
them, their intent to prove his Davidic
origin by the flesh is evident But this
view of the generation of Jesus was not
inconsistent with the story of his spir-
itual illumination at his baptism. Even
Jesus himself needed the experience of
regeneration which is simply the un-
folding of the spiritual nature. This
constitutes new epoch of what might
be called a new birth in the life of every
soul. The new doctrine of the regenera-
ton, which makes it natural instead of
supernatural, normal instead of alb
normal, rs as much higher than the old
view as the new doctrine of the incarna-
ton is larger and richer than the old"
"One of the earliest marks by which
the heathen world distinguished the
Christians" says the Living Church
(P. Ed of Chicago, was that they were
worshipers of Christ Belief that Christ
is God has been the foundation of the
Christian religion from first to last
Therefore to deny it, to inculcate this
denial and build up a system Of re-
ligion upon it is to constitute a new
religion. Between those who believe
that Christ is God and those who deny
that Christ is God, there is no common
Christian ground. To those who be-
lieve this doctrine it's denial is BIAS
phemy, and to wink at it or ignore if
by joining in religious acts with those
VINO so deny it, is nearly as bad. On
the other hand, to those who conscien-
tiously deny the divinity of our Lord.
to believe in Christ as God and to wor-
ship Him is idolatry, the worship of a
creature With what consistency, then.
can they refrain from protesting
against so great a sin? Thus the case
stands. There is, properly speaking.
no common religious standing ground
as between those who differ funda-
mentally as to what religion is. 1t
is the moral duty of such men to abor
with all fafthfulness and charity for
the conversion each of the other. but
1t is betrayal of the truth when. with
courteous words, each gives the other
TO understand that there is nothing
essential in their differences. and that
they VIII agree to forget them, and
meet together as Christian brothers to
pray to the unknown God"
Frederic Harrison has been discuss
ing a New Years address, The Relig-
ious Reaction in New England Rv
this term" says the New York
"Churchman" P. Ed. "is meant the
return of many intellectual people ia
something which is more definite and
more satisfying than the current ag-
hoStlclsm for which Mr.. Harrison
stands. An increasing number of men
ana women, said the speaker. are
making up their minds to wait till they
md something more human and social
than the cosmogony of evolution. some
thing to reverence more tangible and
ineligible than the unknowable. soma
thing more positive than agnosticisn
we are not surprised at this admission
The teachers of mankind, among whom
Mr.. Harrison must be reckoned can
not satisfy their hearers without at
the same time interesting their sym-
path1eS and affections. The mass of
the men and women of whom Mr. Har-
rlson speaks have been brought up in
the atmosphere Of Christian civilization
1hey recognize the institution of the
family, as it has been foStered and de-
Veloped in the Christian Church. 1t
is impossible that the morality of most
OF them should be anything but that
of the Bible. Yet when they seek to
IND IN science any support or basis
for the rules and sentiments which
guide and elevate life to them. they dis
cover nothing human or social MOTH
ing that they can really reverence
In the mechanical cosmogony, in which
there is no personal agent ruling and
pOVprpinO ho
world.
What is evolution? The word 3" saws
the New York christian Intelligencer"
(Ref), lis used just now as SYNONYM
Gus with development and growth
That Is not, however Darwinian evolu-
tlon Herbert Spencer, in acknowlede-
ing the Infinite and Eternal Energy.
cut of which all things proceed sur
renders Darwinian evolution, although
he does not perceive it. Apparently
the advocates of the hypothesis of evo-
luton have fallen back upon develop
ment, affected by environment. That
is just where we all were thirty wears
ago. 1t is said that there is a. Theis-
tic evolution, a Christian evolution.
But when it is examined it is found
to be simply development under divine
agency and a divinely arranged en-
vironment. That induces an omnip-
otent, all-knowing maker, creator and
ruler and is in full ntagonism to
Darwinian evolution, or any evolution
the potency of which is found in mat
ter ITSELF
The Christian doctrine that has been
most profoundly affected by modern