The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-11-05
THE RELIGIOUS DEBATE.
THE MOST REMA UNABLE DISCUSSION
~ DUN REL or ~ HISTORY
CONTINUED.
The School Of Briggs, Potter and Abbott
Essentially Unchristinn.

The School Of Briggs, Potter and Abbott
Essentially Unchristinn.
To THE Enron oP THE suS-,eir; think all
men OF consistent thought. whether they be-
long to the distinctly religious or clearly
rstionalistic schools OF belief. must thank you
for the good work you have been doing for
consistency of thought and creed whether a
man speak a. a Christian or as nationalist.
The exposure you have been making from
time to time In your editorial pages OF the
fallacIes and moons stcncles Of the new school
OF rsliRio- rationalistic mongrels Ia Logical
and a public duty wall done. for which j, ne
ne a nationalist want to thank you. 1
can respect any man OF consistent ideas.
whether he IL a religious believer or rational
unbelev-r. but have no respect either moral
or intellectual for mongrel-mnd who. while
avowing evcrv logical principle OF disbelief
yet insists on posing AS the real true believer:
and II I. time that the utmost logical ridIculo
was brought to bear on these mon. az you have
been 80 ably doing. so that they can be got to n
real zttion nj their ridiculous and destructive
position. And II they have really ceased to bs
believers in the essentials OF logical and
historic Christianity. they should no longer
pose as Spokesman OF that creed. and II they
have become rationalists. they should no
longer insist on keeping on the fading disguise
OF Christianity.
These men not only pose as good Christians.
but insist on occupying Christian pulpits. yet
give utteranee to doc rines utterly opposed to
every principle n logical and historic Chris
tianity. Not only this. but they appear to be
quite destitute OF any logical or consistent
belief In religion as a revealed" or dtvinsly
organized and directs system. and are wholly
pagan" or rationalistic in their attitude OF
mind. making nature and reason entirely
supreme. and not grace. faith or inspired
authority.
Indeed. not only do these men act like in
tell 'ctual towards" ns you have so boldly and
truly said. but they a so seem to act like intel
lectunl simpetons and hybrds. for they are
seemingly unable to distinguish or recognize
the essential principles OF different creeds or
schools OF thought. and are unwilling to ar
range themselves honestly and logically where
they properly belong. Witness such men as
Briggs. Potter and Abbott ru'ting Themselves
in purely rationa i-tic position with regard to
the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. viz: that
they are to be treated Just the same IA any other
works OF human literature. To he regarded "a
inspired only in the same way as Shakespeare
or Homer. subject to the some errors and
faults found In all human work, and while con-
tanning in some sense somewhere some word
or revelation Of God. this Ii only to be found
out and determ ned by each man for himself
by the exercise OF his free ant untrammelled
reason which - thus made the sole Judge OF
the revelation" Now. II is needless to say
that this 10 no; logical and historic Christianity
AMI never was It is the position OF RATIONAL
ism and pagan phi losnnhy. pure and simple.
tbs, IA n b,.is n, nature free thought
and .ur,.m,cv n, reason n. onno..d
10 tbe ida, NJ sun.rnntrral interf.r-
.ncs i,s,ired authority and srcentance
by faith Yet these men seem to
he such intellectual smpctons. or intellectual
towards Us you have termed them. that they
sre M, allie To ace this .nor consistent enough
,o,vow u anil r,noa ,ban,s.Iv.s on.plv in rho
rarLs =, r,,,o,,Iis,s ,rbar. tbcv clearly bsIonp.
hut instead ,bev coptIpus In the ministry Of n
ch,..h ,,h,a, J,o,-i,oI foundations ,h,v AFRO
doing ovarvthing IN destroy One Of these
ron and n,obohIv tho most ahIe and intellact-
nal n, rho In, had IN. GOOD grace or sense 10
,esigp from tho M s,orote Of a nominaIlv Chris-
Tim Church. lint whether thi. act vas prompted
nv n realization OF his anomaly in such a posi-
ton ia n question
Now. II we were logically to anayze tho be-
lies OF most OF these mongro Christians. II
would be extremely tiflicult TO tell why they
over could have the intellectual face TO call
themselves Christians in any true logical or
historic sense at ALL since so far as the per-
soma ity. Office and function OF Christ are con-
cerned. they would be found to have really no
greater conception Of him than any good jew
or Noham nedan always had. and even much
less o mystical he.iet about MIN than any
GOOD Buddhist or Hindoo would readily con-
Tess to have. Again. when we come to analyZs
the basis OF their ethical ideas AMI their
test or determination for truth. We flni
that they are founded entirely In nature
and reason. exactly "a are the pagan philoso-
piles taught from Epicurns or Socrates of
old TO Spencer OF to-day and no different from
what IL now taught and has been Tor thousands
OF years taught by the followers Of Bud
dha. Con'ucius and other Oriental philoso-
phies and from what was nlSo taught by the
ktocs of Greece and Rome II. therefore. these
religious rationalists are entitled In any sense
TO rank themselves as Christians. we have
the reductio dd nts'Td'w hat we could Just "a
well call the jaws and ohammedans. the
Buddhists and Confucianists. tho Stoics and
Epicureans Christians also. for all these -ects
believed Just as much or moro OF what Is
historical Christianity as do these pseudo
Christians"