The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-10-29
QUESTIONS OF RELIGION.
SERIOUS AND IN7ERESTING DISCUS
SIONS BIZ MANY WRITER'S.


part OF "accuser OF his brethren" assumed
! by the Rev. N. X. Schermerhorn In his com
! muncatlon published in to-day's Sun merits
! the reprobation OF all honest Churchmen
priests and laymen. high" low" OF
broad" Not content with himself repudlat-
ing the ancient dogmas Of the Church In which
/ he IL a priest. he proceeds to impugn the good
faith OF his brother priests. accusing them oil
rejecting In private that which they publicly
profess and teach.
According to Mr.. schermerhorn. the clergy
OF the Church. himself OF course excepted. are
either too uninte!ligspt to comprehend the
truth or 30 morally perverted that they permit
themselves to tench that which they know to
be false. He openly accuses his brother
priests. or tho mass Of them. OF almost incred-
ibe baseness. and. per contra. puts himself for
ward as the solo representative OF honesty and
frankness Can Mr.. Schermerhorn give the
names OF any such priests. false alike to the
obligations OF common honesty and their SOL
cmn priestly vows? IL not. what are We to
think Of the honesty and frankness Of one who
makes such atrocloua charges in so Wholesale
manner? Do priests OF the Church go to
the Rev. Mr.. Schermerhorn as sort OF lati-
tudnarian father confessor and lay bare the
hideous secrets Of their hearts. acknowledging
that they habitually practise 'esotericism" Ito
use his own word). rejecting privately that
which they teach publicly Has DR.. Briggs
confded to Mr.. Scherm Thorn that he has only
dared to publish a part OF what he thinks. and
that he has deemed II advisable to trim n
little and " beat around the bush" for fear Of
putting his head in jeopardy? Or does Mr..
Schermerhorn claim for himself the preroGa-
tive OF the Almighty. to whom all hearts are
open. all desires known and from whom no Sc
crets are hid BY all means let us know who
these dishonest men and forsworn priests
are. that they may be dealt with as their crimes
deserve. But let us have no moro wholesale
insnuations and innuondoes impugning the
good faith OF the authorized teachers and
shepherds OF the people. mon pledged to preach
the Gospel and defend the faith as this Church
hath received the same"
1t is. OF course. conceivable that o man may
he hereto and not know it, It is furthermore
barely conceivable that man may consciously
hold heretcai views and yet DO so constitu-
tonay illogical that he Is unable to see It IL
incumbent upon him as an honest man to with
draw from the public exercise OF his ministry.
But how shall we characterize the man who
consciously and de2antly rejects the doRmas
OF the Church. and not only remains in the min
istry but seeks to justify his baseness-nay.
proceeds to plume himself on his superior
vIrtue-hy accusing his brethren OF hold
ing views similar to himself while lacking
the courage he himself possesses OF pu blioly
acknowledging them? Think OF Il! Here 10 a
priest Of the Church solemnly sworn to uphold
ami dcieud the doctrine. discipline and Worship
Of the said Church. openly. In the public prints.
impugning and repudiating her liturEical and
doctrina system. stigmatizinR the ancient
dogmas which she stands for as mo longer
credible to an intelligent mind. and describ-
ing the Psalter and the Ioctonary as nhuman.
indecent and false" Has inconsistency any
further Goai?
Mr.. Schernerhorn quotes the following coup
let as expressing his opinion OF those who
practice 'esotericism"
who dares think one thing and another tell.
Ny soul detest, him as the gates OF hell"
Let me suggest its implement:
But lie who iugzles with the oath he swore
LII soul in sooth detests him even more
1t would be interesting. though perhaps not
safe" II the Rev. Mr.. Schermerhorn would
state specifically Just which OF the odd dogmas
and conceptions" he regards as mo longer
credible to an in sligont m nd" Is It tho dog
ma Of tho Blessed Trln y. or tNe Incarnation
OF our Lord and aviour. or til, Virgin Birth. or
the Resurrection or tho A 'rension? Whatever
1t may be- only ls h IN be spe hc and not at
tempt to do lie he issu o, bury 1t beneath q
mass OF unn eani e generai.ies. and we may
not doubt that tn eco esiHstical authorities
will be ell o deal WITH his case promptly
and To the salts action Of all concerned. except
ting erhaps the Rev Mr.. Schermerhorn.
NEW YORK. Oct. 81 HAMILTON SCHUYLER.
The Rev. DIR. Savage Still Questions.
To THE FD1ToE or TIE SuN-Sir: May be
Iar!o ed for saying two things more to your
readers: 20 not Ike controversy. but want
"a find IA truth m y,alf and holp of Ind II
80 far MS can.
l. Ny courteous critic. In his reply TO my
note which appsare in THE Sun OF the 25th.
says We can know nothing about God or His
ways. tho life to coma or any divine plan in
the world with Out an in 'ailible. supernatural
revelation. This ndersta nd to be his position
This revelation. he would claim. 10 the Bible
Now | turn TO the book Of Romans and in the
first chapter and twentieth verse 1 read: For
tho invisible things OF Him God from the crea-
ton OF the world are clearly seen. being under
stood by the things that are made. even His
eternal power and godheai so that they tmen)
are without excuse" That is. st. Paul tells us
that God and His will are clearly seen in the
natura! world. 1t seems. then. that THE Syn
ami TIE SUS's one and only source OF divine
knowledge fatty contradict each other
>. The other point | wish somebo " would
make clear is this. for still II is not intelligble"
Ia me: How should know an infallibc au-
thority, even il l should see one? Would it be
by Il process OF reasoning? II So would not
reason be. in such case. tho final court of ap-
peal? II do not settle the question by reason,
then must not settle it for no reason. or with
cut n reason? II | settle 1t without reason,
hen what reason have for settling 1t ono way
rather than some other?
This ia dilemma which confess ba ffiesme.
wish some one would make IL clear FOR me.
NJ J. SAVAGE. Church OF the Messiah,
NEW YORK. Oct. 81.
Mr.. Higgins Replies to scholastieus."
To THE EDITOR OF THE SuS-Sir: I have
carefully read the letter OF "scholasticus" in
The SUN Of Oct. - on the historical aspects OF
he doctrine Of Immortality. In which he at
empts further to controvert my historical
acts and arguments. In my present letter 1 !
leed not concern myself with tho nationality
'r demonstrahiiity OF tho doctrine itself. as the
liscuSaIon on this point is practically closed by
he preponderance OF rational argument on tho
negative side. The debate is now continued, |
however. on the purely historical side OF tho |
lOctTinN which ia n . M La. into.n,.