THER

LIBERALIZED CHRISTIANITY.

HERE is no more patent fact observable than that a great change has come over the "Spirit" of the Christian Church within the past half century, with reference to its beliefs and its tolerance of the opinions of others.

It (the church) has discovered that Agnosticism, and (what the church has inappropriately and with offensive intent termed) Infidelity, are merely expressions of honest opinions on the part of others, and that such opinions are entitled to consideration and respect.

It has evinced a disinclination to insist on dogma, a willingness to investigate and profit by the results of such investigation, to accept the discoveries of science, to seek for truth (even at the risk of parting with some of its cherished dogmas).

It has learned to advocate justice in such matters for instance as pertain to questions relating to the separation of church and

state.

It has also learned that of the writings called the "gospels," instead of their being but four, there were more than a hundred times that number, all just as much entitled to the claim of "inspiration" as those attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

It has further learned that a high stage of civilization existed long before the time when Adam and Eve were supposed to be created.

It manifests greater interest in the practical, humanitarian and ethical questions of the day and correspondingly less interest in its tenets; it seems disposed to relinquish its claim that morality exists only in Christianity; it yields (more or

less) to the higher criticism" regarding the authorship of the Bible and its (dubious) claim for inspiration, and is disposed to admit that it (the Bible) is (possibly) contradictory, unreliable and (perhaps) immoral; it shows a tendency to listen to the voice of reason and to question that of revelation; to pay more and better attention to the certainties of this life and less to the uncertainties (and improbabilities) of another life.

It has its doubts of miracles; it inclines, more than ever, to believe in natural, instead of unnatural, law; it is questioning the efficacy and the logic of prayer; it almost universally abandons belief in hell; it queries as to whether heaven is a place or a condition; it questions as to whether God is a personality, an immanency or a transcendency.

It has been, and is, growing daily more rational, more disposed to accept reality and fact and truth for tradition and legend and fable, to regard as allegorical what is improbable or impossible; it rejects belief in the Methuselah and similar stories of the prolongation of human life; it interprets the "days" of Genesis as "epochs of time."

It has learned, that its religion has evolved from anterior religions, that all its ceremonies, rites, symbols, customs and beliefs are those of more ancient times; that its god is but another name for some one of the divinities before whom the adherents of every other religion have bowed down and worshiped; that the deification, immaculate conception, and virgin birth of the founder of Christianity has its parallel in religions which existed prior to the Christian era, that its crucified saviour is but one of sixteen other crucified saviours of former ages; that its doctrine of the Trinity, its belief in heaven, in hell, in immortality, in a personal devil, all existed in the religions of earlier times.

It (the Church), in analyzing the genealogy of Christ, discovers that-if Matthew's and Luke's record be true-there is nothing mysterious about the birth of Christ, and that Joseph was as truly his father as was Mary his mother. This fact is further confirmed by recently discovered writings, such for in

stance, as those written in the Syrian language and found in a cloister on Mount Sinai, and which are about to be translated into English by Cambridge University. Christians are also awakening to the fact that it is impossible for them to find the slightest authority for the religious observance of Sunday. Bishop Potter of New York-in the Forum for Oct., 1892-distinctly says that there is no warrant for such observance. Week after week the clergy of a generation ago preached what are known as "doctrinal sermons," but which are now scarcely ever heard. The common sense of educated Christians is opposed to the improbabilities-the absurdities-of Christian dogma. Rev. Dr. Parkhurst, Presbyterian of New York, does not hesitate to pronounce the creed of his church "a horrible doctrine."

The ministry has been forced by the advanced thought of both pew and pulpit to select subjects to discourse upon which are more in accord with the enlightened ideas which are everywhere met with outside of church circles.

The very foundation of Christian faith-the doctrine of “the fall of man" is yielding to the newly discovered truth of the rise of man, which the theory of evolution is inculcating, and which theory-with all its destructive consequences to Christian doctrine-is being widely adopted by the clergy and other Professors of Christianity and with the abandonment of the doctrine of "Original Sin," that of the atonement necessarily follows; for if there be no fall of man-no Original Sin-there can be no need of an atonement, there being no act for which to atone ; again, many of the clergy, heretofore supposed to entertain orthodox views, are now thorough disbelievers in the doctrine of hell; and if there be no hell to be saved from, the inquiry naturally suggests itself what significance can there be in the word "Salvation," and, further, why, or what can be the office-or need of―a Saviour.

All these Church dogmas are so linked together that if one in the chain drops out there is wanting a unity and a strength which is essential to the very existence of the Christian religion, as a whole.

As illustrating and emphasizing and confirming what has been said above regarding the spirit of toleration and the liberalizing tendency of Christianity the following quotations. may be adduced:

The late Bishop Phillips Brooks in his book on Tolerance, says: "Tolerance is the willing consent that other men should hold and express opinions with which we disagree.

One of the worst things about intolerance is that it puts an end to manly controversy."

His brother, the Rev. Arthur Brooks, D. D., says: "The college must be open to men who say daring things.

The faculty should not tell a man that he must go out as soon as he begins to think."

Bishop Potter says: "We want defenders of the Church's liberty as well as of the Church's orthodoxy."

Rev. James Freeman Clarke says: "The time has come when Unitarians and Universalists can no longer monopolize the title of liberal and rational Christians. There are

many hopeful signs of progress and improvement in the Christian Church. In New York, for example, appear every week two newspapers, the Independent and the Christian Union, both nominally orthodox, edited in the interest of a free, broad, practical and generous Christianity."

Rev. H. W. Mabie, of the Outlook, says: "Religious questions press for answer on all sides. The part of leadership is resolutely to treat the new inquiries, not as evidence of the prevalence of sin, but as signs of a quickening of life to look for re-statements and re-adjustments.'

Rev. Francis Brown, Professor in the Presbyterian Theological Seminary at New York says: "It is a great pity to be afraid of facts," and makes admissions, which, “but a short time before, would have filled orthodoxy with horror."

The eminent English divine, Rev. Dr. Mills, calls attention to the now undoubted and long suspected fact that "it pleased the divine power to reveal some of the most important articles of our Catholic creed first to the Zoroasterians."

Huc and Gabert, French priests (in disguise) penetrated to

the interior of China and brought to the world's notice an amazing similarity of ideas, institutions, observances, ceremonies, ritual, and ecclesiastical costumes of the Buddhists to those of his own Church.

Rev. Dr. Briggs says: "I rejoice at this age of rationalism, with all its wonderful achievements in philosophy. . . . Investigation must go on. It matters little how many oppose it. It may delay the end, it cannot prevent it. It may make investigation a holy war and the establishment of its results a catastrophe to the faith and life of its opponents, but the normal development of investigation is the calm, steady, invincible march of science."

The Sunday Oregonian says, with reference to Professor Briggs criticism of the Bible: "It is imposible to stay the tide. Men, in increasing numbers, insist on treating religion rationally, or dealing with the Bible on ordinary principles of literary interpretation. More and more it is coming to be understood that the whole history of man is regular and orderly, without special revelations, without miraculous interpolations, of divine Providence. The thought of our time is rapidly clearing religion of the crudities it borrowed from those ages in which there was no scientific observation."

Rev. Dr. R. Heber Newton says: "No man can be found, who thinks at all, who is not heretical upon some point of the Westminster confession. These grounds of faith Dr. Briggs has pluckily and ably contested. Heresy hunters as a rule, are not disarmed by the force of reasoning. They are hardened, not softened, by the warm light of truth. They are not more inclined toward peace when they discover their mistakes, but are often made the madder thereby. . . . New found knowledge compel the re-study of the dogmas and institutions of the church in the light of historic criticism and comparative religion. Reason must be the bed-rock

of our faith, and Bible and Church alike rest on it. Only by reason can records of revelation and Church philosophies be tested satisfactorily."