The Christian Oracle of recent date has an editorial article headed "Courtesy in Controversy," which starts out by affirming that "the spirit of the controversialist is almost uniformly harsh, hypercritical and unkind." The editor evidently has in his mind some controversialists with whom he had a controversy, and he strikingly illustrates his charge against almost all controversialists by the manner in which he lays on the lash. He admits that these antagonists are not as cruel as men of their class once were, but he says of them: "One antagonist would not burn the other if he could, but he will pursue him with the firebrands of innuendo and misrepresentation, until he drives him out of the ranks of the brethren. There is the same harshness, the same misconception and the same angry characterization of the other's work as destructive, infidel, devilish;" and he adds that if the antagonist who is thus assailed is as bad as he is represented, it would be better generalship to "sturdily combat him instead of telling lies about him."

      Well, if this is the kind of courtesy toward those it strikes at, which the Oracle would commend to us, I believe I must decline it. I don't like to charge people with telling lies, or with pursuing brethren "with the firebrands of innuendo and misrepresentation." This is not the kind of courtesy which meets my approval. I prefer the old maxim, Suaviter in modo, fortiter in re.

      In the same editorial the editor propounds the following labored question: "If we have among us students of unblemished character and unquestioned devotion, men who, while they accept gratefully the heritage of the fathers, are determined to pioneer the way into wider [323] fields, even as the fathers in their own day did, shall we not be grateful for them? Shall we not take a just pride in the aggressive discipleship?" Be grateful for them? Yes; and be grateful to them. Take pride in them? Yes; hold them up to the admiration of the rising generation. Such men are the light of the world. Does anybody answer differently? Has anybody acted differently? The editor seems to think so; but perhaps he was just awakening out of a bad dream when he wrote the article. No Christian can refuse to honor such students. But if we have among us a student, however unblemished his character, who, while professing to pioneer the way into wider fields, jumps the outside fence and runs into the wildwood of skeptical thought, I think we ought to warn other students against his example, build that fence a little higher, and try to keep ambitious colts inside. Prove all things, and hold fast only that which is good.

[SEBC 323-324]