THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE PRIZE ESSAY
ON INFIDELITY.
INFIDELITY DISSECTED.
BY
THE REV. THOMAS PEARSON,
EYEMOUTH, SCOTLAND.
CHICAGO:
GEO. MAC DONALD & CO.




Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874,
BY GEO. MAC DONALD & CO.,
In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
KNIGHT & LEONARD, PRINTERS, CHICA.GO.




THIS ESSAY
IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED
TO THE
EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE
BY THE AUTHOR.








CONTENTS.
PART THE FIRST.
INFIDELITY IN ITS VARIOUS ASPECTS,                          13
CHAP. I. Atheism; or, the Denial of the Divine Existence,    I6
II. Pantheism; or, the Denial of the Divine Personality,  43
III. Naturalism; or, the Denial of the Divine Providential Government,-                              8I
IV. Spiritualism; or, the Denial of the Bible Redemption, 142
V. Indifferentism; or, the Denial of Man's Responsibility, 216
VT. Formalism; or, the Denial of the Power of Godliness, 246
PART THE SECOND.
INFIDELITY IN ITS VARIOUS CAUSES,                       - 272
CHAP. I. General Cause, -272
II. Speculative Philosophy,        - -      - -    286
III. Social Disaffection,  -   -   -   -   -   -    3I3
IV. The Corruptions of Christianity,  -   -   -     328
V. Religious Intolerance,  -    -349
VI. Disunion of the Church        -    -          - 372








INTRODUCTION.
T HE answer given by the messengers to the angel of
the Lord that stood among the myrtle trees, in the
vision of Zechariah the prophet, does not apply to our
times: "We have walked to and fro through the earth,
and behold all the earth sitteth still and is at rest." Politically and morally, in things sacred and civil, Europe, in
the nineteenth century, is a troubled sea. Numerous and
mighty agencies, both for good and evil, are abroad and
at work. These agencies may embody the same great
principles that have been opposing and struggling with
each other from the beginning. Light and darkness strove
on the face of the deep before this goodly universe rose
out of chaos, and they have their strivings still. Error is
not of yesterday, any more than truth. They encountered
each other in Paradise, they have had many encounters
since, and they are yet in the field.  But periods arise
which become exalted into epochs, when these ancient
forces, on the one side or on both, display more than
usual vigor,- appear in new or revived forms, change
their modes of attack and defense, and come off with
honors. Such a period was the beginning of the Gospel,
when truth, in her fairest form, descended from heaven,




8                  INTRODUCTION.
sustained the combined attack of all the powers of evil,
and, by her own inherent vigor, spoiled principalities and
powers, and went un conquering and to conquer. Such
a period was the dark or middle ages, which, like a long
and dreary night, succeeded a short but bright day, when
it seemed as if truth had been driven from the field, and
the world had been given up to the reign of ignorance
and error.  Such a period was the Reformation of the
sixteenth century, which, with a voice whose sound was
like the sea, awoke Europe from the sleep of ages, mustered in fierce and vigorous conflict all the powers of
good and evil, and sent throughout the heart of ransomed
humanity a thrill of joyous liberty that has echoed over
the earth and down the stream of time. Such a period
(to contract our view within our own England) was that
august and earnest century when an oppressed people
rose up, resolute and majestic, against their faithless oppressors,-when the Puritans sounded the Gospel trumpet
against the formalism and irreligion of the age, and men
awoke at once to civil freedom and that yet higher liberty wherewith the truth makes men free. And (to leap
over the bridge that spanned the dark and boisterous
waters that rolled between,- one of those dreary intervals
that ever and anon occur in history,- and which constituted in itself a dark age, when the foe was permitted
to advance and stretch his scepter over the church and
the world, and, in a great measure, corrupt the form and
stifle the voice of truth itself) such a period was the
latter half of the last century, when an awakening evan



INTRODUCTION.                   9
gelism, big and feeling-hearted, counteracted the materialistic tendencies which a skeptical, soulless philosophy had
given to the age, and blew upon the cold, earthly morality
that had usurped the place of the Gospel in the college
chair and in the church pulpit.
The fruits of this latter age — fruits both good and
evil — we are now reaping. There is more reason, however, to be thankful for its legacy of good, than to deplore
the inheritance of its evil. Its shining light has shone
more and more unto our own day; but masses of dark
cloud, envious and portentous, have followed it. We are
not so moodishly disposed as to call to remembrance the
former days, and say they were better than the present.
No; the age, carrying along with it much of the rich good
of the past, is, in spite of many drawbacks, advancing
onward in the right path. There is in the heart of humanity a much larger amount of the leaven of heavenly
truth than could be found at any preceding period, and,
notwithstanding all opposing tendencies, it is spreading,
and will spread. Despotism, which robs man of his rights
and obstructs the progress of God's truth, is losing its
ground, and truth and freedom are advancing. The Bible,
the schoolmaster, the evangelist, and the missionary are
abroad. The church at home is becoming more and
more alive to the call of her Lord, "Arise, shine." Her
voice is becoming more loud and earnest in the pulpit,
her instruction agencies among our home population are
strengthening and thickly multiplying, and she is lengthening her cords so as to embrace within her pale the




10                  INTRODUCTION.
abundance of the sea and the forces of the Gentiles. But
if it is unwise to brood over the maladies of an age, as
if it were only evil, and that continually, it is not less
so to glory in its fair forms and healthy activities as if
oblivious of its wounds and bruises and putrifying sores.
The sun is in the heavens bright and beaming, but the
clouds have gathered, surcharged with the elements of
strife, and they are' ever and anon darkening and troubling
the sky. Our age is one of intense earnestness and action,
both for good and evil. The old truth and the old error,
which have struggled throughout the past, are in the field.
But neither is slumbering; both are vigilant, extending
their lines, increasing their forces, devising and adopting
new modes of defense and attack, as if conscious that a
blow was about to be struck which would mark another
great era in the conflict between the powers of good
and evil.
There are giants on the earth in these days, both in
the one encampment and in the other. A mighty force
is on the side of the friends of truth, but it is sadly
divided and scattered  What is wanting is the strength
of union,- the concentration of those energies, in defending the citadel and making inroads on the enemy, which
are spent on the defense of comparatively unimportant
posts, or in one detachment of the same corps guarding
against the encroachment of another. The champions of
error, though not without their discords and divisions,
are yet wiser in their generation than the children of
light. As of old, they discern the signs of the times, and




INTRODUCTION.                    11
take counsel together against the Lord and against his
anointed. The Press, to which, under God, we owe so
much of our light and liberties, wields a mighty influence
on the side of evil.  The halls of philosophy, hallowed
though they be by many a name illustrious for Christian
worth as well as intellectual greatness, are often sending
forth doctrines as gross as the earth or as vague as the
air, but alike adverse to that truth which, coming from
above, is above all. Our current literature and works on
science, with not a few bright and beneficent exceptions,
are hostile, either by their silence in reference to divine
truth when their subjects afford them  occasions to speak
out, or by their avowed opposition to much of what constitutes the essence of true religion. And what is peculiar, in a great measure, to our times, and throws a vast
potency into the scale of irreligion, is the unceasing effort
of infidels to diffuse their principles among the artisans
and laboring classes of the land. The earth is not still
and at rest.  Men of every class are searching after an
unknown good. The demon of infidelity is stalking abroad,
knocking at the palaces of the rich and the cottages of
the poor,' transforming itself into this shape and that, and
becoming all things, except an angel of good, to all men.
One dreary theory succeeds another, like storm-cloud
chasing storm-cloud over the face of the sky, and yet
man is not at peace. The cravings of his mind are agonized, not satisfied.  It becomes those, then, who know
I  "Aequo pulsat pede pauperum tabernas
Regumque turres."-Horace.




12                  INTRODUCTION.
the truth, and whom the truth has made free,- those who,
having believed, do enter into rest, to arouse themselves
for the two-fold object of meeting infidelity at its various
points and combating its diversified forms, and of presenting, in every lawful way, that truth which they know
only can give rest to a laboring and heavy-laden world.
Let the antagonist forces, on the one side as well as
on the other, be pressed into the unfettered conflict, and
the lovers of God and the friends of man have nothing
to fear, but much to hope. "Christianity, like Rome, has
had both the Gaul and Hannibal at her gates; but, as the'Eternal City,' in the latter case, calmly offered for sale,
and sold at an undepreciated price, the very ground on
which the Carthaginian had fixed his camp, with equal
calmness may Christianity imitate her example of magnanimity. She may feel assured that, as in so many past
instances of premature triumph on the part of her enemies, the ground they occupy will one day be her own,that the very discoveries, apparently hostile, of science
and philosophy, will be ultimately found elements of her
strength." 1 "All flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man
as.the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower
thereof falleth away. But the word of the Lord endureth
for ever."
1 Rogers' Essays, vol. ii, p. 345.




PART THE FIRST.
INFIDELITY  IN  ITS VARIOUS ASPECTS.
ATHEISM - PAN THEISM -NATURALISM  PSEUDO-SPIRITUALISM - INDIFFERENTISM - FORMALISM.
NFIDELITY, though elaborating its own creed, is,
properly speaking, a system of negations.  It suggests
rather what it seeks to demolish than what it attempts to
build. In this respect it is like the palmer-worm of the
prophet,' the mere mention of which leads one to think
more of what it has destroyed, than of what it has left to be
eaten by the locust. But in the work of demolition, one
man or class of men advances farther than another. Some
sacred truths which one band of fell destroyers clear away
in their march, another band, leagued in the same warfare, leave standing.  Just as we may suppose some of the
soldiers of Cxesar, in attacking the Massilian grove, went
scrupulously and sparingly to work from a superstitious
dread of invisible power, while others, less timid and superstitious, leveled to the ground everything that had for ages
been counted sacred.2 Infidelity in one age or country
may be much more sweeping than in another, and, as
everybody knows, contemporaneous systems of unbelief
among the same people may differ widely in the number of
things sacred which they proscribe.  But there is a clearly
I Joel i. 4.    2 Foster's Essays, p. 39, I5th ed.




14                  ATHEISM; OR,
defined body of religious truth, in reverencing which, people and nations who have had and fairly used the means of
judging, however much differing on other points, have
generally been agreed.  This is the ark of the God of
Israel; and however the Philistines may outstrip each other
in laying hands upon it, they are yet to be numbered under
one genus, on the principle that depredators are but depredators, though some may be braver and more successful in
the work of plunder than others. This body of truth comprises all the commonly understood doctrines of natural
and revealed religion: such as the independent existence
of one absolutely perfect Being, the Creator, Preserver, and
Governor of all things; the doctrine of the Trinity, or of
three Persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit; the Incarnation and Atonement of the
Son for human salvation; and the necessity of the Spirit's
influences to regenerate the souls of men. This is God's
truth, the substance of all that material nature teaches, the
purest reason has ever been able to discover, and the
Scriptures have revealed. There is room for a diversity of
opinion about modes of ecclesiastical government, external
rites and ceremonies, and the interpretation of certain
Scriptural passages, but no one who has ears to hear, and
who humbly listens to the voices of nature and revelation,
can fail to discover what God is, and what he has done,
what man is, and what he needs. Infidelity, then, is found
to manifest itself in such forms as the following: in the
denial of the Divine Existence, or absolute Atheism; in
the denial of the Divine Personality, or Pantheism; in the
denial of the Divine Providential Government, or Naturalism; in the denial of the Divine Redemption (including,
as it does, the doctrines of the Trinity, Atonement, and
Spirit's influences), or Pseudo-Spiritualism. And to these
may be added, what belongs more properly to practical,




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE EXISTENCE.       15
than to theoretical infidelity, the, denial of Man's responsibility, or Indifferentism; and the denial of the Power of
Godliness, or Formalism. These forms we shall now
develop.




CHAPTER I.
THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE EXISTENCE, OR ATHEISM.
Atheism completes the negation - A somewhat strange phenomenon - Its existence
doubted - No man of straw - Processes by which men have become atheists -
Prevalent in most depraved times - French atheism - Reign of Terror —An
atheistical nation self-destructive -No lack of adverse speculations respecting
the Divine Being, but absolute atheism comparatively rare —Development
hypothesis not positively atheistical —Atheism, however, a fact - Involves a
monstrous assumption - The existence of God an intellectual necessity - Arguments a Ariori and 2 posteriori- Exclusive claim for either disposed ofInductive proof from matter and mind - Defect of Induction - Bible testimony
- Practical proof the real one - Dr. Arnold.
ERE the negation is complete.  The work of demolishing things esteemed sacred, has advanced so far
as to leave nothing more for the destroyer to do. He has
reached the dreary brink from which many destroyers, by
no means craven-hearted, have shrunk back. And from
that bad pre-eminence he looks upwards to the heavens,
vacant at first in his wishes, and now in his creed, and with
as much boldness as if he had traveled through the realms
of space and beheld all dark and desolate, says, There is
there no God. He looks down to the gulf of annihilation,
and, amid the troubles of his godless existence, feels something like a morbid satisfaction in the thought that the
grave is an eternal sleep and the present scene the whole
of man. He looks abroad upon the mass of human society,
ill at ease and yearning after an enjoyment that it has never
found, and to the question, " Who will shew us any good?"
he has only one answer, " Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." No religion is his religion. And he struggles, against the aspirings of his better self, to rest in the
dark dogma that the highest being is man.




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE EXISTENCE.       17
Atheism in this unqualified sense is, it must be admitted, a somewhat strange and startling phenomenon. People in many parts would turn out and look at a real and
avowed atheist, just as they do at some singularly huge
foreign animals, with mingled astonishment and alarm.
Faith in God is so inherent in the heart of humanity, and
so essential to our reason, that many wise and good men
have doubted if ever there lived an intelligent mortal so
absolutely destitute of religious belief as is implied in atheism. Addison would have told a man who gloried in this,distinction, that he was an impudent liar, and that he knew
it. Bacon accounted atheism to be rather in the lip than
in the heart, and that a contemplative atheist is a prodigy,
a thing unusually rare. " I confess," says Dr. Arnold in
one of his weighty letters, "that I believe conscientious
atheism not to exist." And it does appear an incredible
thing, that a man possessed of intelligence and feeling,
standing amid this glorious amphitheater of earth and sky,
gazing upon its grand and lovely forms, and listening to its
thousand voices of rapturous praise, can coolly deny the
existence of Him who sits enthroned above the heavens.
It does seem hard to be believed that one of our race can
retire into the depths of his own inner nature, and familiarize himself with the wondrous phenomena of his mental
existence, and yet come out of himself and unhesitatingly
say that this great system of animate and inanimate being
is without a presiding and independent mird.  It does
look like a very prodigious thing in the world that men
should be found who not only rob God of the attributes
that are essential to his nature, and extrude Him from the
domain of his own creation, but can frame and assent to
the proposition that God is not. But such prodigies have
been and are ever and anon recurring. Every one indeed
is not an atheist who wishes to be so. And many who
2




18                  ATHEISM; OR,
would fain persuade the world that they are heroes of this
description, are no more to be credited than the coward
who, in the absence of the foe, boasts of his bravery. But
absolute atheism is no man of straw that controversialists.
have set up in order that they might knock him down. It
is an embodied breathing reality.  And however much
violence may be implied in freeing the mind of a belief in,
God, in thwarting and representing those moral instincts
which naturally go out thither and rest in that faith, and
in falsifying all the signs palpably marked on the shining:
heavens and the green earth, which have spoken from the
beginning to the philosopher and the peasant of a supreme.
presiding intelligence, the violence in not a few instances
has been done.
In some minds of a philosophic cast the work has;
proceeded with something like system and deliberation.
From one or two principles, which in their fondness they
no more thought of doubting than axioms in mathematics,
they have wrought out, through a series of inevitable developments, an independent universe, governed exclusively by
mechanical laws, the lawgiver being fate or necessity, or
some other equally vague and unintelligible name. In
other minds less accustomed to scale the heavens and
traverse the fields of space, the consummation has been
reached by a felt necessity of advancing after having
thrown off religious restraints; just as some people are
necessitated to do a second wrong action because they
have done the first, to do a third because they have done
the second, and so on until the character for daring has
been stereotyped into something like the shape of an indomitable hero. And never but in the whirlpool of revolutionary frenzy, or in such circumstances as to be at once
the cause and effect of the corruption of a state, has atheism been boldly adopted and acted upon by the masses of




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE EXISTENCE.       19
a nation. A Diagoras, a Bion, and a Lucian, are marked
out from among the minds of the ancient world as having
made this unenviable attainment. The men of Athens were
wont to banish from their city the solitary skeptic that now
and then appeared and dared even to doubt the existence
of a supreme intelligence. Ancient Rome, we know, had
passed the climax of her glory before atheism obtained any
hold of the public mind, and its prevalence was followed
by such a course of degeneracy, oppression and bloodshed, as makes the reader of her history even now tremble; the age of Pericles among the Greeks and the age of
Augustus among the Romans had departed, and in the
deluge of depravity that in either case set in, the monster
abounded. But never was atheism, whether of a philosophical or political kind, more boldly manifested than in
the history of modern Europe. During the latter half of
the last century, the religious world had to contend not
only with a stupid deism, but with the abettors of an undisguised atheism. The very first principle of natural religion
was avowedly rejected and stoutly contended for. Sensationalism reached its culminating point. The materialistic
school of France sent forth an infidel science and literature
of the broadest stamp, and that school had its disciples in
many lands. In the "Systeme de la Nature," the celebrated work of Baron d'Holbach, the most absolute atheism
is asserted as openly as the existence of God is maintained
in any of our treatises on natural theology. "The grand
object of the book," to use the language of Lord Brougham,
"being to show that there is no God, the author begins by
endeavoring to establish the most rigorous materialism by
trying to show that there is no such thing as mind - nothing beyond or different from the material world."' This
work, full though it be of gratuitous assumptions and inDiscourse of Natural Theology, p. 172.




20                  ATHEISM; OR,
cd'nclusive reasoning, was well fitted, as Dr. Chalmers,
speaking from his own experience, once remarked, "by its
gorgeous generalizations on nature and truth and the universe, to make tremendous impression on the unpracticed
reader."' The French Encyclopaedia of Sciences, which
numbered among its contributors some of the most brilliant
writers of the age, was avowedly a work of atheism. Matter and its laws became the engrossing subjects of investigation, the existence of God was treated as the fiction of
an over-credulous age, and man was regarded as but an
organized animal, the offspring of chance, the sport of fate,
and whose end is annihilation. The great work of Auguste
Comte, which has obtained for him a wide reputation, is
the most celebrated of the recent productions of the same
school. It is a system of huge materialism, which "records
the dread sentiment, that the universe displays no proofs
of an all-directing mind, and records it too as the deduction of unbiased reason." Newton, Kepler, and others of
the greatest discoverers in science, have risen from nature
up to nature's God, and had their minds filled with religious emotion when exploring the earth and the heavens,
but the disciples of the school to which we have referred,
brilliant though their reputation be in the departments of
physical research, have presented to the world productions
of their genius which must bear the broad brand of
atheism.
What has been too truly called the Reign of Terror,
in France, was avowedly the reign of the most absolute
atheism.  Infidelity then assumed its boldest front and
lifted up its loudest voice, and it found an echo in some
parts of our own land. "I frankly confess that I am an
atheist," said one of the members of the French Convention in a deliberative assembly of his countrymen; and
1 Hanna's Life of Chalmers, vol. I, p. 45.




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE EXISTENCE.         21
though the declaration startled multitudes by its daring, yet
voices were not wanting in that assembly to cry out, " You
are an honest man." The Revolutionary leaders, in the
height of their impiety, not only sought to destroy every
vestige of Christianity by abolishing the Sabbath, altering
the calendar, plundering and shutting up, or converting
into warehouses, the various churches; but in the climax of
their guilt, they brought the Convention to yield to the
cry, that the era had come when men should cease to fear
the Eternal, and, in the person of a strumpet, enthroned
with heathen orgie~ the goddess of Reason as the object of
national worship. France thus presented to the world the
singular and appalling spectacle of a refined and civilized
nation openly declaring that there is no God, proscribing
all the acts of religious homage, and inscribing on the
entrance to the sepulcher that death is an eternal sleep.
"This," as Robert Hall remarks, "is the first attempt
which has ever been witnessed, on an extensive scale, to
establish the principles of atheism; the first effort which
history has recorded to disannul and extinguish the belief
of all superior powers." It had been a matter of dispute
in former ages whether a community leavened throughout
with atheistical principles could possibly subsist. No great
powers of reasoning were requisite to show that, abstractedly considered, the thing is impossible. It is not necessary
to see the ocean shifting its bed or rapidly advancing beyond its ancient limits, to feel persuaded that were it to
do so, it would carry a sweeping devastation into the towns
and villages that skirt the shore.  Let the throne in the
heavens be declared vacant, and proclamation be made
throughout the land that there is no God, and society is
reft of all its safeguards, crime is committed without dread
of punishment, and the vilest passions of the vilest men
rush onward without restraint. For how utterly feeble is




L22                ATHEISM; OR,
the check imposed by human laws when, by denying the
Divine existence, they have succeeded in exploding the
law of God. But the bad preeminence was reserved for
modern France, to teach in a palpable form the awful
lesson, that when the Ruler among the nations is openly
disowned, the foundations of the earth are out of course,
the bonds of society are dissolved, human life is accounted
cheap and wantonly sacrificed, and the most horrid deeds
are perpetrated under the sacred name of liberty. It was
" a grand experiment on human nature." Atheism had
never been tried on such an extensive scale before. And
it was seen and felt that nations, like individuals, cannot
be prosperous and safe, enjoy liberty and be at peace,
without acknowledging the living and true God. France
was like a troubled sea, a sea of blood, under the reign of
atheism. The people at last recoiled from the impious
and horrid system. And that same Convention which had
publicly disowned the Most High and proclaimed death to
be an eternal sleep, was constrained to recognize by enactment the existence of God and the immortality of the soul,
and, by an impious festival, professedly to restore the
Eternal to the nation's faith and homage.'Vengeance
belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord."
"The republic of these men without a God," remarks
Lamartine, "was quickly stranded." Europe has never
witnessed the reign of such a bold and undisguised atheism
since, and in all probability never will.
Infidel opinions, monstrous and many-shaped enough,
are ever and anon thrown up amid the heavings of restless humanity, the natural tendency of which is to lead
men to look up to a vacant heaven and down to the dreary
gulf, from which, however, they instinctively shrink back,
and of such opinions no age was, perhaps, ever more rife
than our own. Views of a Supreme Power, of human




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE EXISTENCE.       23
nature, and of the material world, are emanating from the
schools and being diffused throughout the mass of society,
which are unquestionably atheistical in their leanings. But
there is no broad surface of humanity on which we can
look and say, there is atheism absolute and undisguised.
Infidelity and atheism are not convertible terms. Atheism
is the worst form, the ultimate bound of infidelity; but all
infidelity is not atheism.  The one is, comparatively, a
strange phenomenon; the other is ever floating in innumerable shapes on the surface of society as well as
pervading, like leaven, the mass. Men in general will
worship. They are naturally led to recognize a Supreme
Being, even though he may possess in their imaginings
none of the attributes and characteristics of the God of
the Bible. We would in nowise be indulgent to the many
adverse speculations respecting the Divine Being which
are afloat in their subtle and philosophic form, or which are
popularized so as to meet the capacities of the multitude,
speculations which are dishonoring to God and virtually
deny Him. But we would distinguish between the man
who believes in the existence of the great First Cause,
though holding opinions that rob Him of his glory, and
the man who openly avows that there is no God, and,denounces the belief in Him as a mere chimera of the
understanding.  A hypothesis may be atheistical in its
bearings, and yet its assertor may be no theoretical atheist.
His theism, dissociated from other important beliefs, may
be of no moral worth whatever, and in the Scriptural sense
of the expression he may be without God in the world,
yet so long as positive atheism is not involved in his philosophical creed, and he professes to have faith in God, it
were unjust to place him at the bound which he had not
yet reached, and write him down atheist. Mr. Hugh Miller
justly remarks of the development hypothesis of Maillet




24                     ATHEISM; OR,
and Lamarck, that there is no positive atheism involved in
it. " God might as certainly have originated the species by a
law of development, as he maintains it by a law of development; the existence of a first great Cause is as perfectly
compatible with the one scheme as with the other."  If it
were a question of moral influence, and not of dogmatical
opinion, we might merge such simple theism in atheism,
for, as the author of the "Footprints" observes, "without
a belief in the immortality and responsibility of man, and
in the scheme of salvation by a Mediator and Redeemer,
a belief in the existence of a God is of as little ethical
value as the belief in the existence of the great seaserpent." But it is with men's creed, not their practice,
that we have at present to do. And men may be living
without God in the world. and yet hold that there is a
God in the heavens. It is the man who disowns God,.
who theoretically and practically denies his existence, that:
bears on  his brow  the self-inflicted  brand, "I am  an
atheist." Our own age does not lack such daring mortals;
they may be found here and there in the schools, and in
the workshops, wielding the press, or spouting from the
rostrum, or taking up the gauntlet on the platform, but, in
general, the mass of society which is not Christian is infidel
rather than atheistical. Comparatively few are so foolhardy as to maintain that there is no God, though vast
multitudes are foolhardy enough to deprive Him of all his.
distinguishing  glory while professing to acknowledge his
existence. Atheism, however, is a fact in human society,.
and more or less prevalent in every age, and must be numbered as one and the grossest of the forms of infidelity.'
1 Footprints of the Creator, p. I4.
2 As to the general character of the atheism among the people, we here adduce
two competent witnesses. Dr. Krummacher, in his Alliance Paper on Infidelity in
Germany, remarks, " that atheism in the lower classes appears as a plant, proceeding more from political interest, than as a proof, proceeding from a clear self-judg



THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE EXISTENCE.                  25
In atheism the negation of infidelity is complete. Now,
before noticing the positive proof for the existence of God,
there is an initial consideration, of some importance to the
argument, which must be adverted to. We allude to the
immense knowledge requisite in certain cases to establish a
negative. Evidence may be adduced at once to show that
such a thing is or that such a thing has been done, while
the negation of this may demand a surprising amount of
research and experience. An individual, for example, cast
upon what seemed to be a desert island, might affirm that it
was, or lately had been, inhabited, and in proof of this he
would need only to point to the human footprint on the
sand.   One  such  mark  would  of itself be sufficient to
make good the affirmation. But were the companion of
his misfortune to contend that the island was uninhabited,
and that no traces of a human being having ever been
there could be found, it is very obvious that the proof of
this negative assertion would be attended with much
greater difficulty. In the one case, the single human footmark fresh upon the soil would be proof sufficient. In the
other case it would be necessary to explore the whole
region, to examine carefully every cavern and locality,
before the negative proposition could be substantiated.
The one clear print of a man's fo~t would prove that man
was, or had been, in the island; but it would be requisite
to see that no human footprint was visible throughout its
entire length and breadth, that no vestige of a human inhabitant could be discovered, before an individual would
ment. Religion is looked upon as an invention to press down the people." Mr.
Vanderkiste, in his deeply interesting "Notes and Narratives of a Six Years'
Mission among the Dens of London," says: " The so-called atheists with whom I
have met, have proved, with few exceptions, upon being closely questioned, not
really to be atheists at all. They have admitted some causation, and when pressed
closely upon the subject of intelligent causation, and required to define terms, they
have fairly broken down and become angry. Atheism is to be regarded as thedesperate shift of an ill-regulated mind, determined to rid itself of responsibility at
the expense of all reason and argument.'!




26                  ATHEISM; OR,
be entitled to say, that no man was or ever had been there.
And the difficulty of making good the negative would
increase with the enlargement of the country and the number and size of the localities to be gone over.
The same principle holds with regard to extent of time
as to extent of space. Let it be affirmed of the British
monarch that, on a certain occasion, she entered, in the
most unostentatious manner, into a poor cottage and
relieved with her own hands a suffering family. Nothing
more would be requisite to substantiate the affirmation
than the honest testimony of the favored cottagers, or the
truthful word of some competent witnesses. But let the
negative statement be made, that the monarch never entered such an humble abode, and never administered relief
in such a way, and it is obvious that very much is necessary to make the statement good. No one would be warranted to utter such a negative, but an individual who had
closely followed the monarch through every path and
winding which she took in private life, or who was, in some
way or another, cognizant of all her out-door movements
throughout every day of every year since she ascended the
throne. Did the individual's experience extend so far as
three hundred and sixty-four days of a given year and no
farther, for aught he knew, the condescension might have
been manifested and the good deed performed on the very
day to which his knowledge did not reach. The difficulty
of establishing the negative would increase as the time
extended to the whole reign, and it would be absolutely
insurmountable when made to embrace not only a particular monarch, but all the sovereigns that ever sat on the
British throne. Even in the absence of all proof to the
contrary, what an amount of presumption would be implied
in saying that no English monarch ever entered an humble
dwelling and did a benevolent act to its poor inmates; but




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE EXISTENCE.       27
the arrogance would be complete if the statement was
made in defiance of one or more well-authenticated instances of such benignant doings in the annals of English
royalty.
These remarks will enable us to see what extraordinary
attainments must have been made before an individual
would be entitled to say, There is no God. It is a negative proposition which no finite mind can enunciate without being guilty of the most astounding presumption;
and the man would only betray his folly who should
attempt to demonstrate it. The skeptic may express his
doubts of the Divine existence, and give reasons for his
doubting, but beyond this, skepticism can achieve nothing.
In order to substantiate the affirmative proposition, that
there is a God, nothing more might be necessary than to
point to some of the footprints of the Creator which are
visible in the heavens and the earth. If there be a God,
only a very small amount of knowledge and experience
would be requisite to prove it. The evidence might lie, as
we say that it does lie, in a flower of the field, in a leaf of
the forest, in a single hand, or in a single eye. But the
negative proposition could be substantiated within no such
compass. Even were there no indications of the Creator
in that wondrous microcosm the human eye, or in the waving leaf, or in the blooming flower, still it were an illegitimate inference and a manifestation of high presumption
to conclude that there is no God. He must needs have
traversed not only every part of "this dim spot which men
call earth," but he must have wandered from star to star,
made himself thoroughly acquainted with all worlds, have
searched into the records of all ages, and have found
throughout all space and all time no evidence for design,
before an individual could be entitled to say that the universe is without a God. This idea is forcibly expressed by




28                   ATHEISM; OR,
John Foster,1 and eloquently illustrated by Dr. Chalmers.'
" The wonder then turns," says the original minded author
of the Essays,' on the great process by which a man could
grow to the immense intelligence which can know that
there is no God. What ages and what lights are requisite
for THIS attainment! This intelligence involves the very
attributes of Divinity, while a God is denied. For unless.
this man is omnipresent, unless he is at this moment in
every place in the universe, he cannot know but there may
be in some place manifestations of a Deity, by which even
he would be overpowered. If he does not know absolutely
every agent in the universe, the one that he does not know
may be God. If he is not himself the chief agent in the
universe, and does not know what is so, that which is sob
may be God. If he is not in absolute possession of all the
propositions that constitute universal truth, the one which
he wants may be, that there is a God. If he cannot with
certainty assign the cause of all that he perceives to exist,
that cause may be God. If he does not know everything
that has been done in the immeasurable ages that are past,
some things may have been done by a God. Thus, unless
he knows all things, that is, precludes all other divine
existence by being Deity himself, he cannot know that the
Being whose existence he rejects does not exist. But hemust know that He does not exist, else he deserves equal
contempt and compassion for the temerity with which he
firmly avows his rejection and acts accordingly." Atheism
is thus shown, at the very outset, to be illogical and to rest
on a monstrous assumption, so that we are prepared to,
welcome whatever evidences offer themselves for the truth
of the proposition that there is a God.
But not only is the proof of the non-existence of God
an intellectual impossibility; His existence is felt to be an
1 Essays, I5th ed., p. 35.  2 Institutes of Theology,. vol. i, p. 63.




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE EXISTENCE.          29
intellectual necessity. The mind of man is so constituted
that it cannot be satisfied without it, and hence the monstrous violence done to his intellectual and moral nature
when he attempts to banish from him the idea of a First
Cause. That there must be a First Cause, is an axiom
assumed in all our. reasoning upward from the phenomena
of nature to nature's God. The snow that is now thickly
falling as we write these pages, the stormy wind that is
drifting that snow against our windows and doors, are
effects the causes of which we investigate and the laws of
which we trace; but in our upward track we are seeking
after a resting point, we come to the last link in the chain
~of material causation, and from the very constitution of our
minds we repose in a cause essentially different from all
others, which is the I AM, the self-existent and independent God. The idea of a great First Cause, is not derived
originally from the phenomena of a nature around us, but
assumed in our investigations into these phenomena. It is
an axiomatic truth which every sound reasoner carries
along with him in his ascent from effects to their apparent
causes, and to which the mind from a felt necessity fully
surrenders itself when it has reached the last link in the
phenomena of nature. The Greek logician has said, "all
that moves refers us to a mover, and it were only an endless
adjournment of causes were there not a primary immovable
Mover."  Such an endless adjournment of causes can
never be resorted to without doing great violence to our
mental constitution, and forcibly thwarting its natural tendencies.  It is just a perpetual armed attempt to thrust
the mind away from the rest to which, from the law of its
being, it is ever aspiring. "Our minds cannot be satisfied,"
remarks Professor Whewell,' "with a series of successive,
dependent causes and effects, without something first and
1 Indications of the Creator, 2d ed. p. i98-9.




30                   ATHEISM; OR,
independent. We pass from effect to cause, and from that
to a higher cause, in search of something on which the
mind can rest; but if we can do nothing but repeat this
process, there is no use in it. We move our limbs, but
make no advance. Our question is not answered, but
evaded. The mind cannot acquiesce in the destiny thus
presented to it, of being referred from event to event, from
object to object, along an interminable vista of causation
and time. Now, this mode of stating the reply, —to say
that the mind cannot thus be satisfied, appears to be equivalent to saying that the mind is conscious of a principle in
virtue of which such a view as this must be rejected,- the
mind takes refuge in the assumption of a First Cause, from
an employment inconsistent with its own nature." "That
First Cause, indeed, observes Dr. Harris,' "must be immensely different, both in rank and in nature, from  the
subordinate physical causes to which it has imparted
motion; but still the mind feels the necessity for such a
cause with all the force of an intellectual instinct. The
mind was constituted to feel this necessity, and thus to
supply the last link in the chain of reasoning from itself, as
much as it was made and meant to find the preceding, links
in the phenomena of nature."
Having thus glanced at the intellectual impossibility
involved in the negative proposition that there is no God,
and at the intellectual necessity for the axiom that there
must be a First Cause, we are prepared to consider the
real value of the arguments a priori and a posteriori. And
we cannot help remarking, at the outset, that too exclusive an importance has been attached to each of these
celebrated forms of proof, as if the one were absolutely
independent of the other. The two, in a great measure,
go hand in hand, and conduct us to the position that there
i Pre-Adamite Earth. p. 151.




'IHE DENIAL OF' THE DIVINE EXISTENCE.       31
is a God, the Great Creator and Parent of the universe.
The a priori mode of reasoning is the exclusive idol of
many of the German logicians, they have an utter contempt for our inductive philosophy -and matter-of-fact
theology. Experience, the great teacher, is professedly
ignored in their argumentation, the world with all its
palpable realities is shut out, and from mere mental abstiactions they evolve all existencies and all truth. But in
their hands this kind of reasoning has completely failed.
It conducts the mind to no firm resting-place. It bewilders, instead of elucidating, our notions of God, of man,
and the universe. It gives us no divine personal existence,
and leaves us floating in a region of mere vague abstractions. Such reasonings are either altogether vain, or are
not really what they profess to be.
In our country the name of Dr. Clarke is chiefly associated with the a priori argument. He and many others
attached to it an immense importance.  But however
highly extolled in past times, and worthy to be admired
as a specimen of intellect, it is now generally set aside as
insufficient of itself to demonstrate the Being and Attributes of God. Clarke himself found it necessary to stoop
to the argument a posteriori, and thereby acknowledged the
failure of attempting to reason exclusively a priori. In
examining his celebrated demonstration, it is found to be
really inductive, and not wholly independent of experience
as supposed. Our conception of a First Cause is not
indeed derived from experience, for it is felt to be an
intellectual necessity, but experience is necessary to its
development. The very first proposition that something
must have existed from eternity, since it assumes that
something exists, is a posteriori. And in order to prove
that this eternal something is not " a blind and unintelizgent
necessity, but in the most proper sense an understanding




32                   ATHEISM; OR,
and really active being," in which, as he well says, "lies the
main question between us and the atheists," he resorts to
the world with its orderly arrangements, and, on the ground
of fact and experience builds up his argument.' The fate.of Dr. Clarke's pretended demonstration, and the result, in
so far as theology is concerned, of the transcendental reasoning of the continental philosophers, show the futility of
attempting to rise up to the height of the great argument
for the existence of God on the a priori method alone.
The old a posteriori argument, while decried by the
German logicians on the one hand, has, it must be confessed, been invested with too exclusive an importance by
some of our own theologians on the other. It is necessarily limited in its range. It carries us upward from effects
to causes, from the evidences of design to a designer; but
it cannot of itself carry us to the throne of the Eternal,
who is uncaused and the cause of all. We cannot, by a
strict process of inductive reasoning, infer from one or
more finite effects that the cause of them is absolutely
infinite. Design proves a designer, but it does not prove
that the designer is God. The argument from external
and visible nature leads the way, but, unaided by other
proofs or conceptions, would never conduct us to the I AM
THAT I AM. The marks of contrivance which are so palpable in everything we see in the fields of creation, give us
the logical conclusion that everything has had a contriver.
They give us also the idea of great wisdom and goodness
and power; but of themselves they do not give us the
proof of a Being possessed of infinite and absolute perfections. The argument points, like a finger-post, in that
direction; but, strictly speaking, we leave the argument, or
it leaves us, and we resign ourselves to the necessary conviction that there is a Great First Designer, and that he is
1 Clarke's Discourse, Prop. viii.




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE EXISTENCE.                 33
God. There is nothing elaborate in the process. It is
simpler and easier than the simplest step. From effects
we ascend naturally to causes, from subordinate laws we
rise up to the highest law; but when the inductive philosophy has carried us easily up, and placed us as it were on
the highest point in the series of material causation, it has
not given us the great First Intelligent Cause. It has,
hbwever, conducted us so far that, by our very mental
constitution, we repose in the conviction that beyond the
series of mere mechanical causes and effects is the Infinite
Cause of all. Sir Isaac Newton has truly said, "though
every true step made in this philosophy brings us not
immediately to the knowledge of the First Cause, yet it
brings us nearer to it." Let the chain of material causation be lengthened out ever so far, we only feel however
at the topmost link, what is felt throughout all the lower
links —the necessity of a cause above all others in nature
and rank, a cause uncaused and the cause of all. Induction points to this, but it does not give it. Call it an
intuitive sentiment, a primitive judgment, an intellectual
necessity, or what you will, the mind is so constituted as
in the reasoning process to supply it and rest in it. The
starting-point of the a posteriori argument, which is the
idea of design or causality, is an a priori belief, and from
the argument itself we pass necessarily to the conviction
that there is a First Cause, differing essentially from all
others, whose name is God. So that it is vain to assert an
exclusive claim for either argument, since they involve and
aid each other.'
1 The Atheist, in availing himself of the exclusive importance attached to the
ea posteriori argument, thus reasons: "' If design implies a designer, contrivance a
contriver, nature's contriver must have been himself contrived." The monstrous
assumption, out of which arises this atheistical inference is, that nature's contriver
has in himself marks of design. This is the reasoning of a man whose chief distinction is that he is editor of the " Reasoner."
3




34                  ATHEISM; OR,
The exclusive claim for either of these arguments being
disposed of, we are prepared to notice the indications of
the Creator that lie without the field of revealed truth.
And here we avail ourselves of the rich contributions in
the way of proof which are furnished by the phenomena
both of matter and mind; and in doing so we repudiate
neither argument, but make use of both. The plain way in
which men have reasoned from the beginning, is upward
from the evidences of design in the material universe to,
the existence of the Great Designer; upward from the
orderly and beneficial dispositions of matter to the Divine
Hand that framed the whole. And this old path is the
truest and safest still. It has been adorned by the eloquence of Cicero and Brougham, of Paley, Chalmers and
others. It is the argument of the royal psalmist: "The
heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament
sheweth his handiwork." Nature in all her departments
abounds in such evidences. The discoveries of physical
science only enlarge to our view the vast magazine of contrivances, all of which point upward in the direction of the
great Infinite Contriver. And our progress in that direction
is in nowise arrested by any of the theories which profess
to account for the origin of the universe, or to give us the
beginning of its existing motions and arrangements. The
hypothesis of Laplace, which has been so much vaunted
against our Natural Theology, and which would trace backward the earth and the whole solar system to an extremely
diffused nebulosity that gradually cooled down and condensed, has been very much discredited by recent discoveries of the telescope. But even supposing that it were
verified, it would not destroy the argument for a God derived from the collocations of matter, nor prevent us from
going beyond itself to an intelligent First Cause. "Let it
be supposed," remarks Professor Whewell,' "that the point
I Indications of the Creator, p. 63.




TIHE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE EXISTENCE.        35
to which this hypothesis leads us is the ultimate point of
physical science; that the farthest glimpse we can obtain
of the material universe by our natural faculties, shows it to
us occupied by a boundless abyss of luminous matter; still
we ask how space came to be thus occupied -how matter
came to be thus luminous. If we establish by physical
proofs that the first fact which can be traced in the history'of the world is that there was light, we shall still be led,
even by our natural reason, to suppose that before this
could occur,'God said, Let there be light.'"  It is indeed
true, as we before hinted, that the experimental argument
*of itself does not give us an Infinite cause. But if it carries
us to the last link in the chain which is furnished by the
phenomena of nature, it leaves us to repose from an intellectual necessity, in the conviction that there is an uncaused
Cause which is the cause of all. The old assumption of an
eternal succession of finite beings was made to get rid of
the idea of One Eternal Being. That the supposition is
unphilosophical and absurd has been shown thousands of
times  The mind, from its very constitution, disowns it.
Men may form as many links in the chain of causes as they
choose, but they must, at last, reach an uncaused Cause.
It is strictly true that from nothing nothing can proceed.
Something must have existed before all finite beings, or
whence came these finite beings into existence?  That
something must be self-existent, underived, necessary, and
eternal  It is He who is the I AM, and to whom we apply
the sublime language of the ancient seer: "Before the
mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed
the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." It matters not whether it be in the
department of zoology, with its two well-established principles that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation,
and that there is no transmutation of the species, or




36                  ATHEISM; OR,
whether it be in the department of a sublime and everenlarging astronomy; it matters not whether we extend our
survey to the systems of suns that roll throughout the immensity of space, or whether we center it on that wondrous
microcosm, the human eye; we meet with teeming evidences of design, which not only carry us to a designer, but
hand us over, necessarily, if we may so speak, to the belief
that the great First Designer is God. It is no mechanical
necessity that we thus reach. It is Jehovah, the living and
the life-giving One.
This argument has also received increasingly-rich contributions from a closer study of the constitution of the
mind, and a more perfect analysis of its various phenomena.
To reason upward from the laws of our mental constitution to the Infinite Mind, who is the Parent Source of the
whole, is just as experimental (though in neither case dissociated from a priori beliefs) as to reason from material
nature up to nature's God. Some of our popular writers
on natural theology have either entirely overlooked the
evidences of design presented by our mental constitution,
or have satisfied themselves with merely adverting to them.
Paley, who has written so admirably on material phenomena, never once extends his argument to the intellectual
and moral. This omission has been accounted for by the
astonishing discoveries of physical science, which, bringing
palpably into view a vast assemblage of material evidences,
have, for the time, thrown into the shade the proofs of the
Divine existence and character derived from the mind.
And yet the field of man's inner nature is as legitimate a
province of the inductive philosophy as the external world,
with its manifold organizations, and furnishes no less numerous and greatly more influential evidences of an intelligent Cause. Lord Brougham, in his "Introductory Discourse of Natural Theology," and Dr. Chalmers, in his




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE EXISTENCE.        37
"Institutes," have liberally supplied what, in this department, was lacking in some of our older writers. The mind
is a created effect, and, like matter, is a proper subject of
observation. It has its own peculiar phenomena and laws,
which we can examine, and from them gather proofs of the
Infinite Mind, which is the source of all. Between it and
matter there is a gulf fixed. The properties of the one are
wholly different from the properties of the other. No combination of mechanical forces could ever produce an intelligent and moral being. That mind is a mere modification
of matter is no less at variance with the inductive philosophy than is the exploded dogma of the transmutation of
the species. Here, then, is an effect, endowed with intelligence, reason, and moral sentiment. This effect must have
had a cause. And on the evident principle that no effect
can possess any perfection which was not in the cause, we
naturally infer that the creator of the human spirit is a
moral and intelligent being. This is as much an inductive
process of reasoning as the step we take in advancing from
material nature up to Him who has designed it. Men have
reasoned in this simple way from the beginning. " He that
planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye,
shall he not see? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall he
not know?" And since there is an intellectual necessity
for a First Cause, himself uncaused, and the cause of all,
his seeing must be all-seeing; his knowledge must be omniscience; his moral nature must be absolutely perfect. The
most striking phenomenon in our mental constitution is
conscience — the man within the breast, as it has been
called. It sits enthroned amid the other principles of our
nature, and is invested with a rightful authority over them.
Its voice - the voice of a sovereign judge - is heard above
the tumult of passion and the rebellious uproar of the less
noble propensities. And though its high behests are not




38                  ATHEISM; OR,
always obeyed, yet its right to rule is everywhere acknowledged. It is sovereign de jure even where it is not sovereign de facto.  Now, let it be observed that all the
authority of this faculty is on the side of righteousness and
truth; that it has sanctions for the enforcement of its utterances; that it approves the good, and denounces the evil;
and in the righteous supremacy of this part of our nature,
we have a strong proof of the existence of a just and holy
God. The authority of a law of right and wrong in our
moral constitution implies a lawgiver; the setting up of a
tribunal within the breast, points to a yet higher tribunal in
the heavens; and from the felt presence of a judge within
us, denouncing wrong and sanctioning right, we infer the
existence of a righteous Judge over us, who is at once its
Author and Lord. In the supremacy of this moral principle we have strong evidence, not only of an intelligent Creator, but of one who is just and true in all his ways, and
holy in all his works. "And this theology of conscience,"
as Dr. Chalmers remarks, "has done more to uphold a sense
of God in the world than all the theology of academic
demonstration." Conscience, however, though the chief, is
only a part of our mental phenomena. The mind is replete
with other evidences for the being and character of God.
These we do not stay to illustrate. Suffice it to say that, in
the intellectual powers of man, and their adaptation to
external nature — an amazing assemblage of brilliant and
magnificent phenomena — in the emotional part of his nature, with the hallowed pleasure inseparable from the indulgence of good affections, and the wretched disquietude
attendant on evil ones, speaking loudly, as they do, for a
God who loves righteousness, and hates iniquity;- and in
the supremacy of conscience, enthroned as it were above
the whole, and ever uttering her voice on the side of whatsoever things are true, and lovely, and of good report, and




THE DENIAL OF T'HE DIVINE EXISTENCE.        39
against their opposites; and not only so, but rewarding
well-doing, and punishing wrong-doing; -in such mental
-departments of natural theology as these we gather no less
rich contributions to the evidence of a God than from the
field of external nature.' Indeed, in man himself we have
an embodiment of the whole argument. He is fearfully and
wonderfully made. The human frame is the noblest structure beneath the heavens. In the exquisite mechanism of
his body, and in the primitive judgments and wondrous
operations of his mind, we have the clearest indications of
the Creator that lie within the range of natural theology.'"If you want argument from design," says Mr. Morell,2
" then you see in the human frame the most perfect of all
known organization. If you want the argument from being,
then man, in his conscious dependence, has the clearest
conviction of that independent and absolute one, on which
his own being reposes. If you want the argument from
reason and morals, then the human mind is the only known
repository of both. Man is, in fact, a microcosm -a universe in himself; and whatever proof the whole universe
affords, is involved, in principle, in man himself. With the
image of God before us, who can doubt of the divine
type?"
The argument, then, for the being of a God is neither
exclusively a posteriori, nor exclusively a' priori, but partakes of both. Man cannot declare that there is no God,
without being guilty of the most tremendous presumption.
He is a fool who hazards the assertion, because it involves
an amount of intelligence which no creature can possess,
the very attribute of omniscience, while He, in whom alone
that attribute resides, is denied. And not only so, but
there is an intellectual necessity for a Being uncaused and
1 See Chalmers' Institutes, vol. i, pp. 99-II6.
2 History of Philosophy, vol. ii, pp. 646-7.




40                   ATHEISM; OR,
the cause of all. The mind cannot be satisfied without it.
It refuses to pass along a dependent series of causes and
effects, without resting in something that is first and independent. That there must be a first cause, is a primitive
belief, a proposition that lies beyond the pale of demonstration,- a principle with which we start in our reasoning
upward, and to the full conviction of which we surrender
ourselves at the height of the argument. The good old
way in which men have reasoned from the beginning, is
upward from the evidences of design to a designer, upward
from the goodly collocations of matter that meet our view,,
and the mental phenomena that come under our consciousness, to the great Parent Source of all the orderly relations.
of matter and mind. And this simple way is the best still.
Finite effects, indeed, can never, of themselves, give us an
infinite cause. The a posteriori argument, strictly speaking,
cannot, unaided, carry us up to the throne in the heavens,
and prove that beyond the circle of natural causes and
effects is the great First Cause of all. But it leads us very
far onward in that path. And then, by a soft and imperceptible step, transfers us to the natural conviction that
there is an independent existence who is the Alpha and the
Omega, the beginning and the ending, the First and the
Last. To the height of this great argument we rise from
the evidences furnished both by matter and mind. The
material universe is full of indications of the natural attributes of the Creator. And our mental constitution is no
less full of evidences of his moral nature. We weaken our
argument against atheism, if we refuse to avail ourselves of
the contributions in the way of proof which are furnished
by either department. Both lie within the domain of the
inductive philosophy.  And with the evidences gathered
from both, we logically infer that our Maker possesses
transcendent attributes; that he is of great power, and




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE EXISTENCE.         41
wisdom, and goodness, one who loveth righteousness, and
hateth iniquity. From the great we pass, by a different
link, to the infinite; from transcendent attributes we pass
to absolute perfections. And that link is supplied by the
mind itself. The transition, in most cases, is made imperceptibly; but it is done.  We have a certain primitive
conviction that there is a Being of necessary and unchanging existence, the Maker of all things, and in whom centers,
in an infinite degree, every perfection that is found in His
works. It is thus that we, apart from the scriptural revelation, rise with a firm step from nature up to nature's God.
The testimony of the Bible now comes and crowns the
theistic argument.  It authenticates the deductions of
enlightened reason, and confirms those primitive judgments, whereby we repose in the belief that God is, and
that He is what He is. The very first sublime utterance
of Inspiration, In the beginning God created the heavens and
the earth, sets its seal that our reasoning upward from matter and mind to the Infinite creating Mind, is true. The
Bible presupposes the Divine existence, and never formally
attempts to prove it. It appeals to that very experimental
evidence, which is patent to the eyes of all men, as a witness against irreligion and idolatry, and for the only living
and true God, while it throws a luster, peculiar to itself,
around his moral character, and his relations to man and
the world. In the beneficial collocations of matter, in the
orderly relations of this goodly universe, and in the constitution of the mind, with its intellectual powers and moral
sentiments, there is a vast amount of clear evidence which
points upward to an infinitely perfect Mind. But it is
when we reach the Bible itself, " that wondrous monument
of past ages, with its firm place in history, and its telling
power on men's hearts," that we stand on an elevation,
whence, like the angel in the sun, we see in the clearest and




42                     ATHEISM.
most impressive light the glory of Him who created and
controls all things. "God never wrought a miracle," says
Bacon, "to convince atheism, because his ordinary works
convince it." The material phenomena that lie around us,
and the mental phenomena that arise within us, give the lie
to it. And if men will not believe on the ground of this
evidence and the superadded evidence of revealed truth,
neither would they believe though the Eternal uttered his
voice from the rent heavens, and declared what He has
done in His word, "I am God, and besides me there is
none else."
Thus far the proof has been dogmatic. But after all,
to use the weighty words of Dr. Arnold,' " the real proof is
the practical one; that is, let a man live on the hypothesis
of its falsehood, the practical result will be bad; that is,
a man's besetting and constitutional faults will not be
checked; and some of his noblest feelings will be unexercised, so that if he be right in his opinions, truth and goodness are at variance with one another, and falsehood is
more favorable to our moral perfection than truth! which
seems the most monstrous conclusion which the human
mind can possibly arrive at."
1 Life of Arnold, vol. ii, p. I.




CHAPTER II.
THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE PERSONALITY, OR PANTHEISM.
Pantheism distinguished from atheism —The result of severing two good principles
- Pantheism and polytheism a higher and a lower grade - Seduces by its comprehensiveness -Its existence in the past —The doctrine of the Eleatics'and of
Buddhism —Its prevalence in Germany: Spinoza, Schelling, Hegel, Strauss,
Feuerbach - French philosophy accused of it: Cousin - Continental Socialism
pantheistic-An exotic in England —Emerson and his school —Intellectual
pantheism of Carlyle- Remarks of Professor Garbett - Quotation from Tennyson - Bearings of pantheism: Makes creation an inevitable necessity, destroys responsibility, shuts out prayer, and extinguishes individual immortality
-The personality of God argued from our own personality, from consciousness
and inward experience, from the language of Scripture-The absolute and the
personal reconciled in Christ.
ATHEISM is the ultimate point to which pantheism
tends.  Both may be said to lie in the  same plane.
But the one is not to be confounded with the other. The
atheist denies the  primal truth  that God  is.   The  pantheist, on the other hand, admits it. It is, in fact, with him,
the sum and substance of all truth, or rather the one great
truth in the universe. The atheist sees God nowhere, the
pantheist sees Him everywhere. The one looks upon a
world wondrously fair and sublime, every department of
which is bright with intelligence, and resolves the whole
into mere mechanical forces, and thrusts out, by a denial
of his being, the all-pervading energy of nature's God.
The other sees God really shining in the sun, moon and
stars, living in the flowers and the grass of the field; hears
Him speaking in the winds and waters, jn the songs of the
inhabiters of the grove, and in the deep emotions of the
human soul. The atheist looks up to the bright heavens
and around on the variegated earth, and coolly says, There
is nature, but no God. The pantheist points to all the




44                 PANTHEISM; OR,
glorious forms of earth and sky, and exclaims with something like enthusiasm, There is God. The Divine Being is
with him indeed the only real existence. The universe,
with its multitudinous forms of what we call matter and
mind, is only phenomenal. Men who have not reached
the utmost bound of infidelity-atheism, or who have not
come so far within sight of it as pantheism, conceive of
the Creator as entirely distinct from his works, though
incomprehensibly present with and pervading them. But
the pantheist virtually makes of the twain one. Nature is
absorbed in Deity; God is extended beneath all that
exists, thinks and moves. He is in all and all is in Him.
The pantheist, then, has a God, and, strictly speaking, he
has nothing else. But his God is merely an infinite substance, a vague immensity —the one essence of Being
extended everywhere, of which man and all other existing
things are but the modes. The world and all the fullness
thereof mirrors to our view the glory of the Infinite, Personal, and Independent One. But the pantheist worships
the mirror itself, and sums up his creed by saying that all
is God.
Almost every fatal dish contains food as well as poison.
Every error in religion lies upon, or side by side with, some
truth. Pantheism has within it an element of godliness,
but, like the food in the fatal dish, it is overborne and
rendered destructive by the element of evil. Or rather,
pantheism looks like a good principle severed from another
which is necessary to keep it sound and healthy, and in
its isolated state transformed into a bad principle. The
principle to whichwe allude is the omnipresence and allpervading energy of the Creator and Governor of the universe. It is a truth, the vivid recognition of which is
essential to piety, that God is everywhere present throughout the vast creation. All nature is full of Him. The




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE PERSONALITY.    45
luminaries of heaven and the flowers of earth, the perpetual hills, and the wide sea where go the ships, the
various animal tribes, and intelligent man, the noblest of
all, proclaim the presence of the living God. It might be
thought that poetry has carried this principle too far when
it represents God as shining in the sun, whispering in the
winds, clothing Himself with clouds and storms, and speaking in the rational nature of man. But such poetry is not
necessarily pantheistic. It is just an embodiment in living
words of sentiments and emotions that burn more or less
in the bosom of every man who is susceptible of the influences that come upon him from every department of
nature. These influences tend to raise the mind from
nature up to nature's God, and such is the tendency of
much of the poetry to which we allude. The morning
orison which Milton puts into the mouth of Adam and
Eve in Paradise, the hymn which Thomson raises to the
God of the Seasons, or Coleridge's "Hymn before Sunrise
in the Vale of Chamounis," have no tendency whatever to
produce or strengthen pantheistic feelings; because however much they clothe with living attributes the grand and
lovely forms of nature, they never absorb God in these
forms, but rise from the visible to the Invisible, and make' earth with her thousand voices " praise a living, personal
-and absolutely perfect God. In the last noble hymn which
we have mentioned, the whole of Alpine nature is grandly
personified, but all its utterances rise, "like a cloud of
incense," to Him who in his glorious personality existed
before the mountains were brought forth or ever He had
formed the earth and the world. It is this latter principle,
the principle of personality, that the pantheist sinks or
loses sight of. The world, so to speak, is full of vitalities.
God is present in them in the immensity of his essence
whereby he filleth all things. That is a true devotional




46                  PANTHEISM; OR,
principle. God is nevertheless as distinct from them as
the soul of man is distinct from  his body.  That is
another true devotional principle. Both must be held fast
in order to our having right views of the relation subsisting
between the Infinite and the finite, the Divine nature and
the divinely-created and divinely-sustained universe. Seize
hold of the former principle and let go the latter, recognize
a divinity in the vitalities which appear in the world
around you, but withhold your recognition of a divinity
essentially distinct from these vitalities, and what have you
but these collective vitalities for a God.  This is pantheism.
Pantheism and polytheism are in fact but a higher and
a lower, a more refined and a more vulgar, way which men
have taken when they have ceased to walk in a spiritual
relationship with God.' Their idea of Him -''-  who sitteth above these heavens
To us invisible, or dimly seen
In these his lowest works,"
has lost its vivid spirituality, and they have fallen from high
converse with the Creator down to the creation itself. In
such a case, the more learned and philosophic, who were
not prepared to take the leap to absolute atheism, would
no longer regard the life and thought that appear in the
visible world as merely manifestations of the presence and
agency of the Great Spirit, but as modes or modifications
of the Divine essence. Those, on the other hand, "whose
thoughts proud science never taught to stray,"-who had
little or nothing of the speculative temperament, and who
could not grasp the idea of one great whole,-would see
a distinct deity in every different department of nature.
The one beheld the same infinite substance under all
1 See Tholuck on the Nature and Moral Influence of Heathenism, p. i6.




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE PERSONALITY.    47
mental and material phenomena. What are called powers
of nature, or secondary causes, all of which are controlled
by the supreme Intelligent Cause, would be regarded by
the speculatist as so many modes of the infinitely-extended
One. The collective energies and agencies of the visible
world, in his estimation, constituted God. And thus he
became a pantheist. The other class, less comprehensive
and vigorous in mind, looked at creation in its smaller
divisions, and recognizing a distinct energy in every different kind of phenomena, assigned a distinct divinity to
the hills and to the valleys, to the woods and to the waters,
and thus became polytheists. Pantheism and polytheism,
however much they diverge the one from the other, are to
be traced up to the tendency in the depraved mind, in its
estrangement from the High and Holy One, to confound
God with nature, and to lose the pure spiritual world in the
phenomenal and visible. The reluctance or incapacity of
men to retain God in their knowledge as a Person, selfexistent and independent, lies at the bottom of both. The
one is the fruit of a speculative philosophy, the other is the
grosser manifestation of the same corrupt tendency, unrefined and unarrested by the influence of the schools or the
higher influence of Christianity.
It is this very comprehensiveness, this embracing nature
of its principles, which distinguishes pantheism from polytheism, that renders it, in Christian lands, the most dangerous foe to Christianity. " Never did a philosophical system
take such an attitude toward the Christian faith; it does
not make it a superstition, as did atheism; it does not neglect it, as does our popular philosophy; it does not scout
its mysteries, as does an irrational common-sense; nor does
it attenuate it into a mere ethical system; but it grants it to
be the highest possible form of man's religious nature, it
strives to transform its grandest truths into philosophical




48                  PANTHEISM; OR,
principles; it says that only one thing is higher, and that is
pantheism."' There is no fear of men becoming polytheists in a country where paganism has been rooted out, and
the influences of the Gospel have been deeply and extensively felt. But pantheism flourishes in the very heart
of communities called Christian, and coils its pliant form
around the very faith whose author and finisher is the
Brightness of the Father's glory and the express Image of
His Person. The coil indeed is fatal; for, however fair to
look upon may be the sinuous folds, it poisons the truth,
and destroys everything that is distinctively Christian. " It
weaves its subtle dialectics around everything, that thus it
may drag all into its terrific vortex.  It has a word for
almost every man, excepting for the Christian established in
his faith. By the very extravagance of its pretensions, it
seduces many; by its harmony with the life of sense, it
attracts those who love the world; and by its ideal character, it sways such as would fain be lifted above the illusions
of sense, and the visions of imagination, and the contradictions of the understanding, into a region of rarer air, where
reason sways a universal scepter. Its system includes all
things; God is all things; or, rather, all is God. He that
knows this system, knows and has God.2" It, accordingly,
has its attractions for all men who have ceased to walk in
communion with the living personal God, and who vet feel
the want of something in the shape of religious faith. The
philosopher revels in it as in the region of boundless speculation; the poet and the artist find therein a beautiful
dwelling-place where they can wander at their own sweet
will; and the half-thinking artisan is pleased with a creed
which interferes so little with material interests, and summons him so seldom to look at things unseen and eternal.
Many such persons in our day are pantheists.
1 Smith's Relations of Faith and Philosophy, p. ii.
2 Smith's Relations of Faith and Philosophy, p. II.




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE PERSONALITY.    49
Pantheism is not, however, a thing of yesterday. It has,
in its essence, existed in all ages. Some would persuade us
that it is the latest result of human experience, a restingplace for the long-tossed mind, reserved for us upon whom
the ends of the world have come. But it is not so. Infidelity in our times is throwing up nothing but what has
been thrown up before. Its different forms are only old
-idols in new positions and arrayed in modern garbs. "In
every form of it, it has its ancestry, and it must not ask now
to be spoken to as if we had not already, and long ago,
made acquaintance with it."' "Heresies," says Sir Thos.
Browne, "are like the river Arethusa, though they lose
their currents in one place, they rise up again in another."
We meet with pantheism in the speculative philosophy of
the ancient world. It has been the faith of millions in India
from a remote antiquity down to the present day. Spinoza
in the seventeenth century, and Schelling and Hegel in the
nineteenth, have only systematized and reduced to a severe
logical form what had been floating elsewhere for ages
before. This was substantially the doctrine of the Eleatics.
They speculated on the great problem of existence, and
endeavored to resolve those mysteries which have baffled
the human understanding in every age. Zeno, the most
distinguished philosopher of his school, maintained that
there was but one real existence in the universe, that all,other things were merely phenomenal, being only modifications or appearances of the Great One which existed as
a substratum beneath the whole. Pantheism, indeed, has
appeared in all nations where there have been minds of a
speculative cast, ignorant of, or in a great measure uninfluenced by, the revelation of Christ. It seems to be the
joint product of an estrangement from God, the eternal
and independent I AM, and an effort to comprehend the
1 The Restoration'of Belief, p. 15.
4




50                 PANTHEISM; OR,
essence of things and the nexus which unites the Infinite
with the finite, the phenomena of nature with the cause of
all that phenomena. The very same doctrine forms substantially the creed of some Hindoo sects in the present
day. India has had its philosophies, and has them still,
And pantheism is the common form which speculations on
the mysteries of existence have there assumed, unrestrained
as these speculations have been in the absence of the
Gospel. Hindooism and Buddhism are but philosophies.
of religion. The priests may have been the speculatists,
but the system has found a spontaneous welcome with the
people, who were too dull of apprehension to rise to the
thought of a pure spiritual Intelligence, and too alive to a
sense of dependence to say there is no God. The author
of the "Recollections of British India," speaking of a
philosophical sect called the Gosains, tells us that, "inr
common with the Buddhists, they believe that the Divine
Being is not separate from, but in Himself the universe, so
that all its constituent parts are but parts of Himself. The
different deities, therefore, are merely portions of the same
essential Godhead." This corroborates what has been
said of the connection between pantheism and polytheism,
and reminds us of the old doctrine of the Stoics, according
to which the spirit pervades the whole world as the substratum of its activity, and receives from men various
designations according to the different phenomena which it
animates.  There is, indeed, a striking coincidence between the One substratum of the Eleatics, the Brahma of
the Hindoo, and the World-Spirit of the modern German.'
Germany, of all the countries of modern Europe, is the
most prolific soil of pantheism. And it is imported from
thence into our own among other European states. It is
the native fruit of her metaphysics. The mental habitudes
1 Dr. Vaughan's Age and Christianity, p. 255.




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE PERSONALITY.    51
of her people are peculiarly thoughtful and reflective. Philosophy -not the inductive and experimental as with us,
but the speculative and idealistic —is natural to the German mind. Her schools have been absorbed in discussing
the same great questions which were discussed over and
over again in the schools of the ancients. Those mysterious problems which regard the principles of things, the
existence and nature of God, the relations between Him
and the universe, and the origin of human knowledge,problems on the solution of which the greatest minds in
past ages have been employed with so little profit,-possess a peculiar charm for the philosophers of the Continent.
There is this important difference, however, between the
pantheism of the old world and that of the new; between
that of ancient Greece and India, and that of modern
Germany; the one sprung up and flourished in the absence of an authoritative revelation from heaven, while
the other has risen and spread in contempt of it. The
German has become a pantheist with the Bible in his
hand, and his foot in the birth-place of the Reformation.
He has refused to follow, humbly and submissively, that
light that has come into the world, and which alone has
hitherto conducted individuals or communities to rest.
The German philosophy-a philosophy which seeks
to reach the one originating principle of all things -has
been carried into the region of theology, and there borne
its bitter fruit. Spinoza has been justly regarded as the
father of modern pantheism. He, by a stern logic, fully
developed the system of Descartes. The illustrious Frenchman had endeavored to demonstrate the existence of God
from the phenomena of consciousness. The position he
assumed was, that whatever consciousness clearly proclaims
must be true. Descartes, in short, derived existence from
thought. Spinoza identified them, and referred both to the




52                 PANTHEISM; OR,
one Infinite Substance of which everything else is a mode
or manifestation. According to his logic, God is the only
reality in the universe, — the one universal existence that
underlies all other existences, —so that everything is in
and from God. The distinction between the Creator and
his works was thus annihilated, and the system of pantheism
became complete. Others had held it as a vague dreamy
doctrine, but Spinoza was the first to give it a rigid logical
form. It is remarkable that he, too, in a passage in his
posthumous works, has anticipated some of the disciples
of the Hegelian school in their interpretation of the great
doctrines of the Bible. "I tell you," says he, in a letter
to Oldenburgh, " that it is not necessary for your salvation,
that you should believe in Christ according to the flesh;
but of that eternal Son of God, that is, the eternal wisdom
of God, which is manifested in all things, but especially
in the human mind and most of all in Jesus Christ, we
must cherish a very different opinion."' It is the philosophy of Spinoza, propounded in the seventeenth century,
and diffused over the Continent ever since by his writings,
that has given the greatest impulse to the speculative mind
of Germany, and produced that wide-spread pantheism
so characteristic of German speculations. Schelling and
Hegel, whose names are identified with the pantheism of
the nineteenth century, are the fruit of his labors. They
have refined and carried out the system to which Spinoza
gave the form. In both of these philosophic leaders, we
see a thorough contempt for what is inductive and experimental, the method by which Newton attained an unprecedented eminence in physical science, and Locke rose
to such high distinction in the science of mind.  The
treasures of knowledge which observation contributes are
professedly discarded by them, and those which abstract
1 Lewes' Biographical History of Philosophy, vol. iii, p. I25.




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE PERSONALITY.    53
reason furnishes are exclusively valued.  The evidence
from design, which has been so fully illustrated by our
own writers on natural theology, and which is so patent
to the eyes of all men, is set at naught by the heads and
disciples of this school. And they pretend to prove all
existence by laying down a priori axioms, and starting
from them in a course of stern logical argumentation. By
this process, Fichte, who preceded the two philosophers
referred to, brought to a fatal consummation what is called
Subjective Idealism. Nature and God in his philosophy
vanished. Self became the solitary existence in the universe, and the creator of everything else human and divine.
The moral order of the world was all that was left for the
world's God, and the philosopher stood on the very brink
of absolute atheism.  From  this the mind of Germany
shrunk back; and Schelling reproduced, in an attractive
form, the pantheistic system, the tendency toward which
is so strong in the great Fatherland. He identified the
subject and the object, and made them manifestations of
God or the Absolute. Nature with him is but the selfdevelopment of Deity.  The whole phenomena of the
universe have proceeded in one strict chain of necessary
evolution. And God has only come to realize Himself,
and attain self-consciousness, in man. Everything, according to this system, exists in God, and he is of necessity
the All One. The system, in so far as it is intelligible,
proclaimed the universe to be God. There was, however,
another step to be taken before the climax was reached,
and that step was boldly taken by Hegel. He denied the
existence of both subject and object, and left only a universe of relation. Everything with him  is a process of
thought, and God himself is the whole process. The Deity
is not a self-existent reality, but a never-ending self-discession, which never realizes itself so fully as in the human




54                 PANTHEISM; OR,
consciousness. Creation, according to this, is not a single
act, but God is necessarily ever creating. The pantheism
of the Hegelian system is obvious amid much of the
mysticism that shrouds it. Nature is absorbed in God,
and God and the universe, whatever they be, are identified. By this same process of pure philosophic thought,
Hegel pretended to deduce the whole of doctrinal Christianity. Schelling before him had made the Gospel revelation one of the modes in which God is manifesting
Himself in history. But Hegel, by his philosophy, transformed Christianity into a system of regularly evolved
ideas, the value of which is altogether independent of
historical testimony.
It is at this point that David Frederick Strauss and his
school appear. He has put on the Hegelian armor, taken
his stand in the very heart of the Christian theology, scattered into air the grand objective element of the Gospel,
and left nothing remaining except a few religious ideas or
conceptions of the mind. He is, strictly speaking, neither
a rationalist nor a supernaturalist. He disavows all connection with either, and proclaims war against both. He
is, however, a pantheist in the extreme. He represents the
far left of the Hegelian party, and stands on the very verge
of atheism, if he has not fallen into the gulf. God is with
him a process of thought. He has noseparate individual
existence. Apart from the universe, or out of that process
which is alleged to be eternally unfolding itself and which
attains the highest state of consciousness in the mind of
the philosopher himself, there is no God. No room whatever is left in the system for the intervention of a personal
God, and in the system a personal God has no existence.
Hence his mythical theory. The historical Christ of the
Gospels, according to him, was the personified ideas of the
church. The Divine Redeemer was a process, a person



THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE PERSONALITY.    55
ality gradually formed out of elements contributed by Old
Testament history, rabbinical tradition, and the state of
the popular mind at the time when the Messiah was expected. In other words, Christ was the creation of the
church, not the founder of it. Such a person as Jesus, it
is admitted, lived and died, who believed himself to be the
Christ.  Strauss recognized a small historical element in
the person of Jesus, a kind of skeleton which the church
gradually clothed with flesh and blood, the distinguishing
attributes of which were an investment thrown around it
from the mind of the church itself. The fully developed
Christ of the Gospel, was thus made the embodied aggregate of the conceptions of the first Christians and the
thoughts of the past. This is the latest shape, with the
exception perhaps of Feuerbach's, which German infidelity
has assumed, the extreme point to which pantheism has
been carried, and where it becomes almost, if not altogether, identical with atheism. It leaves no God, but a
vague personification of human consciousness. The existence of a divine consciousness separate from the human is
ignored. It sweeps the world clean of an historical Christianity. It binds up all the physical and moral movements
of the world in one unbroken chain of necessary development.  And having left no Supreme and Independent
object of worship, it takes away the Bible, and presents us
with nothing in its room but mythological ideas embellishing the shadow of a reality. Pantheism in Germany will
be found, then, like other forms of infidelity, to have a
variety of shades, so that those who stand at the one
extreme may hold some opinions that are denied by those
who stand at the other. Hegel himself was unquestionably
a pantheist, though it may be doubted if he would have
gone the length of his bold and admiring disciple Strauss.
But Spinoza, the founder of this philosophy, and Schelling,




56                 PANTHEISM; OR,
Hegel, Strauss, and others, who have developed it, agree in
this that they sink the personality of God.'
Pantheism is not, however, restricted to the schools and
literature of Germany. The existing French philosophy is
by no means clear of it. While there is reason to apprehend that, in its most unphilosophic form, it constitutes the
faith of a large portion of the French people. The system
of Cousin, who is regarded as the founder and coryphaeus
of the modern eclectic school of France, has met with
much opposition from  various writers on account of its
pantheistic leanings. He holds the balance, as Dr. Chalmers has remarked, between the two philosophies of Germany and Scotland, neither being exclusively ontological
as the former, nor exclusively psychological as the latter.
His idealism, modified though it be, has led him, however,.
in a pantheistic direction. And though he repels thecharge of pantheism, yet what other interpretation can be
put on his language, when he speaks of God as "beingabsolute cause, one and many, eternity and time, essence
and life, end and middle, at the summit of existence and at
its base, infinite and finite together; in a word, a Trinity,
being at the same time God, Nature, and Humanity?"
Mr. Morell, an admirer of Cousin's genius, justly remarks,
when commenting on his view of the Divinity: " even if we
admit that it is not a doctrine, like that of Spinoza, which
identifies God with the abstract idea of substance; or even
like that of Hegel, which regards Deity as synonymous with
the absolute law and process of the universe; if we admit,
in fact, that the Deity of Cousin possesses a conscious per-.
sonality, yet still it is one which contains in itself the finite
personality and consciousness of every subordinate mind.
God is the ocean — we are but the waves; the ocean maybe one individuality, and each wave another; but still they
1 Morell's History of Philosophy, vol. ii, chap. v, sec. 2.




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE PERSONALITY.                  57'
are essentially one and the same."' Here we have the very
notion of Deity which is developed in much of the current
literature of the day, and which leads to a system of manworship. The finite is an emanation or portion of the
infinite. The universe is comprehended in God. Men's
souls are divine. Every man is an incarnation of Deity.
All existences are in God, and God is in all existences.2
But the veil of mysticism which shrouds the pantheism
of the schools, and often renders its language hard to be
understood, is removed from the pantheism of the people.
The socialism of the Continent is, in a great measure, pantheistic. The masses, who are incapable of following the
philosopher in his metaphysical investigations, readily
apprehend their results when popularized, and brought
within the sphere of man's interests and duties. This is
done by the socialist propaganda. And however much the
various sects of socialism war with each other on points of
polity, they are generally of one mind in regard to manworship.  Amid the late  revolutions which shook  continental Europe, it was not difficult to see the divinity to
whom the clouds of incense arose. That the highest
being is man, was the dogma commonly taught and
cordially received. In France, the teaching of Pierre
Leroux, who has been counted the metaphysician of socialism, was undisguised pantheism. He knows of no God
distinct from the universe of being. And humanity with
him is but the incarnation of divinity. The tendency, in
1 Morell's History of Philosophy, vol. ii, chap. v, sec. 2, pp. 502, 5II.
2 It is but just to admit, what Cousin stoutly contends for, that his system is not
identical with that of Spinoza and the Eleatics. " I must remind my adversaries,"
says he, " that the God of Spinoza and the Eleatics is a pure substance, and not a
cause. In the system of Spinoza, creation is impossible  in mine it is necessary."
But when he tells us that " if God be not everything, He is nothing; - that everywhere present, He returns, as it were to Himself in the consciousness of man,"who can wonder if it be looked upon as pantheism of another phase? See Cousin's
Phil. Essays (Clark's edition), pp. 22, 77.




,58                PANTHEISM; OR,
-short, of all the socialist sects in France, notwithstanding
the religious sentimentalism of the language of some of
their leaders, is toward pantheism. Hence their declamations on the perfectibility of the human race, and their
exclusion of all motive power but the human will. God,
according to them, was in Jesus Christ, and so he is in the
French people. And this is the faith which has supplanted
the infidelity of Voltaire in the heart of the nation. The
diseased patient is perpetually turning himself on the same
bed, seeking rest and finding none. The communism of
Germany is rampant with the same element. Feuerbach,
who is the chief teacher of the more advanced form of
socialism, has deified the human race. According to him
God is not a being above man, but God is to be found in
man. Religion is not a thing that comes to man from
without, but the whole contents of religion are derived
from human nature itself. Man thus becomes a god to
himself. Theology becomes anthropology. And pantheism reaches the point to which it is ever tending, the very
verge of atheism.  Such has been, and is in a great
measure still, the faith of immense multitudes of people
on the Continent, in the middle of the nineteenth century.
And if there is one lesson more impressively taught than
another by the recent commotions, amid which such gross
infidelity was thrown up, it is that such a faith can never
give rest and happiness to the nations of the world.
Pantheism among ourselves is somewhat of an exotic.
The sturdy English mind is not the most congenial soil for
it. The philosophy from which it has sprung, is alien to
the mental habitudes of our people. But if it does not
exist as an intellectual system in our schools, or widely
prevail in the communistic form among the masses, it has
been imported into our literature in the most alluring guise,
and is destined, we think, to prove for a while the great
foe of Bible Christianity.




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE PERSONALITY.    59
In some of the transatlantic productions which are circulating among us, we meet with the system in its poetic
or most attractive form.  The Emerson school, which
numbers many disciples in our land, is unquestionably
pantheistic. Emerson himself, with all his gorgeous mysticism, is a pantheist. Man-worship is the philosophy
which pervades his speculations. He comes before the
world as a reformer. And whether he addresses a class of
divinity students, or the members of a literary society, or
a mechanics' association, the one prominent doctrine in his
orations is the soul of man. Emerson finds everything in
man, and he wages war with all systems that lead man out
of himself for an object of faith and worship. His complaint is that "the soul is not preached." The doctrine of
the soul, "first, soul; and second, soul; and evermore,
soul;" is, according to him, the grand truth that is to
regenerate the world, and he seems to consider himself
commissioned to promulgate it. He boldly denies the personality of God. It is the "theologic cramp" that bound
Swedenborg, one of his favorite Representative Men, that,otherwise "colossal soul." After the manner of some of
the German Transcendentalists, he holds the totality of
being to be God, who comes to self-consciousness only in
the individual man. "The universal does not attract us
until housed in an individual. Who heeds the waste abyss
of possibility? The ocean is everywhere the same, but it
has no character until seen with the shore or the ship.'
Man is at once the worshiper and the object of worship.
"' Standing on the bare ground, my head bathed by the
blithe air, and uplifted into infinite space, all mean egotism
vanishes. The currents of the Universal Being circulate
through me. I am part or particle of God." Prayer, in
perfect consistency with these notions, is shut out. "It is
God in us which checks the language of petition by a




60                 PANTHEISM; OR,
grander thought." Historical Christianity being a thing
from without, is repudiated. Man is a revelation to himself. His soul becomes the fountain of all truth and goodness. And Emerson and his school complain that "men
have come to speak of the revelation as somewhat long
ago given and done, as if God were dead." The first
defect of Historical Christianity with him is, that it " dwells
with noxious exaggeration about the person of Jesus."
For "the soul knows no persons." Mr. Emerson, like
many others who would destroy the doctrinal system of
the great Teacher, professes much admiration for Jesus
Christ. He is no longer denounced as an impostor. He
is held up as the true, the model man. "He saw with
open eye the mystery of the soul. Alone in all history, he
estimated the greatness of man. One man was true to
what is in you and me. He saw that God incarnates Himself in man, and evermore goes forth anew to take possession of his world. He said in this jubilee of sublime
emotion,'I am divine. Through me God acts, through
me, speaks. Would you see God, see me; or, see thee,
when thou also thinkest as I now think.'" But the doctrine of the true prophet was distorted, and Mr. Emerson
tells us how. "Because the indwelling Supreme Spirit
cannot wholly be got rid of, the doctrine of it suffers this
perversion, that the divine nature is attributed to one or
two persons, and denied to all the rest, and denied with
fury." Man, in short, is thus made the highest being.
Every human soul is a wave in the ocean of divine existence. God is the whole sea. And we are divine or a
part of God. No wonder, then, that man refuses to receive
truth at second-hand, and is taught to believe that all the
virtues are comprehended in self-trust. Know yourself,
reverence yourself, rely upon yourself, are the law and
gospel of this school that claims to regenerate the world.




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE PERSONALITY.    61
In this strain does this poetic philosopher discourse to the
youth connected with divinity halls, literary societies, and
mechanics' institutes.'
He is not a logician, but a seer; he announces, not
argues; is the language of an admiring editor of his works.
This witness is true. Seldom or never does anything in
the shape of an argument cross our path in reading the
orations and essays of Emerson. He dreams and dogmatizes. All his responses are delivered with oracular
authority.  "I stand here to say, Let us worship the
mighty and transcendent soul." He is unquestionably a
man of genius, endowed with exquisite sensibilities and a
brilliant fancy. His style, though far from undefiled, is
energetic and attractive. It is often, however, far too mystical to be extensively popular. He is, after all that has
been said about him, a dreamer-a glorious dreamer if
you will-but still a dreamer. Such seers as Mr. Emerson
have been in the world before, and have discoursed to
young and old, as he has done, about the divinity of the
soul, and the duty of self-reliance, and what the better has
the world been for such oracles? History attests that it
never has been by such dreamers and dreamy systems that
society has been quickened and regenerated. Look at the
Hebrew prophets who ever and anon appeared, filled with
the inspiring Spirit, to rebuke the Israelites for their apostasy, and recall them to the service of the living God.
Look at John, the harbinger of the Messiah, the voice of
one crying in the wilderness, whose teaching was so influential and impressive for good. Look at Christ Himself,
who, "alone in all history, estimated the greatness of man,"
and for whom Emerson and his disciples profess such
veneration, and where in all his discourses do you find him
preaching this doctrine of the soul, telling his hearers that
I See Emerson's Orations and Essays, passim.




62                 PANTHEISM; OR,
there is no atheism but the proposition of depravity, that
they are parts or particles of God, and that they ought to
rely upon themselves and act a godlike part? The conduct of Judas was honorable compared with such attempts
to betray the Son of Man with a kiss. Look at Paul and
the noble company of the apostles, men who turned the
world upside down when living, and who being dead yet
speak, and in vain do you seek for a single point of contact
between their doctrines, which alone have been instrumental in the world's regeneration, and this system of
man-worship. Look at all the mighty throng, be they
poets or philosophers, statesmen or divines, who, by the
almost universal consent of mankind, have been counted,
in the highest sense of the expression, reformers, and who
have left the salutary impress of their genius and labors
on their own and succeeding times, and which of them ever
acted on the belief that in one soul, in any soul, are resources for the world, and that the office of a true teacher
is to show God in the soul?  "The thing that hath been,
it is that which shall be."  The world's regeneration will
go on as it has begun. And that is not by preaching the
pantheistic doctrine of the soul. Go to the heathenism
that is abroad, or to the heathenism that surrounds us at
home; tell the idolator in the wilderness who drinks out
of the skulls of his enemies, or tell the convict in his cell,
or the half naked wretch in his hovel, that his soul is
divine, and the haggard look and groveling propensities
will cry out that the doctrine is a mockery and a lie. But
the disciples of this school never venture into such fields
as these. Mr. Emerson tells us that in walking abroad, he
sees vegetables and trees nodding to him, and he nods to
them.' But he meets with no salutation from men where,
if true, his doctrine would be most welcome. It is only
I Emerson's Nature.




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE PERSONALITY.                    63
among the dreaming men and youth in cities and towns,
persons who have a love for the half mystic and half poetic,
persons whose religious sentiments are vague and undefined, and who are disposed to be gods unto themselves,
that he finds worshipers of this doctrine of the soulp
There he may do some mischief. But neither he nor any
of his school will ever, by any witchery of language, gain
an ascendency over the strong English mind.  And of two
things they may be assured. Historical Christianity will
ever prove too mighty for them.  It has overcome vastly
more powerful enemies, and traveled on in the greatness
of its strength. And this system of man-worship, like
every other, will miserably fail to regenerate mankind.
The diseased patient must look to the remedy without.
And instead of being mocked by the cry, Look to yourself,
hearken to the good old invitation, " Behold the Lamb of
God that taketh away the sin of the world." 
In speaking of Mr. Carlyle in this connection, we are
to be understood rather as indicating the religious bearing
of much of his writings, than assigning him a definite
place in a particular category. There is no great writer in
modern times who is ever speaking of men's beliefs or
unbeliefs, of whom it is more difficult to say precisely what
his own belief or unbelief is. John Foster once said
(whether wisely or unwisely we leave the reader to judge),
that it would at any time be a great luxury to him to
accompany a few athletic men with poleaxes among the
I The very able author of " The Restoration of Belief," in putting " in a distinct light what it was which the church of the early age did for mankind in preparation for a new moral era, and under what conditions this necessary function was
discharged," and thereby constructing an argument in favor of Christianity, remarks,
" the ground of that Christian fortitude (the fortitude of Polycarp and his contemporaries) which, in the end, prevailed over the polytheism of the Roman State, was
a BELIEF toward a PERSON; it was not an opinion as to a doctrine,"-" but a belief
toward a PERSON whose authority they regarded as paramount to every other."
(Pp. 74, 77.) This belief in a personal Savior-God is the grand lever in the world's
elevation.




~64                PANTHEISM; OR,
monuments in Westminster Abbey, to be most vigorously
wielded, with just here and there an omission, in a process
which we might imagine.' Mr. Carlyle has a like luxury
in vigorously wielding his pole-axe against our churches,
as if they were "mere cases of articles;" and against our
Bible creeds, as if they were no better than " extinct traditions," " unbelievabilities," " worn-out symbolisms, reminiscences, and simulacra."  We might easily conjecture
what Foster's excepted instances among the sculptured
memorials would have been, but we are without ground on
which to conjecture the exceptions, if exceptions there be,
in the case of Carlyle. Multitudes of good men read his
writings with strong suspicions that, under the cover of
assailing the shams, hypocrisies and formalities of which
there are unhappily too many in the church as well as in
the world, he is assailing the very Bible truth itself; and
these suspicions are certainly not weakened by his last
interesting work, "The Life of John Sterling." We know
that he has said, "Adieu, O Church; thy road is that way,
mine is this; in God's name, adieu! " We know that he
does worship in "the great Cathedral of Immensity," and
acknowledges " the Supreme Silences," "the Destinies and
the Immensities," and " the Eternities," and that he is apt
to regard our Christian beliefs as a " stealing into Heaven
by sticking ostrich-like our head into fallacies on earth."'
But beyond this we know nothing positively. We are not
going, then, to write him down pantheist. But he has
given us occasion to say that the tendency of much of
what he has written is pantheistical. He does not, indeed,
say anything so offensive on the subject of Christianity, as
his admirer, Mr. Emerson. He never speaks of it as " an
Eastern monarchy, built by indolence and fear," nor
charges it with the radical defect of dwelling with noxious
1 Life of Foster.     2 Life of Sterling.




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE PERSONALITY.    65
exaggeration about the person of Jesus.' But we are at a
loss to gather any better religion from his pages than a
kind of man-worship. He sees God-like principles in human nature, especially in great and earnest men, who have
made any impression upon the world, and he falls down
himself, and calls upon others to fall down and do them
homage. Moses and Zoroaster, Jesus Christ and Mahomet, Saul of Tarsus and Paul the Apostle, were, though
not in the same degree, alike divinelv-inspired men. His
hero-worship points to the Emerson doctrine of the soul.
He says virtually, what the American says openly, that the
doctrine of the divine nature suffers perversion in being.attributed to one or two persons, and denied to others.
God in man, not exclusively in the man Christ Jesus, but
God in every man in whom appear greatness and earnestness, seems to be the religion of this hero-worship. Literature, in short, with him is religion; and "the true sovereign souls" of literature, the Goethes and so on, are the
true prophets and gospel preachers.  The contents of
religion are accordingly regarded by the men of this school
as found within the man, not coming to the man from without; the soul is a revelation to itself. Emerson has said,
" it is not instruction, but provocation, that I can receive
from another soul. What he announces, I must find true
in me, or wholly reject; and on his word, or as his second,
be he who he may, I can except nothing." And says Mr.
Carlyle: "The Maker's Laws, whether they are promulgated in Sinai thunder, to the ear or imagination, or quite
otherwise promulgated, are the Laws of God; transcendent, everlasting, imperatively demanding obedience from
all men. This, without any thunder, or with never so
much thunder, thou, if there be any soul left in thee, canst
know of a truth. The Universe, I say, is made by Law;
1 Emerson's Address to a Senior Class of Divinity.
7




66                  PANTHEISM; OR,
the great Soul of the world is just and not unjust.
Rituals, Liturgies, Credos, Sinai thunder: I know more or
less the history of these, the rise, progress, decline, and
fall of these. Can thunder from all the thirty-two azimuths, repeated daily for centuries of years, make God's
laws more God-like to me? Brother, no. Perhaps I am
grown to be a man now; and do not need the thunder and
the terror any longer! Perhaps I am above being frightened; perhaps it is not fear, but reverence alone, that shall
now lead me! - Revelations, Inspirations? Yes: and thy
own God-created soul, dost thou not call that a'revelation?'"  He tells us that religion is "no Morison's Pill
from without," but a clearing of the Inner Light or Moral
Conscience, a re-awakening of our owns'elves from within;,
the world has looked to the revelation without, but it was
"when its beard was not grown as now."" And with a
sneer at the old churches and the old creeds, he says:
"What the light of your mind, which is the direct inspiration of the Almighty, pronounces incredible, — that, in
God's name, leave uncredited; at your peril do not try believing that," 2 Where such talk as this is indulged in, the
law and the testimony is very little valued. Mr. Carlyle,
accordingly, is disposed to make sincerity or earnestness
the test of truth and moral greatness. Christianity is thus
reduced from its high position as the only true religion, to
a level with the other religions of the earth, and what a
man honestly believes, and really practices, is counted a
good orthodox creed. The revelation is made within the
man, and the Outer Light is respected only in so far as it
agrees with the Inner Light.  All this comes from  a
dreamy, exaggerated notion about the human soul.  Mr.
Carlyle does not say, with Proudhon and Emerson, that the
highest being is man, and thus make theology anthroI Carlyle's Past and Present, pp. 307-3I2.   2 Life of Sterling, p. 78.




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE PERSONALITY.    67
pology, but much of what he does say looks in that direction. And his style of expression is frequently such as to
lead many of his indiscriminating admirers to that position,
or to strengthen those in it who already occupy it. He
does not stop with scowling upon the formalism of the age,
and calling upon men to be honest, earnest and active, but
the scowl seems to be turned toward Christianity and its
evidences as a body of fact lying without. He is not satisfied with a natural reverence for what is great and good in
any of our race, but the great with him becomes Divine or
Godlike   In a mighty intellect we recognize the presence
and power of the Divinity. And for such he claims something like worship or religious admiration. His hero-worship is just a kind of intellectual pantheism. It is preaching up, though in a somewhat different way from the men
of the Emerson school, the doctrine of the divinity of the
soul. Much as Mr. Carlyle is to be admired for his original, vigorous thinking, his liberal and independent cast of
mind, and his wish to raise up among us an earnest race
of men, we cannot but deprecate the religious tendency
of a great deal that he has written, as pantheistical.
"The result," says Professor Garbett,' "is briefly this.
The human mind has awakened into a mighty thrilling
consciousness of its collective capacity; it has gathered up
into one great unity and organized humanity, all individual
intellects and hearts, all genius and all inspiration; and exulting in this great corporate life, and bounding pulse, thus
identified with it, it is drunk with pride and worships itself.
In its own depth it believes all life and knowledge to lie;
the meaning of all outward utterances and phenomena,
and the self-evolved solution of all mysteries in heaven and
earth. Before the chancery of its own subjective laws
and arbitrary requirements, all objective truth is called to
I See an admirable sermon on the Personality of God, preached before the University of Oxford.




68                   PANTHEISM; OR,
judgment.  It is itself God in fact, and the universe is
its product and its mirror." We are reminded of Tennyson's truthful and beautiful description of mere intellectual
knowledge:
"What is she, cut from love and faith,
But some wild Pallas from the brain
"Of Demons? fiery hot to burst
All barriers in her onward race
For power. Let her know her place:
She is the second, not the first.
"A higher hand must make her mild,
If all be not in vain; and guide
Her footsteps, moving side by side
With wisdom, like the younger child:
"For she is earthly of the mind,
But Wisdom, heavenly of the soul." 1
We conclude by taking a bird's-eye view of some of
the bearings of this form of infidelity, and with some remarks in disproof of it. The doctrine of an impersonal
God, as we have seen, lies at its basis. The universe is the
divinity, and men themselves, as " God intoxicated," mingle
with it. Out of this fundamental idea rise the following:
I. Creation, with the pantheist, is not a free act, but an
inevitable necessity. It is not a complete effect, but a process that is going on eternally. Hegel says, God did not
create the world, he is eternally creating it. Creation is
God passing into activity, but neither suspended nor exhausted in the act.  Anaximander -said substantially the
same thing ages before him. And Victor Cousin has
repeated it after him. "The distinguishing characteristic
of the Deity," says the French philosopher, " being an absolute creative force, which cannot but pass into activity, it
1 In Memoriam, p. 177



THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE PERSONALITY.    69
follows, not that the creation is possible, but that it is
necessary." And the men of the Emerson school tell us,
that the world is " a projection of God in the unconscious."
Pantheism is thus fatalistic. We, according to enlightened
reason and Scriptural truth, have been wont to believe that
God existed independently, from eternity, in a state of
absolute perfection, and that, of his own good pleasure,
he called the universe into being. Moses began his historical narrative by declaring, "In the beginning God
created the heavens and the earth;" and he sung, "Before
the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst
formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to
everlasting, thou art God." The pious in all ages, on looking over the creation, have said, "Our God made the
heavens." And the heavenly inhabitants cry, "Thou hast
created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were
created." But, according to the pantheist, this is all a
delusion. The Divine free-will is a nonentity. Creation
is but the inevitable development of the one Being that is
beneath all and in all. Thus are falsified all those clear
marks of design in the universe on which men have looked
for ages, the world is robbed of all its moral grandeur, the
holy emotions of man's religious nature are repressed, and
he has nothing to behold but a creation that has sprung
from fate and necessity, and nothing to think of behind the
whole, but an absolute creative force ever passing, not from
a moral but a physical necessity, into activity. We may
theoretically distinguish pantheism from atheism, but assuredly the man who looks upon the universe, and says
that it is "a remoter and inferior incarnation of God,"' or
that it is God necessarily passing into action, is as much
without God in the world, as the man who ascribes everything to mechanical forces, and says there is no God.
Emerson's Nature, p. 53.




70                   PANTHEISM; OR,
2. Pantheism inevitably destroys all moral distinctions, and
makes man irresponsible.  "Evil and good are God's right
hand and left," is the doctrine of some of our popular literature.' And if the whole phenomena of the universe be
one chain of necessary development, if man and his actions
are strictly inevitable pulsations of the one great source of
being, then what is properly called moral evil has no existence. And the Emerson school tells us that it lives only in
dogmatic theology. ";' Evil, according to old philosophers,"
says the author of the " Representative Men," 2 "is good in
the making. That pure malignity can exist, is the extreme
proposition of unbelief. It is not to be entertained by a
rational agent; it is atheism; it is the last profanation.
The divine effort is never relaxed; the carrion in the sun
will convert itself to grass and flowers; and man, though in
brothels or jails or on gibbets, is on his way to all that is
good and true." This may accord with the generous spirit
of the Indian Vishnu; but Christianity and it are wide as
the poles asunder.  The "Festus" of Mr. Bailey, a poem
of great power and of a religious spirit, is pervaded by
this bad pantheistic theology. The following is but a
specimen:
"The soul is but an organ, and it hath
No power of good and evil in itself,
More than the eye hath power of light or dark.
God fitted it for good; and evil is
Good in another way we are not skilled in."3
Hence the notion that all religions are good, but that
Christianity is the best. And the conclusion: "All souls
shall be in God, and shall be God, and nothing but God
be."4  Dr. Strauss moves in the same plane, though far
ahead, when he says: "human kind is impeccable, for
1 Bailey's Festus, Proem. p. vii.  2 " Swedenborg; or, the Mystic," p. 68.
3 Festus, p. 48.           4 Festus, p. Io9.




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE PERSONALITY.    71
the progress of its development is irreproachable.  Pollution cleaves only to the individual.  It does not reach
the race and its history. The human race is the Christ,
the God-made man, the sinless one, that dies, rises again,
-and mounts into the heavens."  The consciousness of
guilt becomes, on this system, a delusion. The sense of
responsibility, which is a fact in the natural history of man,
is belied. And that voice which comes from the recesses
of, our moral nature, pointing us from a judge within the
breast to a judge without and above, is silenced. That'God is ever educing good from evil is true, and that the
ministry of evil, mysterious though it be, is made under his
benign supremacy to subserve most important purposes,
agrees at once with experience and Scripture. But that
evil has no positive existence, that it is only good in
another way, is as repugnant to our moral sentiments as it
is opposed to Christianity. We will persist in calling this
course of conduct bad, and that opposite course good;
and can never act on the belief that both were alike things
of fate and necessity, or that each agent is a structure
-formed by inevitable laws, and part or particle of God.
When this creed prevails, the foundations of the earth will
be out of course.  Only let this doctrine leaven the mass
of a community, and the result will be a deluge of sensuality and crime.
3. This system  shuts out prayer.  Man will worship.
Here the object of worship is self. And if the soul knows
no persons, and is itself "wiser than the whole world,"' as
the thorough-going pantheist maintains, it were folly to go
out of itself for the resources either in the way of a rule of
duty  or of spiritual influences.  Coleridge's "Ancient
Mariner" went much too far when he said:
I Leben Jesu (last chapter).  2 Emerson.




72                  PANTHEISM; OR,
"He prayeth well who loveth well
Both man and bird and beast.
He prayeth best who loveth best
All things both great and small:
For the dear God, who loveth us,
He made and loveth all."
But Mr. Emerson and his school go much farther. "As
soon as the man is at one with God, he will not beg. He
will then see prayer in all action.  The prayer of the
farmer, kneeling in his field to weed it; the prayer of the
rower, knetling with the stroke of his oar, are true prayers,
heard throughout nature, though for cheap ends." Mr.
Theodore Parker, who, though not a professed pantheist,
pretends to have found pantheism in the writings of John
the Evangelist, discourses in a similar way. Speaking of
what he calls the happy condition of the religious man, he
tells us that his "religion demands no particular actions,
forms or modes of thought: the man's plowing is holy as
his prayer —his daily bread, as the smoke of his sacrifice;
his home, sacred as his temple; his work day and his sabbath are alike God's day. His priest is the holy spirit
within him."1 And if Mr. Carlyle does not mean to countenance this pantheistic dogma, why, in "The Modern
Worker," does he so frequently talk thus: "Work is of a
religious nature..... All true work is sacred; in all true
work, were it but true hand-labor, there is something of
divineness. Labor, wide as the earth, has its summit in
heaven. Sweat of the brow, and up from that to sweat of
the brain, sweat of the heart; which includes all Kepler
calculations, Newton meditations, all sciences, all spoken
epics, all acted heroisms, martyrdoms, —up to that'agony
of bloody sweat,' which all men have called divine! O
brother, if this is not'worship,' then I say, the more pity
1 Parker's Discourses, p. IIO.




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE PERSONALITY.    73
for worship; for this is the noblest thing yet discovered
under God's sky."  No doubt this will be hailed by many
of the listeners and readers of Emerson, Parker and Carlyle. And there may be here and there, "the poor daylaborer, the weaver of your coat, the sewer of your shoes,"
who, having no inclination for prayer, may like to be told
that "no man has worked, or can work, except religiously,"
and that he "shall return home in honor, to his far distant
home in honor."2 But it will not do for the millions who
fail to attain to such a delirium of soul as these poetic
philosophers, and whom they will never get to believe that
the fountain of all good is in themselves, that they are
divine pilgrims in nature, and that everything attends their
steps. No. Men's minds, which have not been spoiled by
a philosophy falsely so called, will ever, as aforetime, go
out in a felt sense of want. They will cry, in spite of all
this delirious teaching, "who will shew us any good?"
And experience will continue to attest that man will never
possess the satisfying good, until as a beggar he say, " Lord,
lift thou up the light of thy countenance upon us."
4. What becomes of individual immortality in such a
system as pantheism? It is absorbed and lost. Men in all
ages, even in the absence of revelation, have yearned for
existence beyond death and the grave. The Gospel, by
bringing life and immortality to light, has answered these
yearnings. So that with all our moral and religious impressions, is blended the conviction of our individual
existence being prolonged on the other side of the tomb.
We are conscious of our personal being now, our moral
nature points to the continuance of our conscious personality hereafter; and an authoritative revelation has not
only set its seal to the truth of the personal immortality of
man, but shed an illumination all its own on the grave and
1 Past and Present, pp. 268, 27I.  2 Ibid. pp. 278, 872.




74                  PANTHEISM; OR,
the world beyond. But life with the pantheist is a dream,
and death is absorption. It is like the return of a ray of
light to the sun whence it emanated, or a drop of water to
the great ocean from which it originally came. The disciples of a system do not always go to the full length of the
system itself. And so it may happen that some professed
pantheists have not discarded the belief of personal immortality. But such is the legitimate issue of the system,
and such will actually be its result when, descending from
the schools, it becomes the faith of the common people.
With the pantheists of the East, the consciousness of separate existence is an illusion, which in a little time will pass
away. The souls of men being portions of the divine
essence, "parts or particles of God," will ultimately return
to their source, so that, apart from the great substance,
there will be no conscious existence. Whatever might be
Hegel's individual view of the future state of man, Hegelianism, in this respect, is thoroughly pantheistic.  "On the
doctrine of immortality," remarks Mr. Morell,' " Hegel has
said but little, and that little by no means satisfactory."
But it is a part of his philosophy, that the Divine Being is
-necessitated to send forth existences and to absorb them
again. Reinhard, who is deemed a fair and competent
judge of the system, says, that "according to Hegel's speculative decisions, the individual personality of man is
perishable in its very nature. In his view, reason demands
-that the thinking individual should acknowledge the nothingness of his individual essence, and willingly meet selfannihilation in view of his entering into that universal
substance which, like Chronos in the old mythology,
devours all its own offspring." 2 Strauss, and others of the
same school, have gone this length. His words are, "a life
1 History of Philosophy, vol. ii, p. I9o.
2 Dr. Beard's Voices of the Church, p. I2.




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE PERSONALITY.    75
beyond the grave is the last enemy which speculative criticism has to oppose, and, if possible, to conquer."' Here,
as in some other points, the extremes of sensationalism and
-idealism meet. The atheist and the pantheist shake hands
as believers in the same black creed. Danton, on his trial,
said, "My name is Danton, my residence will soon be in
annihilation, my name will live in the pantheon of history."
And the pantheist says, Let us dream on the day of our
existence here, for the night is coming when self must
return to the great ocean of being and there be lost for
ever.  Such are the issues of a system that denies the
living Personal God.
I. In proof of the personality of God, we might, in the
-first place, argue from our oewn personality. That we are
real, intelligent, and responsible persons, is a matter of
consciousness. There is a spirit in man. He has understanding, will, moral sentiment, a power to choose between
good and evil, and he knows it. It is this which gives us
a decided preeminence over the whole visible creation. It
separates at an immeasurable distance from us the flowers
of the earth however beautiful, the stars of heaven however
bright, and the beasts and birds however wise. Were it
possible for us to be divested of our complete personality
as moral, intelligent individual beings, the crown would
fall from our heads, and we would descend in the scale
of earthly creatures. Personality- living, moral and intellectual personality -such as man's, is clearly, then, a
perfection. And in the very existence of such personal
beings we have an argument for a Personal God. Let it
be supposed that by intuition, or argumentation, or both,
we had come simply to the knowledge of a First Cause; it
is evident that the conception of the possession of perfect
I Glaubenslehre.




76                 PANTHEISM; OR,
personality by Him would render Him a more glorious
Being than the want of it. And this being the case, He
must possess it, for our conceptions of the greatest Being
in the universe can never surpass, but must always come
short of, the reality.  "It is clear," says Professor Garbett,
"that anything which does not possess personality, or
possesses it in a low degree, whether it be like the earth,
however exquisitely modeled into beauty and sublimity
manifold, or the beasts of the field, however marvelous
their living powers, must be inferior to ourselves. And,
therefore, Almighty God must be a person likewise. For
if not, He would be inferior to ourselves, contrary to the
supposition on which we go. And the very name imports
that, 6c 7Tr6r' Trzt, He is at all events, the /izgest of beings.
You may, indeed, if you please, abandon the intellect to
the lawless tyranny of imagination!... Drunk with the
maddening wine of intellectual licentiousness and creative
speculation, you may rave eloquently of a Being of infinite
power, who pours forth out of His exhaustless bosom,
unfathomable as the abyss of space itself, all glory, all
living things, multitudinous and diversified beyond created
arithmetic, such as fill the universe. And yet, by the same
right of unreason and self-will, you may lay it down that
He has not a self-consciousness, nor a choice, nor anything
in short of that which makes us, to our fellow-men, objects
of love and hope, of dread and hatred, of joy and of misery. And you may then, piling postulate on postulate
into the empty air, till you reach, in haze and mist, the
limbo of utter unreality, set up this blind and dumb and
deaf abomination, with a crown upon its head, on the
throne of Him who is, and was, and is to be —the living
Jehovah..... But this is not a God, according to the supposition; and, of course, is not a living, loving, avenging,
awful Deity. Why in such a case, though the spirit within




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE PERSONALITY.    77
us is clothed in perishable dust and ashes, WE should be
far superior, in the order of intelligent being, to such a
Deity, with all His immensity." 
2. Men in general feel, in the most solemn and affecting
moments of their lives, that God is a real Person. Demonstration is not necessary. Consciousness and inward experience, more powerfully than any argumentation, attest it.
This truthful evidence is given forth at times from the
bosoms of the worst and the best of men. How true to
nature are such parables as those of the Prodigal Son, and
the Pharisee and the Publican. And the most life-like
feature in each picture is, when the Prodigal coming to
himself exclaimed, "Father, I have sinned;" and the Publican, conscious of his burden of guilt, cried, "God be
merciful to me a sinner." The very cry for help which,
under an irresistible impulse, ascends from the human soul
when in imminent danger or stricken under a sense of sin,
is a testimony of conscience to the personality of God. It
is the witness of unsophisticated nature to the truth that
He is a Being who can save from danger, who has displeasure to be dreaded and mercy to be sought after. The
mind, then, unrestrained by philosophical theories or other
artificial hindrances, recognizes Him in the personality of
the judge, the sovereign, or the savior. The consciousness
of the most excellent ones of the earth, gives a yet clearer
evidence for the Divine personal existence and attributes.
Men who have been renewed in the spirit of their mind,
and who long for closer union with the best and greatest
Being in the universe, never think of Him as.a substance
"'stretched uncouthly through infinite space," which has
only arrived at self-consciousness in their own souls. But
they thirst for God —for the living God. They, clothed
with humility, bend the knee and, with hearts uplifted to
heaven, say, in filial confidence, " Abba Father." They
I The Personality of God, pp. 26-29.




78                 PANTHEISM; OR,
gather up, as it were, into one, all the glorious attributes
by which he is distinguished, and contemplate Him as
Creator and Lord, Father and Friend, Judge and Savior.
This we regard as real evidence, uttered from amid the
indestructible elements of man's moral nature, for the perfect personality of God.
3. The Sacred Scriptures throughout are full of the Divine
Personality. Every page breathes or burns with it. From
the opening sentence of Genesis to the closing chapter of
Revelation, in its unadorned histories as well as in its magnificent poetry, in the language alike of its threatenings
and its promises, the Bible moves with the living Personal
God. This places an impassable gulf between the religion
of the pantheist and that of the Christian. And the Bible
owes much of its telling power over men's hearts, as a
divine instrument, to this pervading element of personality.
Be it remembered that this is the book which has done
vastly more than all others to regenerate and elevate our
race, and that, under the agency of the Divine Spirit, it
exerts this influence by bringing the mind into contact with
God, not as a vague immensity, but as a glorious, awful,
benignant person with whom we have to do. The sinner
has been arrested in his wickedness, his spirit has quailed
within him, and he has become a new creature, by hearing
the living God of Holy Scripture speak to him in solemn
warning and melting invitation. The saint has been refreshed and armed anew by the thought that the same
Divine Being who clothes the grass of the field, and cares
for the fowls of the air, loves, as a father, his own redeemed
children, and surrounds them with his favor as with a
shield. Yes; the Spirit, by whose inspiration the Word
was given, beareth witness with our spirit to the perfect
personality of God. And could this be separated from the
Bible, and a pantheistic creed substituted in its stead, it




THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE PERSONALITY.    79'
would be as if the sun had been shorn of its beams, and
the ocean had lost his voice.  "Ye shall know," said
Joshua to the Israelites, "that the living God is among
you."  "It is a fearful thing," says Paul, "to fall into the
hands of the living God." And in such winning words as
these, of which the sacred volume is full, how near does
the, personality of Him whose name and nature are love,
come to the heart: "Incline your ear, and come unto me;
hear, and your soul shall live." "Look unto me, and be
ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and
there is none else." The relational conception of the
Most High, as our Maker, King, Father, Savior, Judge,
guards us as effectually against a pantheistic view on the
one hand; as the absolute conception of Him does against
an anthropomorphic view on the other. Both conceptions
blend with each other in the Bible. No book gives us
such exalted ideas of the Infinite Intelligence, and none is
less in harmony with the system of pantheism. "It is all
in the same spirit; burning, powerful words; real above
everything in this world; piercing, as living words must
needs do, to the dividing of the very hearts and reins.
They have the impression, they are stamped with the seal
of the living God. The tetragrammaton is on them."'
4. In Jesus Christ we see the absolute and the personal
reconciled. Pantheism and anthropomorphism, though traceable to the same source, are two extremes, toward one of
which the mind, in the absence of revelation or in the want
of faith in it, has ever shown a strong tendency. Men have
been apt either to limit the Infinite, and think of Him as
being such an one as themselves, or to conceive of Him as
an infinite substance of which all things are but the modes
and manifestations. How to reconcile the personality with
the infinitude of the Divine nature, seems to be one of
those sublime mysteries pertaining to the Divine existence
1 Professor Garbett's Discourse, p. 45.




80                  PANTHEISM.
which unaided reason cannot solve. Such knowledge is
too wonderful for us; it is high, we cannot attain unto it.
As principles of abstract theology they may be clearly
made out, but really to grasp them in our religious belief
as attributes of the Almighty, is a great achievement of
faith. The two are, however, reconciled before our view
in Him who is the Word made flesh, at once the Son of'God and the Son of man. The creation of the world was
the work of an infinite Being. The everlasting God, the
Lord, is the Creator of the ends of the earth. And by
Jesus Christ were all things created, that are in heaven and
that are in earth. The redemption of the world demanded
-the interposition of Him who made it. It was Jehovah's
prerogative to say, "Behold I create new heavens and a
new earth." And in Emmanuel, God in our nature, God
with us, we see the Redeemer of man. The judgment of
the world is an act of the Absolute. None else is judge
but God. And the Son of man, coming in his glory, occupies the judgment throne. The Divine Being, without any
limitation of his absolute perfections, is thus revealed in the
person of Christ. Great, indeed, is the mystery of godliness. The incarnation is a stupendous fact that surpasses
reason; for whatever pertains to the Divine nature must be
incomprehensible by the human mind. But it contains in
itself the solution of the mysterious problem how the absolute and the personal agree in One. And with all its mysteriousness, it becomes a resting truth to the minds of men
and angels, when attempting to grasp the idea of an infinite
and yet a personal God. The Lion of the tribe of Judah,
the Root of David, has opened the book and loosed the
seals thereof. And happy the mind that returns from its
wanderings, that leaves off raving about a vague immensity
which it can neither love nor fear, and rests in JehovahJesus, God manifest in the flesh.




CHAPTER III.
THE DENIAL OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT; OR,
NATURALISM.
Distinctive characteristic of Naturalism -Denounces every idea of Divine interposition-Not peculiar to any age or country —Broadly manifested in some
works on Physical and Moral Science - System of Auguste Comte -" Vestiges
of the Natural History of Creation "- Humboldt's " Cosmos "- Combe's " Constitution of Man "- The Owen School - Naturalism in the department of Bible
Theology: Anti-miracle School of Germany - Spinoza —Paulus — Strauss —
Miracles considered - Hume and Strauss alike guilty of a eti'tio pjrincipii —
Denial of Special Inspiration of the Scriptures - Theodore Parker - Inspiration
viewed as a fact-Mr. Morell's position —General remarks upon Naturalism
as a whole -The idea of a self-sustaining universe based upon false analogy -
Chargeable with anthropomorphism -Opposed to palpable evidence of GeologyAssigns no adequate cause for Christianity and its effects -Diametrically opposed to the religion of the Bible -Naturalism unnatural.
ATURALISM, or, as it is sometimes called, Rationalism, is distinguishable  enough  from  atheism   and
pantheism.  The rationalist is distinguished from  the atheist by his theoretical belief of a Supreme Power, and he is
distinguished from  the pantheist by his denial of an  everpresent and all-pervading Divine energy. The pantheist
says, Cod is at hand; the rationalist says, God is afar off.
Pantheism sees the Divine Being in all things, and confounds the Creator with the creation.  Whereas naturalism,
though distinguishing Him from His works, banishes Him
into a distant solitude.  It is not essential to this system
that the evidences of design in proof of a creative intelligence be denied, however much it may tend in that direction, and though many of its abettors may have gone that
length. But its distinctive characteristic, as a form of infidelity, is, that while admitting the world to have been
originally created by God, it as it were extrudes Him from
6




82          NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
that world, by reducing it to a self-sustained mechanism,
and by resolving what are generally understood by the
works of Providence into a regularly successive series of
necessary developments. The seed, having the vegetative
power in itself, is cast by the husbandman into the soil, and
there, aided merely by natural agencies, it is left to develop.
itself into the full-grown plant or tree. The watch, complete in its wheels and mainspring, is wound up, and continues to move, though ever so far distant from the maker.
The ship-builder having finished and launched the ship,
leaves it entirely to the care of the sailors.! Such are
specimens of some of the analogies by which men would
exclude God from his own world, and make the universe,.
if not independent of his creative power, altogether independent of his presence and control. The falsity of the
analogy is obvious, and will be noticed by us hereafter.
At present we wish to get as full-sized a view as possible
of the system itself.
Men, whose piety is both rational and scriptural, have
been accustomed to consider God as continually present
in the world with the same power by which He made it.
They reckon up no less numerous indications of a designing providential agency than of an original creating intelligence, and feel that they would be as much warranted to
deny the presence and power of God in creating, as to
deny his presence and power in sustaining and controlling.
The heavens and the earth, in their estimation, furnish as
clear and impressive tokens of the agency of the Divine
Preserver as of the Divine Creator. The seasons roll on
in beautiful harmony, but God is there present as the
source of that harmony. We may speak of the universe
as a huge machine moved by natural powers or mechanical
laws, but it is the finger of God that touches the subordi1 " Ut faber discedit a navi exstructa et relinquit eam nautis."-Melanclhon.




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.   83
nate agencies which move the whole. He acts in every
place, upon all things, and throughout all time. And but
for his pervading influence, the world would become an
inactive mass without form and void, and darkness would
again cover the face of the deep. The language of Thomson, according to the creed of Christian piety, is as philosophically true as it is poetically beautiful:
"But wandering oft, with brute unconscious gaze,
Man marks not Thee, marks not the mighty hand
That, ever-busy, wheels the silent spheres;
Works in the secret deep; shoots, steaming, thence
The fair profusion that o'erspreads the spring:
Flings from the sun direct the flaming day;
Feeds every creature; hurls the tempest forth;
And, as on earth this grateful change revolves,
With transport touches all the springs of life."
This is neither pantheism nor naturalism. It distinguishes the great Intelligent Spirit from the material world
which He pervades, while it acknowledges his presence
and energy acting upon all secondary causes as the primary
action of the whole. Hence the ample room which such
a system opens for the outgoings of a grateful and lofty
devotion.  Hence its firm faith in the well-attested Divine
interpositions of the past, and its expectation that, if need
be, similar interpositions will take place in the future.
Naturalism denies all this. It denounces it as the progeny of ignorance and fanaticism.  It demolishes it at
once, just as a man on awakening demolishes the airy castles which he built during sleep. If naturalism admits of
a special and supernatural interference at all, it restricts
such an interference to the original act of creation. The
Almighty is allowed to come forth, create, give life, set in
motion, and look on the scene, but afterwards He retires,
and leaves the whole to nature and nature's laws. All the




84          NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
phenomena of matter and mind however rich and magnificent, all the events of history however influential and
unprecedented, all the changes that have taken place in
nations and individuals however thorough and beneficent,
have, according to this system, occurred in a merely natural way, just as the engine speeds along the line of rail by
the natural force of steam. The poet spake with a poetic
license, or under the hallucination of genius, when addressing the god of the seasons, he said, "The rolling year is
full of Thee." King David, in a dark age, sang very beautifully but not truly, when he said to Jehovah, "Thou
visitest the earth, and waterest it: Thou greatly enrichest
it with the river of God, which is full of water: Thou preparest them corn when Thou hast so provided for it: Thou
makest it soft with showers: Thou blessest the springing
thereof. Thou crownest the year with Thy goodness; and
Thy paths drop fatness." Jesus Christ merely accommodated Himself to the views and circumstances of his
followers, when He said to them, "Behold the fowls of the
air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into
barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them." Miracles
are impossible, just because they are unnatural. And what
in theology is called the doctrine of Divine influence, is a
mystery, a thing supernatural, and, therefore, not to be
believed. The rationalist traverses the wide fields of space
and makes himself familiar with the laws that regulate the
movements of suns and stars; or he penetrates into the
bowels of the earth, and reads, amid its rocky beds and
their wreck of animal existence, the history of a past
world; but neither in the heavens above nor in the earth
beneath does he recognize the presence or interposition of
God. He may admit that the Creator has left the impress
of his finger there from a past eternity, but he sees no such
finger amid the continued harmony of the spheres on high,




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.   85
or amid the convulsions and up-heavings that have taken
place in the depths below. He virtually, if not openly,
says, the Almighty was once here present, but He has withdrawn ages ago; nature reigns, and all physical phenomena
are the necessary result of mechanical laws. The rationalist reads history too, but he sees not God in history. Its
marvelous events, however unforeseen by men, however
much they startled and baffled the calculations of- the wise
who were contemporaneous with them, and however mighty
and protracted have been their influence in succeeding
times, are drawn by him into that iron chain of necessary
development in which he binds up all things. He looks
too upon vast masses of men sunk in ignorance and vice,
so sunk notwithstanding the play of many influences upon
them which rationalists deem beneficial, and he will admit
any or every agency into the work of their regeneration
but the special agency of the Former of men's bodies and
the Father of men's spirits. "Is it not strange," remarks
John Foster,' " to observe, how carefully some philosophers,
who deplore the condition of the world, and profess to
expect its melioration, keep their speculations clear of
every idea of Divine interposition? No builders of houses
or cities were ever more attentive to guard against the
access of flood or fire. If He should but touch their prospective theories of improvement, they would renounce
them, as defiled and fit only for vulgar fanaticism. Their
system of Providence would be profaned by the intrusion
of the Almighty. Man is to effect an apotheosis for himself, by the hopeful process of exhausting his corruption.
And should it take a long series of ages, vices, and woes,
to reach this glorious attainment, patience may sustain
itself the while by the thought that when it is realized, it
will be burdened with no duty of religious gratitude. No
1 Foster's Essays, p. I77, I5th ed.




86          NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
time is too long to wait, no cost too deep to incur, for the
triumph of proving that we have no need of a Divinity,
regarded as possessing that one attribute which makes it
delightful to acknowledge such a Being, the benevolence
that would make us happy. But even if this noble selfsufficiency cannot be realized, the independence of spirit
which has labored for it must not sink at last into piety.
This afflicted world,'this poor terrestrial citadel of man,'
is to lock its gates, and keep its miseries, rather than admit
the degradation of receiving help from God."
This form of infidelity is no novelty. It is not peculiar
to any age or country. And while it may be said of other
forms, that they slay their thousands, it must be said of
this that it slays its ten thousands. This was the doctrine
of the ancient atomists and Epicureans. They were not,
theoretically considered, atheists. They believed in the
existence of the gods, but denied that they interfered with
either the physical or moral concerns of the universe.
Plato held the doctrine in abhorrence, and made it one of
the three kinds of blasphemy punishable in his republic
with death. Justin Martyr, speaking of the philosophers
in his time, tells us they taught it to be "useless to pray to
God, since all things recur according to the unchangeable
laws of an endless progression." Some of the English
deistical writers of the last century, held substantially the
same infidel opinion. Lord Herbert, " the first and purest
of our English free-thinkers," who lived in the century
preceding, includes the doctrine of Divine providence and
the duty of worshiping God, in his five articles of religion.
But others of the free-thinking school advanced ahead of
him, and either denied that the Supreme Being interposed
in the affairs of men, or held such a vague idea of a general providence as virtually excluded him from the government of the world. Chubb seems to have maintained that




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.   87
God kept aloof from human affairs, and that whatever happened to men depended entirely upon secondary causes.
Bolingbroke's idea of a providence that regarded things
collectively but not individually, was such as left no room
for the special interposition of God either in the physical
or moral world. Hume, in his essays on Miracles and
Providence, sapped the very foundations of natural and
revealed religion, and would preclude us from believing
that the same power which created the world, can continue
to sustain it. The French Encyclopaedists, who flourished
during the latter half of the same century, built the whole
*of their metaphysical philosophy upon the basis of materialism, a system that began by removing God to a distance
from the world, and explaining everything by secondary
causes, and that ended in excluding Him altogether from
their conceptions, and elevating nature to his throne,
Mien of science and literature were then resolutely bent on
disregarding everything that seemed to admit the interference or idea of God, and on shutting themselves up in a
system of blind fatalism and stern materialism. The bold
-skepticism and gross impiety of such schools have, in a great
measure, passed away, yet much of the spirit that animated
-them is manifested in our own times. From the elaborate
work on science down to the cheap journal that circulates
among the masses of the people, there is not a little, both
in our own country and on the Continent, that is avowedly
opposed to the idea of Providence, crying out upon it as a
bugbear in men's paths, or seeking to explode the doctrine
by maintaining a studied silence respecting it, when it
might most naturally have been introduced.
Such, in an undisguised form, is the philosophical system of M. Auguste Comte, who has been styled the Bacon
of the nineteenth century.' He has given to the world a
1 Lewes' Biographical History of Philosophy, vol. iv, p. 255.




88          NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
large work of profound science,' built entirely on palpable
facts, which are said to have occurred in a chain of necessary development, and to need no dogma of a Divine
Providence to account for them. It interdicts every investigation beyond phenomena and the laws of phenomena,
as without the reach of the human mind. And not only so,
but every philosophical theory admitting the intervention
of the First Cause is denounced as bearing a drag that
obstructs the march of science and human improvement.
This is very broadly laid down in the law of mental evolution or human progress, which he applies to every department of knowledge. According to him, the intelligence of
mankind passes successively through three distinct stages:
the supernatural, the metaphysical, and the positive. The
first is the lowest or infant state of human society. The
last is the period of progressive development, in which the
mind advances onward to perfection. It belongs to the.
former, to attribute all the operations of nature to a Divine
cause, and to admit the intervention of supernatural power
to account for every unusual phenomenon. It belongs to
the metaphysical stage, to ignore all such supernatural interpositions, to bring in the idea of abstract forces, and to
personify them under the one agency of Nature. While
it belongs to the last, the age of advanced science, to
exclude all search into causes, and to apply itself to palpable phenomena, their relations and laws, so as to classify
and generalize them. David, in a distant age, looked upward, and said, "The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. O Lord, our
Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who has
set thy glory above the heavens." Newton declared that
"every true step made in inductive philosophy, is to be
highly valued, because it brings us nearer to the First
1 Cours de Philosophie Positive, 6 vols.




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.   89'
Cause." "A God without dominion, providence, and final
causes," said the author of the " Principia," " is nothing
but fate and nature." And again, remarks that greatest
name in science, "it no doubt belongs to natural philosophy to inquire concerning God from the observation of
phenomena." But according to the great French philosopher, David lived in an infantile state of society, when
men sought the supernatural in everything; and Newton
was fettered in his glorious career of discovery by the
theological chimera of a Providence and a God. These
heavens and this earth, the bare contemplation of which has
filled with holy rapture many of the greatest minds of our
race, and the investigation into the phenomena of which
has drawn a Newton and others nearer to God, are, in the
view of Auguste Comte, and his disciples, but a magnificent piece of mechanism, in the harmonious movements of
which nothing higher is to be recognized than mechanical
laws. It is said of the ancient Epicureans that they believed in the existence of the gods, but neither believed
them to have created nor to govern the universe. And if
the brilliant French philosopher admits a God at all, he
excludes Him from creation and dominion, by resolving this
goodly universe, both in its formation and government,
into the spontaneous operation of purely physical principles. The system which is impressed by his great name, if
not absolutely atheistical, looks certainly in that direction,
and is, to say the least, as massive a structure of naturalism
as ever scientific genius exhibited to the world.
It might have been expected that such a work of profound science, characterized as it is by high intellectual
powers, would be greatly prized by the scientific men of
our own country. But assuredly it is to be regretted that
the author of so useful a book as " A Biographical History
of Philosophy," should be found identifying himself with




90           NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
so much of its most objectionable principles.  Speaking of
Comte's system  as the key to decipher past history, Mr.
Lewes says,' "when we see so great a writer as Niebuhr
unable to give any other explanation of the stability and
progress of the Roman people than that of destiny-unable to read any signs but those of the'finger of God'it is high time to bestir ourselves to rid the world of this
supernatural method of explaining facts."  It is striking
and gratifying that about the same time that this little
work, in a cheap form, is endeavoring to propagate such
principles among us, one of the most graphic historical
works2 that was ever given to the world, and embracing
one of the most remarkable portions of the world's history,
should follow as its guiding star the sentiment "God in
history." And, to say the least, it is surely more philosophical to believe that the Supreme Being operates
through the medium of natural laws, than that these laws
are independent of the Law-maker, -that the world with
all its grand and beautiful phenomena, and that history
with all its marvels, bear traces of the directing finger of
God, than that all should be wrapped up in an iron chain
of necessary development. " The finger of Providence
was on me," said the Duke of Wellington, in one of the
brief notes that he dispatched from the field of Waterloo;
and this sentiment, expressed at the close of the dreadful
fight that decided the fate of nations, and under a solemnizing impression of the many brave that had fallen, belongs,
we are told, to the lowest stage of human intelligence!
"I had rather," said Bacon -and the remark is as applicable to the denial of Divine Providence as to the denial of
the Divine Existence -" I had rather believe all the fables
1 Biographical History of Philosophy, vol. iv, p. 258.
2 D'AubignO's History of the Reformation.




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL  GOVERNMENT.    91
in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that
this universal frame is without a mind."'
A work producing considerable excitement, calling
forth a storm of opposition from the man of science and
the divine, and which excludes God as effectually from the
concerns of the universe, as that to which we have just
adverted, has, but a few years ago, proceeded from the
press of our own country. We allude to the " Vestiges of
the Natural History of Creation." The naturalism of this
anonymous publication, notwithstanding the term Providence is occasionally on the author's lips, appears without
disguise. The theory is one of those extreme systems of
development, according to which the world, with all its
varied phenomena, moves on in its stern necessary course,
guided only by physical laws, to the exclusion of the
Divine agency. It assumes the nebular hypothesis —an
hypothesis which, resting originally on insufficient data, is
falling more and more into discredit as science steadily
advances -and  from  the nebulous matter of space, which
"must have been a universal fire-mist," it evolves, on the
principle of pure physical law, the whole system of worlds.
This universal fire-mist being granted, we have, as it were,
-the original germ of the material universe. The germ may
have been created by God, and have received from Him
its first impulse, but out of itself, and solely through the
operation of physical laws, have been gradually unfolded
1 M. Comte is not inactive in carrying out his principles. He knows that man
-will worship. But he is determined, as much as in him lies, to lead France and the
other European nations from the worship of the supernatural to an idolatry of
science or a systematic worship of humanity. With a view of utterly exploding the
theological element, he has recently constructed a "Positive Calendar" of Infidel
Worship, on the model of the festivals and saints' days of the Romish Church. It
is nothing more than a public periodic commemoration of great men; and while
Moses and Paul have a place in it, with such heroes as Confucius and Mahomet
and Voltaire, the divine man, the model man, Jesus Christ, is ignored. These be
thy gods, O France, and this worship of " Positive Philosophy " is first to regenerate
thee and then the world! - See North British Review. May, I85I.




92          NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
those forms of magnificence and beauty which we see in
the heavens and the earth. The theory may admit of a.
Divine interposition in calling the original constituents
of the universe into existence, but it dispenses with or
extrudes all Divine interposition in giving to matter its
wondrous and richly-varied collocations. It may allow God
in the beginning to utter his fiat, summon matter forth in
its shapeless form from the void, and impress on it certain
laws, but it allows not the Creator henceforth to interfere
with his creation, or even to touch any of its springs of
motion, so that, after the first creating act, He might as
well have ceased to be. The universe, according to this
theory of naturalism, has moved on in its glorious path of
evolution, from the hour of the creation of the nebulae,
without the interposition of God; his existence and agency
being deemed necessary to give it beginning, but not necessary to fashion, dispose, continue and control it. To the
questions, whence this universal fire-mist, this nebulous
matter, diffused throughout space, and the natural laws
with which it has been endowed? you may get the answer,
"from God."  But you get no such answer when you ask
who fashioned matter into such grand and beautiful forms,
and disposed them so orderly and beneficially. The Most
High seems now to have abdicated, and to have enthroned
the physical laws, and left them to mould and govern the
worlds. The Bible, in its sublime simplicity, tells us that
" God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the
day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the
stars also." But the author of the "Vestiges " declares,
the "masses of space are formed by law; law makes them
in due time theaters of existence for plants and animals."'
" It is impossible," he says,' "to suppose a distinct exertion
or fiat of Almighty Power for the formation of the earth,
i Vestiges, p. 372, 5th ed.  2 Ibid. p. 204.




OF T'HE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.   93
wrought up as it is in a complex dynamical connection, first
with Venus on the one hand and Mars on the other, and
secondly with all the other members of the system." And
not only so, but he endeavors to interpret the first chapter
~of Genesis so as to discountenance " special efforts of the
Deity." The sublime expression, "Let light be," indicates
no special interposition of the great Creator, but merely a
process of law. And such statements as -God made the
firmament, God made the beasts of the earth, etc., are said
4'to occur subordinately.... not necessarily to convey
a different idea of the mode of creation, and indeed only
appear as alternative phrases in the usual duplicative style
of the East."' This is naturalism without a cloak.
We dwell not here on the strong presumptive proof
which advancing science is bringing against the nebular
hypothesis. The fact that so many of the supposed nebulae
have been resolved into starry systems, makes it highly
probable that all are resolvable. Lord Rosse's powerful
telescope has revealed suns and systems where nothing but
dim nebulae were supposed to exist. And could another
instrument of considerably greater magnifying power be
constructed, the hypothesis, already so much damaged,
might be completely destroyed. "As thrown out by Laplace," remarks Professor Whewell,' "it was a mere conjecture.  It is a mere conjecture still.  Hitherto it has
lost ground in the progress of astronomical researches."
But let us suppose it to be true, "that the primary condition of matter was that of a diffused mass, in which the
component molecules were probably kept apart through
the efficacy of heat; that portions of this agglomerated
into suns, which threw off planets; that these planets were
at first very much diffused, but gradually contracted by
cooling to their present dimensions:  still, on this suppoVestiges, p. I67, 5th ed.   2 Indications of the Creator, p. 27, 2d ed.
3 Vestiges, p. 43, 5th ed.




94           NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
sition, we demand the presence and agency of God. The
orderly and varied dispositions of matter bespeak a Divine
interposition, as well as the origination of matter itself. In
view of the collocations and motions of the material system, we no less naturally infer a Divine Providence than
in thinking of the existence of matter we infer the agency
of the creating God. The a posteriori argument has asfirm a footing amid these collocations, as it has on the
existence of matter, and its laws.  Yea, more; it is in
these collocations that we see the most legible evidences
of design, and it is not so much from the bare existence of
matter as from its dispositions and motions that we rise
up to the Great Designer. The nebulous mass diffused
throughout space, supposing such to have existed, came
not there without the fiat of the Almighty; and suns and
planets were not formed out of that mass without the
intervention of Infinite Wisdom. The Book of Creation,
beautifully written and well arranged, points up to the
Divine hand that garnished and disposed it, no less than it
proclaims the Divine Power that called from nothingness
the materials of which it is composed. The author of the
"Vestiges " tells us that law formed the masses of space
into goodly theaters of existence for plants and animals.
But what are natural laws without a Divine intelligence
working in them and by them?  Not realities, but merely
abstractions. The existence of law not more truly presupposes the Lawgiver, than does the harmonious and uniform
operation of law indicate the presence and control of the
Governor. It is quite an illusion to speak of the laws of
nature as if they were things distinct from the natural
phenomena, and to invest them, like independent deities,
with fashioning and regulating powers. "It is a perversion of language," says Dr. Paley,' "to assign any law,
Natural Theology, vol. ii, pp. 9, io. (Knight's edition.)




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.   95
as the efficient operative cause of anything. A law presupposes an agent; for it is only the mode according to
which an agent proceeds: it implies a power, for it is the
order according to which that power acts. Without this
agent, without this power, which are both distinct from
itself, the law does nothing; is nothing." " Opus," remarks
Lord Bacon, "quod operatur Deus a primordio usque ad
finem."
But this theory of progressive development explains how
the world was peopled, as well as how it was formed. It
includes within its sweep both the animate and inanimate
phenomena of the universe. It would not only evolve from
a universal fire-mist, and by the exclusive operation of
physical law, all the forms which matter has assumed, but
it would trace the whole organized system, in a regularly
advancing series, up from an infusorial point, to the noblest
being, man.  "No organism is, nor ever has one been, created," is the language of a chief philosopher of this school,'
"which is not microscopic. Whatever Is larger has not
been created, but developed. Man has not been created,
but developed." "We call in question," says the author of
the "Vestiges,"2 "not merely the simple idea of the unenlightened mind, that God fashioned all in the manner of
an artificer seeking by special means to produce special
effects, but even the doctrine in vogue amongst men of
science, that'creative fiats' were required for each new
class, order, family, and species of organic beings, as they
successively took their places upon the globe, or as the
globe became gradually fitted for their reception." According to the Bible, " God said, Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness. So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created He him." But, according to
this theory, God created only microscopic monads or em1 Professor Oken.   2 Vestiges, p. i6i, 5th ed.




:96          NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
bryotic points, and from these, by a process of natural
development, extending through cycles of ages, arose all
the animated tribes.  Creatures of "the simplest and most
primitive type gave birth to a type superior to it in compositeness of organization and endowment of faculties; this
again produced the next higher, and so on to the highest;
the advance being, in all cases, small, but not of any determinate extent."  Man was not, then, the special workmanship of the living God.  Moses is to be understood as
-speaking of ordinary law when he says, "The Lord God
formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into
hls nostrils the breath of life." David's devotion is to be
-set down as enthusiasm, when, addressing God, he exclaimed, " Thou madest man a little lower than the angels."
We must go back to the infusorial point, "whose seed was
in itself,' for the germ of human existence, and then, in
retracing our steps, notice how, throughout the whole marvelous process, there is no mixture of the supernatural.
The Creator is thus bidden to retire to the utmost bound
of creation.  No room  is left for Him  to interpose and
create new species. He gave the first impulse at a dateless period in the past, and all subsequent formations and
dispositions, however wondrous and varied, are the necessary results of fixed laws. This is the order of God's universe. Yea: " the system ought to be described as a System
of Order in which life grows out of dead matter, the hzi-her
out of the lower animals, and man out of brutes." 2
The theory is no less opposed to the well-ascertained
facts of science than it is to the scriptural record. The
most illustrious names in the scientific world have condemned it.  Geology, as it unfolds leaf after leaf of the
"great stone book," gives the lie to it.  The maxim  is
indeed true: Natura non operatur per saltum, understand1 Vestiges, p. 232, 5th ed.  2 Whewell's Indications, p. 12, 2d ed.




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.   97
ing that " Nature is but a name for an effect, whose cause
is God."' But it is a wild fancy, a reckless mode of
philosophizing, to conclude that since there are no gaps
in nature, there have been no interpositions of the Creator
from the period when He formed the first and smallest
-organism. The stars in their harmonious courses have
been called to fight against God, and now the orderly
gradations of the vegetable and animal kingdoms are summoned to give evidence against his agency and dominion.
But the earth beneath and the heavens above refuse to
be perjured. And, as Dr. Chalmers has remarked, "these
two doctrines, the all but universal faith of naturalists,
that there is no spontaneous generation and no transmutation of the species, are two denials, in fact, of nature's
sufficiency for the origination of our races, and shut us up
into the faith of nature's God."  Had the development
theory been founded in truth, it is obvious that the earlier
fossils would have been very small in size and very low in
organization. But such is not the case. We meet with giants
where we should have found dwarfs, and creatures of a high
organization instead of creatures of a low one. In the last,
and one of the ablest replies to this fanciful hypothesis,
Mr. Hugh Miller shows that the oldest ganoids yet known
are, both as to size and organization, in direct opposition
to it. "Up to a certain point in the geologic scale we find
that the ganoids are not; and when they at length make
their appearance upon the stage, they enter large in their
stature and high in their organization."2 The Fossil Flora
also contradicts it. At the base of the Old Red Sandstone
where, according to the development theory, "nothing
higher than a lichen or a moss could have been expected,
the ship-carpenter might have hopefully taken axe in hand
to explore the woods for some such stately pine as the one
I Cowper.         2 Footprints, p. o05.
7




98          NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
described by Milton."' The stubborn facts of science thus
conflict with this baseless theory, a theory adopted before
ever geology had a place among the inductive sciences,
and which no eminent geologist is found to advocate. We
are warranted, then, with the author of the " Footprints," to
say: " Had an intelligent being, ignorant of'what was going
on upon earth during the week of creation, visited Eden
on the morning of the sixth day, he would have found in
it many of the inferior animals, but no trace of man. Had
he returned again in the evening, he would have seen,
installed in the office of keepers of the garden, and ruling
with no tyrant sway as the humble monarchs of its brute
inhabitants, two mature human creatures, perfect in their
organization, and arrived at the full stature of their race..
The entire evidence regarding them, in the absence of all
such information as that imparted to Adam by Milton's
angel, would amount simply to this, that in the morning
man weas not, and that in the evening he was. There, of
course, could not exist, in the circumstances, a single:
appearance to sanction the belief that the two human
creatures whom he saw walking together among the trees
at sunset, had been'developed from infusorial points,' not
created mature. The evidence would, on the contrary, lie
all the other way."2 Such is at once the evidence of
Scripture and geology. The " vestiges of the natural history of the creation" become the "footprints of the Creator," and vain becomes the attempt to explain the world's
genealogies so as to banish from it the Omnipotent Father
and Sovereign Lord.
In the domain of physical research, the "Cosmos" of
Humboldt, a work of considerable value and popularity,
bears on it the stamp of naturalism. Unlike the book on
which we have been animadverting, it propounds no theory
I Footprints, p. 120.   2 Ibid. p. o04.




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.   99
to account for the formation and peopling of the world,
though the author favors the nebular hypothesis, but gives,
what it professes to do, a physical description of the universe. It is more guilty by its omissions than by its assertions, though in some of these the naturalism is obvious
enough. It is the most striking illustration with which we
are acquainted of a work setting aside the doctrine of
Divine Providence by maintaining a studied silence respecting it, when the author, if a believer in the doctrine, would
have been naturally led by his subject to advert to it. It
is just as if one were to give a glowing description of the
pictures of Raphael without alluding to the genius of the
artist; just as if Addison and Macaulay, in their dissertations on the grand poem of "Paradise Lost," had never
mentioned Milton, "that mighty orb of song;" or, as has
been remarked,' just as if a critic were to give a correct
and eloquent account of the contents of " Cosmos " itself,
without referring to its illustrious author, and the mental
manifestation which he has made of himself in its pages.
Baron Humboldt, in this work, makes no reference to a
living omnipresent God.  He sinks the spiritual in the
material. He can, with much picturesque animation of
style, exhibit the phenomenal harmony of the heavens, and
describe his path from the remotest nebula to the minutest
organism, and ignore Him who is the source of all that life
and order.  We perused a considerable portion of this
interesting book while wandering on a lovely day of June
over a beautiful tract of country, and were struck with the
contrast between its repeated references to the active forces
of nature and no reference to nature's God, and the glorious volume of creation that lay open before us, every page
and line of which were radiant with the Creator's glory,
and spoke of his power, wisdom and goodness. We lifted
1 Dr. Harris' Man Primeval, p. 313.




100         NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
the eye frQm the page of the philosophic traveler to the
grand scenery above and around us, and involuntarily
asked, Is there, then, amid this magnificent spectacle of
earth and sky, no other power pervading and animating the
whole but physical forces? We wondered to what specific
cause it was to be attributed, that so keen and enthusiastic
an observer of natural phenomena could, "in the late
evening of an active life," present a sketch of a Physical
Description of the Universe, "whose undefined image had
floated before his mind for almost half a century," in which
no reference is made to the Eternal One, but in the outset
of which, as if to prevent disappointment, he uses such
language as the following: "In reflecting upon physical
phenomena and events, and tracing their causes by the
process of reason, we become more and more convinced of
the truth of the ancient doctrine, that the forces inherent
in matter, and those which govern the moral world, exercise
their action under the control of primordial necessity, and
in accordance with movements occurring periodically after
longer or shorter intervals."   The illustrious German,
after having traveled over a considerable portion of the
earth's surface, and made himself acquainted with all that
is at present known of the physical phenomena of the
universe, thus acknowledges, in the midst of his fourscore
years, no higher agency than inherent material forces acting
under the government of a primordial necessity. Divine
Providence is thus interdicted, and this goodly universe
moves onward, unfolding its forms of life and grandeur,
without the hand of Him that made it. This may consist
with Hegelianism, or with some other form of the transcendental philosophy, but it does not consist with the deeper
philosophy of man's inward nature. It might do if we had
heads and no hearts. The intellect may rest in it for a
1 Cosmos, vol. i, p. 30o.




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.  101
while, but the soul, with its capacities and cravings, cannot
repose there for a moment. Our very heart-strings must
be torn out, the emotional part of our nature must be overborne, and all our upward aspirations repressed, before we
can be satisfied with this thing of fate, this primordial
necessity, in the room of the living and ever-ruling God.
Even in an aesthetic view this method of philosophizing
stands condemned.  Robert Hall has truly said: "The
exclusion of a Supreme Being and of a superintending
Providence, tends directly to the destruction of moral
taste. It robs the universe of all finished and consummate
excellence, even in idea."
Combe's "Constitution of Man," a work of vastly wider
circulation, and more adapted to the masses of the people
than any to which we have referred, is, notwithstanding
much that is valuable in the book, notorious for its naturalism. Mr. Combe and his school are not satisfied with
discarding ignorant and superstitious notions about Providence, but their philosophy explodes the very idea of a
Providence who controls and orders all things, and without
whose permission not even a sparrow can fall to the ground.
We meet, in such writers, with much that is worthy of
attention respecting the influence of natural laws both on
physical health and mental and moral training, and the evil
consequences of disregarding or violating these laws. And
we are quite willing to admit with the author of the "Vestiges," that to Mr. Combe's Essay, among other publications, "may be ascribed no small share of that public
movement toward improved sanitary regulations which is
one of the most cheering features of our age."' But the
good in this respect is more than counter-balanced by the
evil of erecting the natural laws into a sort of independent
control, and holding out this principle as the true key to
1 Vestiges, p. 397, 5th ed.




102         NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
the government of the world.' It is a good service to rescue natural laws from the hands of ignorance and superstition, and to set forth their operations in a clear light. Mr.
Combe has, in some measure, done this. But evil is done
when these laws are taken, as it were out of the hand of
the superintending Lawgiver, when either a studied silence
about God as working in and by them is preserved, or intimations given that they are all in all, and that God does
not interfere with their operations. And Mr. Combe and
his school have done this.
It is the extreme of superstition or fanaticism, to repose
implicit faith in Divine Providence while neglecting or going counter to the clearly defined laws of the human constitution, or those which regulate the physical and moral
worlds. The type of such fanaticism is to be seen in the
man who expects, as it were, bread to drop from the clouds
into his mouth, or treasures to fall into his pockets from
the same source, while doggedly refusing to work. But it
is rushing to a godless extreme, the extreme of naturalism,
to rest in mere secondary agencies without rising upward
to Him who touches all the springs of action, or to ignore
his presence in and superintendence over the world. It is
confessedly mysterious how human instrumentality and
Divine agency blend in bringing about events. But the
mystery of things is not a whit lessened in cutting the link
that connects the two together, in virtually saying, Let us
loose our hold of the heavens above, and attach ourselves
exclusively to the earth and things therein. Is the world's
history, or is individual history, less mysterious, by shutting
out from the sphere of human things the Divine Providence, and leaving room for nothing but the operation of
natural laws? Or rather is not all history, by such an exclusion, made much more mysterious than ever? In the
1 Constitution of Man, p. 6. People's Edition (6th).




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.  103,one case, we have the human agency moving freely under
the moral control of the Divine, we have in full play the
elements of human action and piety, and yet mysterious
relations.  In the other case, we have only the human
agent and the physical and moral laws, we have excluded
the hand of God and taken away the elements of piety,
and still the relations are mysterious.  The choice then
lies between a mysterious world in which God is ever
present and ever felt, and a mysterious world that moves
onward in its glorious evolutions without his continued
agency. He is the better philosopher and the happier man
who prefers the former, and holds a key to things inscrutable which can never be solved by the man who chooses the
latter.
Mr. Combe sets up for a reformer, the advocate of a
philosophy which would turn the pulpits of our churches
and the chairs of our schools upside down.' Spiritual
religion must be supplanted "by teaching mankind the
philosophy of their own nature and of the world in which
they live. Human depravity is a doctrine which he cannot
away with, and it is set down to "an age when there was
no sound philosophy, and almost no knowledge of physical
science."'  That Christianity is "a system  of spiritual
influences, of internal operations on the soul," is the repre-sentation " of men who knew extremely little of the science
of either external nature or the human mind."' Prayer
has no power with God, but is merely reflex in its influence, affecting only the mind of the petitioner.' And death
is not,5 as Moses and Paul have written, and Milton sung,
the penal effect of man's first disobedience. Hence the
necessity, as he asserts, of the religious instructors of mankind being taught over again, and of "a new direction"
i Constitution of Man, pp. 99, Ioo.  2 Ibid. p. 4.  3 Ibid. p. 92.
4 Ibid. p. 95.       5 Ibid. p. 58.




104          NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
being given to their pursuits. He means modestly to
insinuate, that were it possible to summon such men as
Butler and Edwards, Howe and Charnock, Hall and Chal —
mers, "men who knew extremely little of the science of
either external nature or the human mind," back again to
this world, they would have to learn in his own school,
the philosophy of human nature and material things, in
order to prove, in this age, effectiveoinstructors of mankind!
Not to dwell, however, on the inconsistency of such state —
ments with facts, we readily grant that there is much in
them consistent with naturalism or the denial of Divine
providence. It is with such a denial that we have now to
do. If, as Mr. Combe asserts,' "supernatural agency has
long since ceased to interfere with human affairs," then it
were time that spiritual Christianity should give place to a
philosophy of nature, and that the worshipers of God were
asking what profit should we have if we pray to Him.2 But
if, as seems to be admitted, such an agency once interposed in the concerns of the world, why may not that
agency be there still, operating through the medium of
those natural laws which the school of Combe would exalt
into a sort of independent dominion?
There is a double illusion into which writers of this
class fall when speaking of natural phenomena. In the
first place, they represent the laws of nature, not, as they
really are, modes of the Divine procedure, but as if they
were real and independent existences.  And then they
suppose that because things happen according to fixed
laws, the Divine agency cannot be in them. This, viewed
merely as a philosophy, not to speak of its utter repugnance to Scripture, is extremely superficial.  Men, by
1 Constitution of Man, p. 99.
2 Cicero, speaking of the philosophers of this school —not the "magni atque
nobiles "-asks: " Quorum si vera sententia est, qua: potest esse pietas? qua sanctitas? qua: religio? "- De Nat. Deorum, lib. i.




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.  105'
knowing, and adapting themselves to, fixed laws can often
work out their own will. But this does not warrant the
conclusion that the Divine Lawgiver cannot or does not, in
such cases, make them subservient to the accomplishment.
of his higher will. An army, at the will of a monarch
bent on enlarged dominion, is marched into a foreign state;
or a voyage of discovery is made for mere commercial
ends. The designs of men in both instances are served.
But the accomplishment of a much higher design, to which
these inferior ones are rendered tributary, follows. The
gospel of peace enters into the respective territories, civilization comes in its train, and by the truth multitudes are
made free. God's will was thus paramount; and under his
moral control, the human will, acting by the fixed laws,
was made the pliant minister of the Divine. Take one
of Combe's own examples. In the reign of Charles the
Second, London was, in a great measure, depopulated by
the plague. "Most people of that age," says he,' " attributed the scourge to the inscrutable decrees of Providence,
and some to the magnitude of the nation's moral iniquities." But, according to his views, "there was nothing
inscrutable in its causes or objects. These appear to have
had no direct reference to the moral condition of the
people;" and the calamity " must have arisen from infringement of the organic lawzes, and have been intended to
enforce stricter obedience to them in future. Now we ask,
can disease or suffering not be an infringement of organic
laws, and also a dispensation of Providence? Mr. Combe
assumes that it cannot; and because an individual or a
community, neglectful of sanitary conditions, falls a victim
to plague, we are to believe that the natural violation
leaves no room for the Divine operation. This, however,
is nothing less than an assumption-an assumption, too,.
i Combe's Constitution of Man, p. 36.




106          NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
which fails to account for much of the afflictive, both in the
history of individuals and communities. The human or
secondary agencies do not exclude the Divine or first
agency, the natural laws by no means supersede the presence and interposition of the Lawgiver.  Mr. Morell,
speaking of these secondary agencies, justly remarks:
" They are all under the moral control of Deity from first
to last, so that the penalty, which seems at first to be simply the result of breaking a natural law, is really an effect
of that providential power which governs the world." And
what he says of the world's history, may be said of the
history of many a community and individual: "To the
man who looks unbelievingly upon Divine Providence, the
world's history is a problem that can never be solved."'
Combe's view of prayer,-bolstered up though it be by
such names as Lord Kames, Dr. Hugh Blair, and Professor
Leechman,2 men of no high authority, verily, in such matters,-stands condemned also as most unnatural, not to
say most unscriptural. It is, indeed, quite of a piece with
his philosophy, but it consists not with the deeper philosophy of the heart and the Bible. Men have never prayed
under the persuasion that the sole efficacy of prayer is
reflex, that it has an influence only upon the mind of the
worshiper. The wisest and best of the Greeks and Romans, the unsophisticated children of the desert, as well as
the most enlightened and devout Christians, have resorted
to prayer under the conviction that it is effectual to secure
blessings directly from above. The reflex influence of
prayer is valuable, but the value is realized just in proportion as the heart goes out after the direct influence. A
rational theory it truly is, which would thus make the value,of men's devotions to arise from men's illusions! The
1 Morell's History of Philosophy, vol. ii, p. 57I.
2 Combe's Constitution of Man, pp. 95, 96.




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.   107
reflex influence supposes the direct influence, and for men
to enjoy the former without faith in the latter, resembles,
as Isaac Taylor remarks,' " the supposition that we might
continue to enjoy the accommodation of moonlight, even
if the sun were blotted from the planetary system." As to
the stale objection, which is ever and anon brought forth,'
that the direct influence of prayer supposes that we can
alter the Divine determinations, it is sufficient to reply, that
it is according to these determinations that men must ask
in order to receive, and knock in order to the door being
opened. God discloses unto us the treasures of his grace,
and says, "I will yet for these be inquired of."
What is insidiously taught by such a writer as Combe,
has been advocated more boldly, and with less fear of
giving offense, by the Owen school. Rationalism is here
defined to be the science of material circumstances. And
the philosophy of Owenism ignores everything else. It,denounces other systems for having spiritualized man, and
it professes to look upon him, to all practical purposes, as
a material being. Humanity, in its estimation, contains
within itself the germs of indefinite moral improvement,
and needs only to be brought under the genial influences
of earth to ripen into perfection. Supernatural aid is
interdicted at the threshold, lest it should beget an indifference to self-exertion, and foster a habit of dependence.'The first and last lesson given to its disciples is, that men's
opinions and actions result exclusively from their original
susceptibilities, and the influences of the world around
them, over which they have no control. Hence its oft1 Spiritual Christianity, p. 5I.
2 Mr. R. W. Mackay, who, after the manner of Combe, confines "' the circle of
our real knowledge to phenomenal succession and its laws," with all the coolness of
the sensational school, serves up this oft-refuted objection. He falsely assumes that
prayer presupposes changeableness in God, and then settles the matter by telling us
that the Creator is not " to be diverted from his purposes by entreaty."- The Progress of the Intellect, vol. i, pp. 25, I09.




108         NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
repeated injunction, Study yourself and mind external
circumstances. This is the sum and substance of its commandments. It admits the existence of error and vice in
humanity, for these are too palpable to be denied, but it
charitably calls them misfortunes, and as a remedy for all
moral ills, insists on a rational education. The favorite
analogy of this system is derived from the influence which
the sun exerts upon the earth. This is at once the grand
image in its poetry, and the grand illustration of its philosophy. Human nature is compared to the earth, and external
influences to the sun which vivifies and adorns it. Rationalism says, Bring a man of good susceptibilities into a
favorable position as regards external circumstances, and
hence results a good character. This is the system ushered
forth with big pretensions, and propounded in innumerable little books and pamphlets, which is "to renovate the
social state, recast and elevate humanity!"
The crude elements of the system  have been found
floating on the surface of society in every age. Its modern
form may be said to have been cut by Rousseau and
French philosophy, and to have assumed a still more palpable shape in the hands of Owen and his followers. It
is gross naturalism, naked and not ashamed, and as such,
though now fast in the wane, it has been greeted by masses,
of the people who were disposed to throw off every species
of religion as an intolerable yoke. Such writers as the
author of the "Vestiges," do not more effectually exclude
Providence from the government of the spheres, and from
the whole domain of natural history, than do the disciples
of the "new moral world" shut out the idea of supernatural interference in educating man.  Rationalism  in
this form, and what is called communism, are often- associated, though they are by no means to be identified or
confounded. Its politics rise out of its philosophy. The




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.  109
great lesson of its philosophy is, External circumstances
are the agents of fate, look well to them. Its politics may
be summed up in ascribing demoralization and crime to
the factitious arrangements of society. It cries out, Alter
these, place society in a favorable position, educate man
aright, and then will be realized the new heavens and the
new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
Viewed merely as a system of philosophy, it is the shallowest that rationalism ever offered to the world. No one
denies the vast influence of external circumstances upon
the human character, and the importance of attending
to them. It will also be admitted that improved systems
of education, and altered arrangements in civil society,
would tend greatly to lessen crime, and ameliorate the condition of man. But to rest the world's regeneration on
these alone, exposes the system to the charge of being onesided and empirical, as unphilosophical as it is ungodly.
It takes up one idea, an important and a true one, but, to
the neglect of other ideas no less true and important, this
is exalted, carried everywhere forth, and all men and things
are called to fall down and worship it. Material circumstances are something, but the school of Owen makes them
everything. The human will is no doubt influenced by
them, but our rationalists maintain, in opposition to consciousness, that it is controlled by them. Man is made a
passive creature.  This is plainly implied in the fond
analogy of the sun acting upon the earth. Emerson has
said,' " Man is here, not to work, but to be worked upon."
And the men of this school tell us that our characters are
the necessary result of our organization at birth, and subsequent external influences over which we have no control.
"'The germs of intelligence and virtue are expanded or
blasted by them," and thus the whole human character is
I Representative Men, p. 92, Bohn's edition.




110         NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
formed. It is not so. Our subjective constitution is not
such an inert, helpless thing. We are conscious of possessing a faculty which gives us control over external circumstances; so that, taking this into account, it is true that
character is the result of our subjective nature, and of the
objective influences acting upon it. But, in this system
of naturalism, the great facts of man's moral nature are
ignored. One portion of the field of phenomena is dwelt
upon as if it were the whole, and the other portion, which
to a reflective mind is no less obvious, is overlooked. The
eye is turned outward and lost in material things. It does
not direct its glance down into the depths of human consciousness, and fails to perceive the more wondrous things
of the spirit. A sense of responsibility and moral sentiment are great truths in the natural history of man. They
are phenomena just as palpable to the eye that looks inward, as any of the material circumstances are to the eye
that looks outward.  But the Owen school either loses
sight of these phenomena in human nature, or would assign them to a blind necessity, a source from which the
unsophisticated mind refuses to receive them. Then there
is the stubborn, though mysterious fact of human depravity, which it either winks at.or entirely overlooks, and
for counteracting which it accordingly makes no provision. The wonder is how the abettors of such a system
can read history, or look upon the world around them,
without perceiving, on the one hand, how individuals and
communities, placed amid the most favorable external circumstances, have continued corrupt and corrupters; and
how, on the other hand, persons more unfavorably situated
have, notwithstanding, become exemplars of virtue.  4
theory that ascribes so much to the mere outward relations, and leaves no room for an influence counteractive
of bad ones or efficacious to good ones, is condemned by




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT. 111
experience as well as by religion. But perhaps its advocates would remove it from such a tribunal by affirming
that no community has ever yet been placed in such a
paradisiacal state as rationalism would place it. In such
a case, it must bear the double stigma of being godless
and utopian.
Hitherto we have viewed naturalism as broadly manifested in some works on physical and moral science, and
now we have to notice its appearance in the department
of Bible theology. Germany, in this respect, though not
exclusively its seat, has attained a bad preeminence.
Thousands of men, professing to be Christ's ministers and
expounders of his Word, have, during the last half-century
or more, propounded from the halls and pulpits of Germany a creed which no more admits of supernatural influence than any of the philosophical systems to which we
have adverted. In their teaching, God is as effectually
excluded from the province of the Bible, as in the "Vestiges" and similar works He is excluded from the solar
system.  The brilliant and beneficent miracles which
ushered in the Gospel dispensation are exploded, or explained away on purely natural principles. And what is
properly meant by Divine influence is denied a place either
in the mode of inspiring the sacred writers, or in the mode
of enlightening and renewing the minds of the readers.
Spinoza, whose philosophy has exerted such a mighty influence on the thinking of Germany, had said, "All that is
recorded in the books of revelation took place in conformity with the established laws of the universe." On this,
principle, interpretation after interpretation has been given,
until the sacred record has been swept as clear of its
mighty signs and wonders, as some would sweep the starry
firmament of the evidences of an ever-present and all-controlling God. In Germany, speculative philosophy and




112         NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
theological doctrine are more closely linked together than
in any other country in Europe. The pervading principle
of its speculative philosophy, that God never intervenes
specially, but that all things move on in a chain of necessary development, has been carried into the region of its
theology.  Hence the axiom, laid down at the threshold,
"miracles are an impossibility."  The very first principle
which Strauss brings to the study of the evangelists is, that
when the events narrated are incompatible with known and
universal laws, it must be maintained that they did not
happen in the manner recorded.  Divine Providence is
thus interdicted at the onset.
We have been accustomed to consider Christianity as a
second creation, and to conceive that as the first creation
took place by a special intervention of Divine Power, so
did the second. The philosophy of the rationalist will not
admit this, and therefore his theology must be shaped so as
to exclude it. The first miracle in Christianity is the birth
and manifestation of the Savior. This cannot be a true
literal history, says the rationalist, for it is incompatible
with the laws that regulate the succession of events. The
miraculous texture of the gospel narrative may be admitted,
but the wonders recorded must be accounted for in accordance with the assumed principle that there is no supernatural intervention in the world's history.  Hence the
theory, formerly adverted to,' that Christ did not make the
church, but the church made Him. He is represented as
a pious Israelite, educated in the bosom of a pious family
in Nazareth, who endeavored to realize in Himself the
Messianic conceptions that prevailed among the people.
He believed Himself to be the Messiah of promise; the
Jews, in process of time, transferred their conceptions to
Him, and recognized Him as the expected deliverer.
I Chapter II, p. 55.




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.   113
Thus, out of the existing Messianic notions, and the impression which Jesus made by his personal qualities and
actions, does rationalism derive the first miracle of Christianity-'the birth, incarnation, and appearing of the Son
of God.  The great mystery of godliness having been thus
stripped of its grandeur, and made to assume the shape of
a natural event, the whole train of mighty works wrought
by Christ and his apostles must undergo a similar denuding
process. Rationalism admits that, according to the concel)tions then prevalent among the Jews, the Messiah was
to be a worker of miracles; and it infers that, in consequence of these conceptions, they ascribed to Him the
power of performing them. "The chain of endless causation," says Strauss, "can never be broken, and a miracle is
an impossibility."  They must be resolved, therefore, into
purely natural principles.'
The earlier school of rationalists, which took hold of
Spinoza's principle, endeavored to show that the gospels
were not miraculous in their texture, that the writers never
intended to assert miracle, and that the events recorded
were simple facts magnified by the impression which they
made on the senses, or exaggerated by the false coloring of
copyists and others. This school of rationalism has wellnigh become obsolete. It was too materialistic for the
ideal tendencies of Germany.  Strauss assailed  it.  He
declares in that misnomer, the " Leben Jesu," "that it was
time to substitute a new method of considering the history
of Jesus for the worn-out idea of a supernatural intervention and a naturalist explanation." He is, however, but a
naturalist in another shape. He admits the gospels to be
miraculous narratives.  And  in this admission there is
1 It may be here noticed that the " Progress of the Intellect " goes on the pantheistic assumption that a miracle is God at variance with Himself; and then,
taking a leaf out of Strauss, accounts for the development of a supernatural Messiah.
See vol. i, p. 20. and vol ii, chap. 8.
8




114          NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
assuredly no more virtue than in the recognition, on a clear
frosty night, of the stars that shine out of the depths of
the blue sky. Miracles, as Dr. Newman has well said,'
"form the substance and groundwork of the narrative, and,
like the figure of Phidias on Minerva's shield, cannot be
erased without spoiling the entire composition."  But,
while admitting the gospels to be supernatural in their
texture, or to have miracles interwoven with them, he aims
to show that they nevertheless originated without an historical foundation; as if the stars of night were mere
mental illusions, and the form of Phidias on the shield a
fiction, not a reality. His fundamental position is a naturalist one: " miracles are not, and never were." Every
narrative that surpasses the ordinary course of events
proves itself not to be historically true. The allegory, the
legend, the myth, must explain all the bright and beneficent miracles that astonished the Jews before whom they
were wrought, and that have drawn forth the homage of
the church in every age. The naturalism of Strauss and
his followers may differ in some features from that of
Paulus and the older rationalists, but it is sheer naturalism
still.2
Is the feeding of five thousand men with five loaves
and two small fishes to be accounted for? This has generally been regarded as one of the most striking manifestations of the divine power of Christ, and so great was the
impression produced on the multitude, who witnessed it,
that they cried, "This is of a truth that Prophet that
should come into the world.' But, according to our rationalist, this great miracle dwindles down to the event of
Christ having had such an influence over the minds of
men, as that the more wealthy in the crowd, who were well
X Newman's Dissertation on Miracles, Encyclop. Metrop.
2 See Dr. Beard's Voices of the Church, p. 35.




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.  115
supplied with provisions, were constrained to distribute of
their abundance to the destitute multitudes; or it may be
regarded as a copy of the story of the manna in the desert.
The calming of the storm on the sea of Galilee is another
of those mighty works that have strikingly displayed the
supernatural power of the Savior. It led the observers in
wonder and awe to exclaim, "What manner of man is this,
that even the winds and the sea obey him!" Rationalism,
however, has the explanation at hand. Jesus, by his calm
and dignified demeanor, tranquilized the troubled minds of
his disciples. By a happy coincidence, the raging elements of nature at the same time became still. And the
event was thus magnified into the miraculous. In short, is
it the most magnificent of all miracles, the resurrection of
Christ, that is to be accounted for? The rationalist acknowledges that the surprising revolution in the minds of
the disciples, from the deep despair into which they had
sunk at the death of Jesus, to the fearless energy with
which they shortly afterwards pleaded his cause, shows
that during the interval something extraordinary had happened. What that something was, the gospel narratives tell
us —the miraculous resurrection of Christ, which powerfully declared Him to be the Son of God. But naturalism
admits no miracle.  Strauss says, the return of a dead
person to life is impossible. And the change which took
place in the minds of the disciples is resolved intovisions,
and these visions are resolved into their own excited feelings. The most stupendous events in the world's history
are thus made to vanish before a naturalist explanation.'
And Strauss coolly and remorselessly looks on, as the
bright train of beneficent and mighty deeds, which have
drawn forth men's faith and reverence, disappear. No
wonder that the German mind, on reflecting, drew back
I See Tholuck, in Dr. Beard, p. I5I.




116         NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
from, or refused assent to, such critical principles as these,
inasmuch as they were seen to uproot all our hold upon the
past, and to involve all history in a mythical illusion.
Pantheism and naturalism may be said to meet in this
theory, which we denounce as one of the most unphilosophical that was ever attempted to be imposed upon the
world. Its dogged adherence, in spite of all evidence, to
the position that miracles are impossible, is consistent
only with absolute atheism or pantheism. Men who adopt,
as a fundamental principle, the impossibility of supernatural intervention, must either deny that God is, or
deprive Him  of his personality.  Strauss, as we have
already noticed, is a pantheist in the extreme. He stands
at that point where atheism and pantheism face each other,
and shake hands. And just as one impiety naturally follows another, does his theory of Christianity arise out of
his other infidel views. But admit the existence of a first
Intelligent Cause, the Creator of heaven and earth, the
living God, — a necessary truth granted by all sound reasoners -and where is the rationality in denying that He
either does or can interpose in the system of things which
He has established?  Reasoning a priori, and in accordance with a pure theism, we would have been led to conclude that He who made the worlds would continue to
govern them, and that, for great and special ends, He
would interpose in a special and extraordinary manner.
Whether He has done so or not must be decided on the
broad ground of evidence. The axiom of Strauss contravenes the very foundation principles of the inductive philosophy. A miracle is neither impossible nor incredible,
on the supposition of a God.
Miracles are supernatural facts, things which bespeak
the intervention of a cause superior to and having a supreme control over all natural causes. It matters not, in




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT. 117
our present argument, whether we strictly define them as
lying beyond the sphere of natural laws, or as involving the
idea of suspension of or opposition to these laws. In either
case we demand the interposition of God. To raise a dead
man to life, or to walk upon the sea, may be viewed either
as above the range of the established laws of nature, or as
directly contrary to them; but, on either supposition, the
operation is divine. The latter point of view is commonly,
though not universally, taken by evangelical men in our
country; the former is the stand-point of distinguished
Christian divines on the Continent. Strauss and his school
lay down the position that nature is but a development of
God. He says the chain of endless causation cannot be
broken; and taking the common idea of miracles, as violations or suspensions of natural laws, he declares a miracle
to be impossible. Neander, Mtuller, D'Aubigne, and other
Continental divines, without conceding anything to the
rationalists, oppose them, by maintaining that miraculous
phenomena lie beyond the sphere of those laws, and are
not violations of them. And in this theory they are joined
by some of our own eminent evangelical writers, such as
Trench, Vaughan, Westcott, and the author of "The Restoration of Belief."' The idea of supernatural intervention is prominent, however, in either view, and that is not
to be tolerated by naturalism. Miracles may be perfectly
natural, viewed in reference to a higher world, but they are
supernatural viewed in reference to this.  "At the establishment of Christianity," says D'Aubigne, "the superior
world acted upon the inferior world, conformably to the
laws which are peculiar to it, a miracle is nothing more
than this."2 Be the miracle contrary to, or lying beyond,
the subordinate laws of physical nature, it is doubtless in
conformity with the moral and supreme law of the universe.
I See Tholuck, in Dr. Beard, p. 232.  2 The Miracles; or, Two Errors.




118               NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL'' God, therefore," says Gioberti, " far from disturbing universal harmony, maintains it, by interrupting the course of
physical forces in certain determinate cases, and for a most
wise end."'
Hume and the older deists said a miracle is incredible.
Strauss and the modern rationalists affirm a miracle to be
impossible. Hume's fallacy, as has often been shown, lay
in confounding two distinct experiences, the uniform experience of the individual and the uniform experience of
mankind viewed as a whole. He reasoned as if his own
experience embraced a knowledge of all causes, and as if
his knowledge of the power of all causes was so complete
that he was warranted to say, There is not a cause able or
willing to work miracles. His own uniform experience, as
an individual, bore testimony to the constancy of the laws
of nature. And the fallacy consisted in exalting that experience into the experience of the human race. In short,
the argument is based upon a gross assumption. By it he
arrogates to himself a knowledge which no finite intelligence can possess. The argument fails also in the principle on which it would set aside the testimony of witnesses
adduced to prove a miracle. Hume reasons thus: there
1 Dr. Wardlaw, in his recent able work " On Miracles," advocates what may be
called the old view, and offers some strictures on Drs. Vaughan and Beard and Mr.
Trench, who contend that miracles are not " contra naturam, but traeler naturam,
and supra naturam."  And yet he says of the miraculous event, "it does not to me
seem very material whether we speak of it as beyond nature, or above nature, or
beside nature, or against nature, or contrary to nature, —whether as a suspension,
an interruption, a contravention, or a violation of nature's laws; provided we are
understanding' nature and nature's laws' as having reference to the physical economy of our own system."- (P. 31.) This, we presume, is just their understanding
when, according to Mr. Westcott, they say,' that there is nothing in miracles contrary to nature, while all is above nature; that the laws of existences around us are
not broken, but resolved into higher laws." —Gospel Harmlony, p. 17. We are
disposed to regard this discussion as not " much more than a logomachy," for the
great idea of supernatural intervention is unaffected by it. At the same time, the
"above and beyond nature " view seems the more advantageous one in cutting away
the ground from beneath the German anti-miracle school.




OF''HE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT. 119
are two testimonies in the case - the testimony of uniform
experience in affirming the constancy of the laws of nature,
and the testimony of witnesses in favor of a miracle or deviation from these ordinary laws. No number of witnesses
for the miracle can equal the evidence for the constancy of
nature. It is more probable that the witnesses should have
been deceived, however apparently strong their testimony,
-than that the laws of nature should have been departed
from. Thus all miracles are denied, without any regard to
the kind or quality of proof by which they are supported.'The rationalist intrenches himself behind the position of
the incredibility or impossibility of miracles, and levels to
the ground the whole structure of Christianity. Now, it is.sufficient to say to this, that, in the ordinary concerns of
life, we value testimony rather for its quality than for its
quantity.  If a few witnesses of known veracity attest an,extraordinary occurrence, we confide in their testimony as
naturally as we do in the testimony of thousands of persons who had previously deposed to the ordinary course of
events. On the very same principle, then, we should, as
has been satisfactorily argued, credit testimony unexceptionable in its quality when it is adduced not only in proof
of the extraordinary, but when it carries us a step higher
-to the supernatural or miraculous. Well-attested miracles can consistently be denied only on atheistical, or,
what in this case amounts to the same thing, pantheistical
principles. Once admit the existence of a Personal God,
Himself uncaused and the cause of all, and you cannot
rationally deny that He may interpose in the concerns of
the universe. Grant that the Almighty intervened in calling
into existence the first creation, and you cannot reasonably
withhold your assent, that, if evidence in support of it
exist, He may have intervened in originating Christianity,
the second creation. The rationalist who, in the face of




120          NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
all evidence, takes up the position that miracles are impossible, must be driven back to another position — viz., the
non-existence of a Being who can perform supernatural
works. Strauss in maintaining the impossibility of miracles,
as well as Hume in asserting their incredibility, has been
flagrantly guilty of a pelitio _princzjpii- a begging of the
question.  It is nothing more than his ipse dixit.  The
world has had more than enough of this philosophy, falsely
so called, which would supersede all investigation into the
testimony for miracles by proclaiming it as an axiom that
miracles are impossible, or that no evidence can substantiate them. It is alike opposed to the cautious philosophy
of Bacon, and to the facts and principles of Holy Scripture. It is the taking of a one-sided, and consequently a
very erroneous view of God's universe. The moral system
is ignored, a system as real and palpable as the physical,
though immeasurably superior to it. And the remark is as
applicable to the men of the Strauss school as to the men of
the Hume school: their antecedent objections against
miracles " will be found nearly all to arise from forgetfulness of the existence of moral laws. In their zeal to perfect the laws of matter, they most unphilosophically overlook a more sublime system, which contains disclosures not
only of the Being but of the Will of God."'
But Scripture itself, under the system of naturalism, is,
as a whole, disrobed of its glory. The special interposition of God in inspiring the sacred writers, is as much
excluded as his interposition in working the Bible miracles.
And, if the mighty deeds recorded sink down to the level
of common events, why should not the Holy Book itself
descend to the level of a common treatise? John Foster
has said: "Surely, it is fair to believe that those who
received from heaven superhuman power, received likewise
1 Newman's Dissertation, Encyclop. Metrop.




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT. 121
superhuman wisdom. Having rung the great bell of the
universe, the sermon to follow must be extraordinary."
Naturalism, having denied the superhuman power, consistently with its own principles, denies the superhuman wisdom. The bell, according to it, was nothing uncommon,
and the sermon that followed was nothing transcendent.
The denial of the miracles has, in fact, led to the denial
of the inspiration. It must be admitted that the Bible
records miracles. It must be admitted also that the Bible
claims special inspiration. Naturalism cannot admit the
miracles, and consequently it cannot concede that the
prophets and apostles, holy men of God, spake as they
were moved by the Holy Ghost. De Wette and others
attacked the Old Testament, and Strauss has made a similar onslaught on the New, from the same naturalist position.
The books must be treated as spurious, because they narrate predictions and miracles, things which naturalism
cannot away with. We find, accordingly, in the writings
of the old English deists, in the Wolfenbtittel Fragments,
and in a succession of such like productions, down to that
paragon of honest book-writing-" Phases of Faith"a heap of apparent contradictions raked together from all
quarters, the fruit of a shallow criticism and an irreligious
spirit, in order to falsify the Book which claims to have
been given by inspiration of God. Hatred of the supernatural, which is interwoven with every page of Scripture,
has led to the various disingenuous attempts to depreciate
the testimony of the inspired writers. It is related that a
Swedish traveler, in looking through the library of Voltaire,
found Calmet's Commentary with slips of paper inserted,
on which were written the difficulties noticed by Calmet,
without the slightest reference to the solutions given by the
commentator. The Swede, who, in other respects, admired
the brilliant Frenchman, denounced this conduct as dishon



122          NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
orable.  And yet, as Hengstenberg remarks,' our modern
rationalist critics have acted in a similar manner. Theodore Parker, Francis William Newman, and Robert William
Mackay,2 who make no secret of the Gamaliels at whose
feet they have been sitting, serve up the often-refuted
objections against the infallibility of the sacred writers, as
if they were a fresh course, and then, on the assumption
of their gross mistakes and contradictions, conclude against
their miraculous inspiration.
The age in which we live is universal in its tendencies.
It must have all things in common. The mind has become
intolerant of monopolies. And not a few writers in our
own and other lands are laboring to bring the Bible down
from its proud pre-eminence, stripping it of its solitary
grandeur, and allowing it no other inspiration than that
which is common to men. The controversy may be said
to have shifted its ground, or to present a new phasis, in
consequence of a new philosophic influence.  Formerly,
our Christian apologists had to contend for the very element of inspiration in the sacred books, as they had to
contend for the miraculous texture of the gospel narratives; now, we have to strive for their special claim to the
Divine inbreathing, against those who would merge them
in an influence common as the light or air of heaven.
Thus Mr. Parker,3 speaking after the Emerson fashion, tells
us, " inspiration, like God's omnipresence, is not limited to
the few writers claimed by the Jews, Christians, or Mahometans, but it is co-extensive with the race."  Minos and
Moses, David and Pindar, Leibnitz and Paul, Newton and
Simon Peter, "receive into their various forms the one
spirit from God most high." Yea, " this inspiration is lim1 Hengstenberg on the Pentateuch, vol. i, p. 472 See Parker's Discourses, Newman's Phases of Faith, and Mackay's Progress of
the Intellect, AtZssiJz.
3 Parker's Discourse, pp. I6i-17I.




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT. 123
ited to no sect, age or nation.  It is wide as the world, and
common as God." The Bible thus ceases to be the law
and the testimony, the only infallible directory of faith and
morals, and men may turn it into myths and legends, receive or reject it, as they please. But this attempt to confound inspiration and omnipresence goes on the assumption
that as God is present everywhere, He cannot be specially
present anywhere; that as he may be said to exert a common influence on the minds of all men, He cannot be
said to exert a supernatural influence on the minds of a
chosen number of men. An assumption of the same nature
and philosophic value as that of Strauss —miracles are
impossible.
The Bible comes to us claiming to have been given by
miraculous inspiration of God —an inspiration separated
by an impassable gulf from that of mere genius  and, in
support of its claims, presents a large amount of clear and
strong evidence. There is an impregnable external testimony encircling it "as the mountains are round about
Jerusalem," and, on its pages, the finger of God is not less
clearly manifested than on the starry heavens. This Book:stands above and apart from the sublimest effusions of
human genius, revealing truths bearing on man's highest
interests and lying beyond the sphere where science and
genius make their discoveries —having a history quite unparalleled and miraculous — and producing on individuals
and communities such radical and beneficent changes of
heart and life, as no other book in the world has effected.
It professes to have received its grand revelations directly
from above, and to have transmitted them under such infallible guidance as entitles it to be regarded as the oracle of
God. We meddle not with the question of degrees of inspiration. We advocate no theory of mechanical dictation.
It is enough, but not more than enough, that we hold a




124          NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
special influence ranging from the highest point, or direct
revelation, down to the lowest limit, or superintendence as
a guard against error. We take the fact as it stands- all
Scripture is given by inspiration of God. The mode does
not trouble us. Scripture, in its rich diversity of style,
evinces free mental action on the part of the sacred writers,
while it asserts that action to have been under the infallible
guidance of the Divine Spirit. The plenary inspiration we
hold in perfect consistency with the human peculiarities.
Our position "presupposes that the same providential
power which gave the message selected the messenger, and
implies that the traits of individual character and the peculiarities of manner and purpose which are displayed in the
composition and language of the sacred writings, are essential to the perfect exhibition of their meaning.... It
preserves absolute truthfulness with perfect humanity, so
that the nature of man is not neutralized, if we may thus
speak, by the Divine agency, and the truth of God is not
modified, but exactly expressed in one of its several aspects,
by the individual mind. Each element performs its perfect
work, and in religion, as well as in philosophy, we find a
glorious reality based upon a true antithesis."' This is the
Bible claim. And if this be not conceded on the ground
of the internal and external evidence, then the Bible, in its
structure, in its characteristic truths, in the simplicity and
majesty of its style, in its matchless character of Christ, in
its influence on and present position in the world —is a.greater miracle than the miraculous inspiration which
naturalism would set aside. Discrepancies we admit, such
discrepancies as might have been expected to result from
the transmission of a book through so many hands, languages and ages, unless shielded so miraculously at every
point that the finger of no copyist could inadvertently have
1 Westcott's Elements of the Gospel Harmony, pp. 9, io.




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT. 125
introduced a wrong date or omitted a letter. But what is
the chaff to the wheat? A large number of discrepancies,
on which infidel objections were grounded, have vanished
before the application of a true and searching criticism, and
we anticipate that the residue will be still further diminished till it shall be accounted as nothing. There is no
discrepancy in regard to the substantial contents of Christianity, and to found an argument against the miraculous
inspiration of Scripture on a few unresolved variances, is
no less irrational than to argue against the perfections of
God because of some conflicting natural phenomena.' The
Bible, in its disclosures, history and  position, is as unaccountable without the admission of special inspiration, as
the world and the fullness thereof without the creating and
upholding hand of God.2
The position  taken  up by Mr. Morell on this question,
however stoutly.he, in other respects, denounces rationalism, is little better than a rationalist one. He indeed
admits supernatural agency, but it is a mere vivifying
operation, a heightening or clearing of the power of intuition, not generically different from the inspirations of
genius or the spiritual elevation common to Christians.
"Inspiration," according  to him, "depends upon the clearness, force and accuracy of a man's religious intuitions.3... It does not involve any form of intelligence essentially
different from  what we already possess.'... It is a higher
1 Butler's Analogy, p. 8. (Dublin, i849.)
2 We make no use of the fieitioprinci;bzii in the above remarks. We do not
say to our opponents, The Scriptures are inspired, and therefore their statements
must be true. But we ground an argument for their inspiration on their internal
structure and external position. The author of " The Restoration of Belief" ob-.serves, "We are often told that we timidly hold up this' Inspiration' as a screen,
lest the documents of our faith should come to be dealt with severely, in the mode
that is proper to historic criticism." With him we say, "Only let this Historic
Severity take its free course, and Disbelief will be driven from its last standingplace.... It would wither like the grass of the tropics."-P. I27.
3 Morell's Philosophy of Religion, p. I76.       4 Ibid. p. I5I.




126          NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
potency of a certain form  of consciousness, which every
man to some degree possesses.'  Indeed, if his theory be
true, inspiration is not only a much less extraordinary thing
than the church has imagined, but there is nothing to hinder
it taking place again, and a supplement being made to the
volume of revelation. Let the religious consciousness be
elevated, the moral nature purified, and the power of spiritual vision increased, and, as he asks, what do we require
more in inspiration? He denies that any special Divine
commission to write was given to the sacred penmen, " that
each book came forth with a specific impress of Deity upon
it," — or that the providence of God watched over the
composition and construction of the Bible in any other
sense than Providence superintends every event bearing
upon the welfare of man.3 The inspired Word, with him,
is just a transcript of the religious consciousness of the
writers, a representation of "the bright impressions of
apostolic men," —the result of "the Divine light which
was granted to the age, and to the mind of the author - a
gift which he was left to make use of as necessity or propriety might suggest."4   He thus cuts up infallibility by
the root, that error which, he and Mr. Newman hold, has
been introduced into the idea of inspiration. And then he
thinks that, without irreverence,5 he can speak of misstatements made by the evangelists, and of false reasoning in
Paul, the most logical of the apostles.
It is the strangest part of this unsatisfactory theory,
that inspiration cannot apply to processes of reasoning,
that "it can neither give any certitude, nor guard against
any errors which an accurate thinker could not detect for
himself." 6  He confounds logic as an instrument with the
understanding that employs it, when he speaks of inspired
Morell's Philosophy of Religion, p. I66.  2 Ibid. p. i6o.  3 Ibid. p. I83.
4 Ibid. p. i6I.  5 Ibid. p. I73-  6 Ibid. p. I74.




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.  127
logic as an absurdity. Let us suppose a reasoner so accurate that he errs only once in a hundred times. That one
error, however, may have been very important. What
impossibility is there in the supposition of a supernatural
influence carrying up the mind from general to universal
accuracy —as effectually excluding error from the hundredth process as it had been excluded up to the ninetyninth? God, assuredly, can suggest a train of reasoning
to the mind of an individual, and control that mind so as to
lead it to a right conclusion, and extend that control over
the writer so as to enable him to convey to others both the
process and the result in terms free from error. This, we
maintain, has been done in the case of Paul. In this there
is no absurdity. Without this we have no security that
Scripture is inspired of God.
All the inspiration which Mr. Morell allows is restricted
to brightening and elevating the intuitional faculty so as to
render it receptive of truth. He leaves the whole afterprocess, involved in giving a formal expression to the intuitions, to the natural working of the human faculties; and
denounces the idea of Scripture being written under the
special direction of the Spirit as a pernicious and indefensible dogma. This we regard as nothing less than an
attempt to strip Scripture of its supernatural character.
Inspiration is denied to the written word, contrary to its
own claims, and it is attributed exclusively to a certain
form of man's own consciousness. The Bible, in this case,
is not God's word, but man's. The writers may have seen
visions, and had the truth revealed in their minds, but we
have no security that they have been kept from error in
recording what they received, or that they have conveyed
the truth purely to us. The idea that they had no special
commission to write and no special guidance in writing,
does not harmonize with the solemn announcement with




1283         NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
which they often begin their oracles, "Thus saith the
Lord," or with the statements, " Holy men of God spake
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," and "All Scripture
is given by inspiration of God." The elevation of the
religious consciousness, by special and extraordinary agencies, may account for the divine conceptions of the sacred
penmen. But, without a continued supernatural agency,
under which the minds of the writers were allowed to
develop their characteristic peculiarities, it is difficult to
account for the structure of the books, the "halo of Divine
glory" in which these conceptions are expressed. The
internal evidence shows, that in the work of composition,
the hand of the Lord was with them.
Mr. Morell fails to substantiate the old charges adduced
to weaken that evidence. He urges' the imperfect morality
of the Old Testament, as if the word of God necessarily
implied approval of all that it records. He urges 2 discrepancies between some of the Scriptural statements and
scientific truth, as if the Book of Genesis pretended to give
a scientific account of the creation, or as if it were in open
conflict with the result of geological research. He charges
Paul with errors in reasoning, without specifying a single
instance; and Peter with arguing perversely about the circumcision, whereas everybody knows that Peter only acted
against his own conviction.3  In this way he backs his assertions that it would not be very reverent to suppose the
Spirit of God had anything to do with such statements, and
that the writers of them were left to the influence of the
imperfect religious, moral and scientific ideas of their times.
These are things much more easily said than proven. The
only discrepancies on which objections against plenary
inspiration can be raised are but as the small dust in the
balance, compared with the weight of proof that the book
1 Morell's Philosophy of Religion, p. I67.  2 Ibid. p. 170.  3 Ibid. p. x76.




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.  129
is, what it claims to be, the word of God. Even that small
dust, we are warranted from the past to believe, will become yet smaller, and may ultimately vanish away. Mr.
Morell's theory of inspiration may naturally result from his
own philosophical principles, but it explains nothing, is at
variance with palpable evidence, at open conflict with Scriptural claim, makes room for the most latitudinarian interpretations, and, if brought to bear upon the progress of the
church, would be long in ushering in the brighter day of
which he speaks, when the Gospel would come to us, not in
word only, but in demonstration of the spirit and in power.
Our investigation into naturalism has led us from the
point where Divine Providence is ignored in sustaining
and garnishing the material universe, to the point where
his presence is excluded from the Bible - his holy temple.
We might have passed on to notice the denial of Divine
influence in regenerating the souls of men. But this will
find a place in the next chapter, when speaking of the denial of the Divine redemption. We have tracked the rationalistic spirit up to the very shrine of the holy oracle, and
found it there lurking under the Christian name and professing adherence to the Christian faith. Between the two
points there is doubtless a gulf, but it is not an impassable
one. The man who excludes miraculous inspiration from
the Bible, may admit supernatural agency in the heavens
and the earth, and even in giving birth to Christianity; but
in that exclusion he occupies a naturalist position. On
reviewing our track, then, we see that, in physical science,
naturalism has given rise to the mechanical theory of the
universe; in moral philosophy it has led men to attach an
exclusive importance to external circumstances as influencing human conduct; and in theology, it has banished the
supernatural from the sphere of Christianity, so as to
account for its origin and influence on ordinary principles,
9




130         NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
or has left but partial room for its operation. With a few
summary remarks upon the theory as a whole, we shall
close our notice of it.
I. T/he idea of an entirely self-sustaining universe is based
upon a false analogy. The regularity of nature's operations
may have given rise in some minds to the opinion. And
not a few of its abettors may maintain, that it is a more
exalted conception of God to represent the multiplicity of
effects which take place in nature as the result of a single
original act of his power, than to conceive of Him as ever
interposing in the affairs of the world. Order is the law of
heaven. The very regularity which is adduced to favor the
mechanical theory, is adduced more justly in proof of the
Divine presiding agency. And it is surely more exalting
to God to view the universe as directly dependent on his
arm, and ever pervaded by his presence, than to compliment him out of it by attributing to it a self-sustained
action. The falseness of the analogy, however, is obvious.
The movements in a piece of mechanism do not, properly
speaking, originate with the mechanist. He only employs
pre-existing forces, such as gravity, elasticity, cohesion and
repulsion. Now, these powers are the very things to be
accounted for in the theory which likens the universe to
a machine.' In a piece of human mechanism, we can
account for these properties irrespective altogether of the
workman. They were there before he existed, and they
continue after he is gone. But that the universe, after
having been constructed and set in motion by the
Almighty, has continued to revolve and develop itself
ever since, without his providential agency, is a theory
that is unsupported by any analogy whatever. And, in
the absence of all true analogy, it is more rational to view
the creation as always directly dependent on the Creator,
1 Dugald Stewart.




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.  131
than to view it as self-sustained. In fact, it is as easy to
conceive of a self-originated world as of a self-subsisting
world. The thing is an impossibility. Dr. Harris says,'
"The reasoning which compliments God out of the material universe not unfrequently ends in excluding Him
from the Throne of his moral government." May it not
be said that the one is done for the sake of the other?
2. This theory, as it is often advocated, is chargeable
with/ anthropomorphism,   While professing to exalt God, it
virtually degrades Him. It thinks of Him as if He were
such an one as ourselves. The piece of human mechanism
saves the labor of the artist. He can set it in motion and
go his way. And the machine is considered to be more
ingenious and complete, the more that it dispenses with the
interposition of the constructor. But to reason in a similar manner regarding the Almighty and his works, is to
ascribe unto Him the limitations and imperfections of the
human faculties. His presence in one part of his dominions does not imply his absence elsewhere. An infidel
philosophy has often, by the anthropomorphism of its
reasoning, endeavored, with a feigned homage, to exclude
the Eternal from the management of the universe. This
was involved in the astronomical objection against Christianity, which has been so eloquently repelled by Dr.
Chalmers in his "Astronomical Discourses." The modern
astronomy has wonderfully enlarged our conceptions of the
magnitude and extent of the material universe, and shown
that this earth occupies but a small place in the vast creation. Philosophical infidels urged that our world, being
comparatively so insignificant, could not have had centered
upon it such special regards of the Almighty as the Christian scheme represents. At the very root of this objection
lay the principle of conceiving of the Most High as acting
I Pre-Adamite Earth, p. 128.




132          NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
after the manner of men. It is just clothing the Divine
Being with the impotency of the human. " It is our imperfection that we cannot give our attention to more than one
object at one and the same instant of time; but surely it
would elevate our every idea of the perfections of God,
did we know that while his comprehensive mind could
grasp the whole amplitude of nature to the very outermost
of its boundaries, He had an attentive eye fastened on the
very humblest of its objects, and pondered every thought
of my heart, and noticed every footstep of my goings, and
treasured up in his remembrance every turn and every
movement of my history."' And as this would be the
most glorious conception of God, it must be the true one;
for, as John Foster remarks,' "to say that we can, in the
abstract, conceive of a magnitude of intelligence and
power which would constitute the Deity, if He possessed it,
a more glorious and adorable Being than He actually is,
could be nothing lass than flagrant impiety." The anthropomorphising view of the Almighty is brought out very
palpably in some of our modern books of science which
advocate the natural development hypothesis. The author
of the "Vestiges" speaks of it as "nothing less than a
mean view of the Great Author, to suppose Him obliged
to come in on frequent occasions with new feats or special
interferences." And the question is asked, "Is it conceivable, as a fitting mode of exercise for creative intelligence,
that it should be constantly paying especial attention to the
creation of species? "3  Here, the Divine Being is assimilated to the human. He is stripped of the attributes of
omnipresence and omniscience which enter into the glories
of his incomprehensible character. This is a damning
evidence against this theory of naturalism. It makes God
1 Chalmers' Astronomical Discourses.
Foster's Contributions to the Eclectic,-" Review of Chalmers."
3 Vestiges, pp. i65, i69, 5th ed.




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.  133
like to corruptible man. Whereas, on the supernatural
theory, while his name is excellent in all the earth, his
glory is set above the heavens.
3. The theory which excludes the Divine agency from
the universe, and abandons it to natural laws, is opposed to
the palpable evidence of geology. This science has established, beyond a doubt, not only that our globe has repeatedly undergone great changes previous to its becoming the
habitation of man, but that during these changes several
successive creations of animal and vegetable life have
taken place.  The organic remains imbedded in strata,
that had been formed ages anterior to the existence of the
human race (these strata being separated from each other
by considerable periods of duration), furnish evidence of
whole groups having been swept away by some violent
agencies, and of entirely new races having been called
into being'to supply their place. Geology tells us that
the temperature of the globe in a remote antiquity was
such, that our present races of animals and vegetables
could not then have existed, and that the creatures then
existing could not have lived now. This being the case,
the inference is obvious, that new creations of animal and
vegetable life must have occurred, between whose natures
and the changed earth there subsisted a nice adaptation.
Now it is for the production of these new races that we
demand the interposition of God. There is no power in
the laws of nature to produce them. "The growth of
new systems out of old ones," says the great Newton,
"without the mediation of Divine Power, is absurd." Man,
compared with the ages that elapsed before his creation,
is but a very recent being on the earth. For the production of a creature so distinct in his intellectual and moral
qualities from the whole animal creation, a new exertion
of the creative power of God was necessary. Theories of




134          NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
spontaneous generation and of transmutation of the species
have not been wanting. But these theories have never
risen any higher than vague fancies.  The records of
geology furnish no indication of such phenomena. And,
as Cuvier asks, why, if such transmutations have occurred,
do not the bowels of the earth preserve the records of
such a curious genealogy? In the domain of fossil geology,
we discover abundant remains of distinct species, but not
a single specimen of any species being in a state of transmutation has been met with. The faith of the most distinguished geologists and anatomists is very unanimous on
this point. The first proposition which Cuvier establishes
is, that the species now living are not mere varieties of
the species which are lost.  " For myself," says Agassiz,
"I have the conviction that species have been created
successively at distinct intervals, and that the changes
which they have undergone during a geological epoch are
very secondary, relating only to their fecundity, and to
migrations dependent on epochal influences."  Lyell gives
it as the result of a careful inquiry, " that species have a
real existence in nature, and that each was endowed at the
time of its creation with the attributes and organs by
which it is now distinguished."2 " Everything," says Sir
Charles Bell, in his " Bridgewater Treatise," " declares the
species to have its origin in a distinct creation, not in a
gradual variation from some original type; and any other
hypothesis than that of a new creation of animals suited
to the successive changes in the inorganic matter of the
globe — the condition of the water, atmosphere and temperature-brings with it only an accumulation of difficulties." On the strength of all this high testimony, we may
say with Dr. Chalmers, that it places our argument for the
1 Dr. Harris' Pre-Adamite Earth, p. 287.
2 Lyell's Principles of Geology, vol. Ii, p. 65, ist ed.




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.  135
interposal of God on firm vantage ground, to assert that,
were all the arrangements of our existing natural history
destroyed, all the known forces of our existing natural
philosophy could not replace them.  The records of
geology are thus shown to be the records of a special
Providence. And, as Conybeare justly remarks, the geological evidence strikes at once at the root of every skeptical argument against miracles.  If God has specially
interposed in the ages preceding the present state of the
globe, is there not a strong presumption that He has done
so at the most wondrous epoch of our earth's historythe introduction of Christianity; and that, at some future
period, He will again interpose for the accomplishment of
his high purposes. Geology convicts naturalism of falsehood, while it warrants us to credit the miracles and revelations of the Bible, if authenticated on the broad ground
of evidence. The Almighty had not withdrawn from the
world in the remote past, but presided over it as sovereign
Lord, and, on befitting occasions, made bare his arm in
new exertions of creative energy. And why should it be
questioned that He is there still, touching all the springs
of life and motion, and upholding all things by the word
of his power?
4. Christianity and its efects are phenomena for which
naturalism assig'ns no adequate cause. The theory of Strauss,
that the church made its founder in the natural progress
of events, and out of the Messianic conceptions existing
at the birth of Jesus,- that the grand miracles which signalized his history were merely a kind of mythological
clothing gradually thrown around Him by his followers in
order to exalt their hero,-is a more idle fancy than any
of the hypotheses of spontaneous generation and transmutation of the species, which have been formed to account
for the origin of our races. Geology gives not a more




136         NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
decided negative to the one theory than historical facts do
to the other.  It is a foolhardy attempt to account for a
creation without the intervention of the Great Creator.
Christianity is a new creation, and naturalism ascribes it
to a cause which did not at the time exist, and which,
if it had existed, would have been altogether inadequate
to the effect.  The conceptions of the Hebrew  nation
respecting the mission, character and kingdom of the
Messiah, were far from being realized in Him who claimed
to be the Son of the Highest and the Christ of promise.
Indeed, the notions of his immediate disciples, up to the
time of his leaving the world, were ever coming into conflict with his sayings and doings; and their attachment to,
his cause, notwithstanding, can only be accounted for on
the belief of an evidence and agency that lay beyond the
influence of these conceptions. The character of Christ,
it has generally been admitted, even by infidels, is altogether unique; and some of them have granted that the
invention of such a noble character by the first disciples
would have been a greater miracle than any that is recorded. It is magnifying the effect much above the cause;
it is investing the creation with a glory that did not belong
to the creator, to assert, that a character so absolutely
complete in all the elements of moral grandeur, and standing alone in its majesty on the pages of history, originated
in Jewish conceptions thrown around the skeleton of an
historic reality. " The author of a new creation," remarks
D'Aubigne,' " must not himself come of the old creation
which he is to change. The regenerator of the human
race must not himself be a polluted member of the corrupt
body which he is going to purify. He who comes to bring
a divine life into the world must himself emanate from
that life and possess it in its fullness; for how otherwise
1 D'Aubigne's Discourses and Essays, p. 336.




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.  137'
can he communicate it? The first man of the new creation
must issue from the hand of God, as did the first man of
the old creation." There are two stubborn things which
the theory of Strauss cannot solve. The first is, Why, if
Christ answered to the conceptions of the Jews, was He
persecuted by them, and the more in proportion as He
manifested Himself? The second is, Why, after his death,
the death, according to them, of an impostor and blasphemer, was He received by so many thousands of the
people who had formerly rejected Him? To ascribe all
this to the mere natural course of things, exclusive of a
Divine interposal, is, if possible, more absurd than to
account for the creation of the universe without the agency
of the Great First Cause. Whether we consider the age -
an age of unbelief and derision - in which Christianity as
a "myth " is said to have arisen, or the men with their
strongly-rooted adverse prejudices to whom the origin of
the myths is assigned, we see the wild, unphilosophical
character of the  Straussian  theory.  It accounts still less
for the success of such a myth as Christianity among the
Gentiles, opposed as it was at all points to their systems
of superstition and philosophy. " In truth," as Mr. Henry
Rogers remarks,' "nothing less than a universal lunacy of
the nations will account, under such circumstances, for its
reception by them." 2
1 Appendix to Rogers' Reason and Faith.
2 " German theories, though they have broken down in quick succession at
home, have been imported as if still good, and have been done into English without
scruple." To this remark of the author of " The Restoration of Belief," the theory
of Strauss is no exception. Germany is getting ashamed of it. Yet this is substantially the theory, though Gfrorer is the great authority referred to, that Mr. Mackay
has reproduced, in his' Progress of the Intellect." chap. 8, vol. ii. He fathers the
idea of a superhuman Messiah on' a visionary suggestion " that rose in the Hebrew
mind when suffering under Persian oppression - this suggestion or wish' filled up,
the blank of political disappointment "- this wish, in due time, assumed " the fixity
of dogmatical theory "- and this wish threw around " the Messianic champion"
miraculous glories and God-like qualities. In other words, the church created its




138               NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
And as the origin of Christianity cannot be accounted
for, except on the belief of a supernatural interposition, so
it is impossible to account for the mighty effects of Christianity, except on the belief of an accompanying supernatural influence.   It has been soundly argued that the marked
contrast between the writings of the apostles and those of
the most ancient fathers, can only be explained on the supposition that the sacred penmen wrote under the inspiration of
the Spirit of God.' And the radical and beneficent change
which the progress of Christianity has wrought on individuals and communities, argues that it has come  in  demonstration of the Spirit and in power. Human depravity is a
stubborn fact which no theory of naturalism can get rid of.
Individuals and nations have been placed in the most
favorable external circumstances, and yet their depravity
has grown with their growth, and strengthened with their
strength. The power of mere natural influences has failed
to reach the depths of that depravity, and elevate man to a
high and holy character. The Christian revelation, accompanied by that Divine energy which originated it, has been
founder. Mr. Mackay has no doubt of it. He describes the process as coolly and
deliberately as if it were a piece of art, the fashioning of which he had witnessed in
the artist's studio. Like some of his German prototypes, however, he overshoots
the mark when he tells us, in the face of historical evidence to the contrary, that
the record of Christ's life, having " a supernatural coloring," was given to the world
"when the generation of his contemporaries was extinct." He makes Christ to
have been an ingenious impostor, the evangelists to have been very clever knaves,
and the skeptical age in which Christianity was received to have been an age of
great simpletons. All this has been said over and over again long ago. There is
here no " Progress of the Intellect."
I " The interval between the Scriptures and the very best of the Fathers is so
immense, that not a few have testified that it forms to them the most convincing
proof of the inspired origin of the former; it being, in their judgment, absurd to
suppose that any man - much less a number of men - could have composed such a
volume as the Bible, in an age in which their immediate successors, many of them
possessing undoubted genius and erudition, and having the advantage of such a
model, could fall into puerilities so gross, and errors so monstrous. For ourselves
we could sooner believe that Jacob B6hmen could have composed the'Novum
Organum,' or Thomas Sternhold the'Paradise Lost.' "-Rogers' Essays from the
Edinburgh Review, vol. ii, pp. 123, I24.




OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT.  139
brought to bear on human nature, and that nature, in
thousands of instances, it has thoroughly renewed, and
maintained in its moral dignity in a world where so many
natural influences tend to debase it. This fact, taken along
with another — viz., that the best men in every age have
been firm believers in the doctrine of Divine influence —
goes to prove that Christianity and its benignant deeds are
effects which point to the agency of the Great Spirit that
at first moved upon the face of the waters and garnished
the world.
5. It need scarcely be remarked, that naturalism,
whether viewed as excluding Divine Providence from the
government of the spheres, or from interposing in the concerns of men, is diametrically opposed to the religion of the
Bible. The constant concurrence of the Divine will with
the operation of secondary causes, is alike the doctrine of
sound reason and scriptural truth. " My Father worketh
hitherto, and I work," said the Great Teacher —an expression which seems to refer to the conjunct agency of the
Father and Son in producing the Chistian miracles, and the
works of Providence in general. It is said of Him who is
God manifest in the flesh, that " by him all things consist,
and that he upholdeth all things by the word of his power."
Passages like these, with which the Book of God is thickly
strewed, show that any attempt to remove God to a distance from the creation, or to explode the idea of Providence, wars with the record of revealed truth. The Scriptures, as we have seen, assert their own inspiration. And
their testimony is clear in regard to the necessity of Divine
influence to regenerate men. This is a great mystery, who
then can believe it? Its mysteriousness is admitted in the
very passage that asserts its necessity.' Strip Christianity
of its mysteries, and you strip it of its glory. "A religion
1 John iii, 7, 8.




140         NATURALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
without its mysteries," says Robert Hall, "is like a temple
without its God.
But you cannot get rid of the mysterious. Naturalism
banishes the Creator to a distance from the creation,
resolves everything into the unaided operation of established laws, and thinks that the mystery is greatly lessened.
But, in truth, it is greatly increased. The stupendous
systems of worlds on worlds moving in harmony throughout the fields of space, without the ever-present agency of
Him who made them, is a mystery more baffling and less
sublime than the same system viewed as directly dependent
on the presidency and power of God. It is confessedly
mysterious how the Divine Spirit works on the human
mind, so as in the case of inspiration to allow free intellectual action, and in the case of regeneration not to infringe
on moral liberty. But so it is. Scripture attests it, and
the subjects of Divine influence in either case have been
conscious of it. Naturalism guards the human mind and
human concerns from such an interposal, and thinks that it
has cleared the moral world of a mystery. But it is not so.
The Bible, in its grand disclosures and robe of solitary
majesty, is much more inexplicable without inspiration than
with it. And how moral evil - that most insoluble of all
mysteries -should be counteracted, and men rescued from
its power, by the mere play of natural influences, is assuredly more mysterious and unaccountable than that it should
be accomplished by the Spirit of God.
In fine, naturalism, viewed in all its bearings, is most
unnatural. It has a universe independent of Him  who
created it. It has a Christ, a Gospel, and a Church, for
the existence of which no higher cause is assigned than
Jewish conceptions and traditions.  It has a world in
which moral evil abounds, and depraved human hearts
exist, for overcoming and regenerating which, it ignores all




NATURALISM.                     141
but natural influences. In attempting to get rid of mysteries the most sublime and ennobling, it falls into mysteries far more perplexing, but less elevating, Were the
two systems to be tested by the attribute of mysteriousness,
we would prefer supernaturalism, with its mysteries, to
rationalism, with its mysteries.




CHAPTER IV.
THE DENIAL OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION, OR SPIRITUALISM.
C fhange in the enemy's tactics - Rationalism confessedly beaten on the field of
Biblical criticism - Coleridge's remark -The doctrines of redemption granted
by rationalistic theologians and philosophers to be in the sacred text -The warfare shifted from the ground of critical interpretation to that of speculative
philosophy -Change that has come over Unitarianism: its pretensions philosophical rather than exegetical —The "School of Progress "- Parker's " Discourse on Religion "- Newman's " Phases of Faith "- Mackay's " Progress of
the Intellect "-Tendency of Mr. Morell's speculations - Examination of the
moral argument against the evangelical doctrines — The argument stated -
Refutation of it: unsupported by analogy —View given by it of the Divine
character is one-sided and partial - Scripture doctrine of depravity accords with
actual condition of man - Pardon on the ground of an atonement consistent
with the paternity of God - Reasonableness of the Scripture doctrine of spiritual regeneration - Sustained by an appeal to three undeniable facts —-Charge
of gloominess against the doctrines of redemption shown to be unfounded -
Quotations from Jonathan Edwards and Cowper.
M     ORE than half a century ago, the battle raged keenly
between  the defendants and  assailants of the New
Testament doctrines on the field of Biblical criticism.
Neology and rationalism in Germany brought a large
though unhallowed amount of scholarship to the attempt
to expel from the sacred volume those doctrines which
have been generally regarded as its distinguishing truths.
And  the  same warfare was prosecuted with  much vigor in
our own country. The cool daring of the French atheistical philosophy infected men's minds; and individuals who
professed to interpret the Divine Book, set about demolishing one text after another that favored the obnoxious
articles of atonement and spiritual regeneration, as men set
about destroying the underwood of a forest in order to
build them houses on the clear ground. Christendom for
a while looked on appalled. But the work of destruction




SPIRITUALISM.                  143
was soon seen not to be the work of interpretation. And,
after the alarm and heat of the first onset were past, the
attempt to expunge the doctrines of the incarnation, atonement, and regenerating influences of the Spirit from  thesacred record, was pronounced a more complete failure
than the attempt in France wholly to explode the idea of
God from the heart of society. On the ground of criti —
cism, then, the dispute, as is generally admitted. has been
decided in favor of the great doctrines of redemption. It
is only such a man as Mr. Foxton, late of Oxford, that
ventures now to say that " in the teaching of Christ Himself there is not the slz'gktest allusion to the modern evangelical notion of an atonement."' It is only such a
kindred spirit as Mr. Newman, formerly fellow of Balliol,
whose faith, having passed through so many phases, has at
last got into the eclipse that "can testify that the atone —
ment may be dropt out of Pauline religion without affecting its quality."2 Such a style of writing as this is only to
be rivaled by asserting that Hamlet would still be Hamlet
though the part of Hamlet were omitted. Nothing but a
system of monstrously forced interpretation — so forced
that, if applied to extract a meaning from any human composition, it would raise' the shout of dishonesty —could
expel these doctrines from Holy Writ, strip the text of all
that is peculiar to the Gospel, reduce its theology to a mere
theism, and the teaching of Jesus to a morality somewhat
elevated above the best of the heathen. The mode of
attack, accordingly, has been changed, the ground of warfare has been shifted, But there is the sacred text, speaking as loudly and clearly for the atonement, and the doctrines inseparably connected with it, as the stars in their
courses and the earth with its teeming productions speak for
the existence and providential agency of God. Coleridge
Foxton's Popular Christianity, p. 67.  2 Newman's Phases of Faith, p. I03.




144            SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
spoke strongly, but not more strongly than truly, when he
said that " Socinians would lose all character for honesty,
if they were to explain their neighbor's will with the same
latitude of interpretation which they do the Scriptures,"
" I told them,"- at a time when he was far ahead of them,
as he himself informs us -" I told them plainly and openly,
that it was clear enough John and Paul were not unitarians."'
Such has become the opinion of many of the rationalistic theologians and  philosophers of Germany.   Christianity with them may be either true or false, but they are
constrained to admit that what are usually regarded as its
peculiar doctrines are  contained  in the  sacred volume.
Schelling and Hegel  assume the existence of the doctrines
of the Trinity, incarnation, atonement, the lapsed condition
of man, and the regeneration of the soul by the Holy
Spirit; and attempt, in the true rationalistic mode, to
deduce the whole from philosophical principles. Their
Christology, in so far as doctrinal articles are concerned,
differs but little from the evangelical creed. The Trinity
and incarnation may be explained according to a theory of
development which denudes them of their surpassing glory.
but that they are in the Bible is not denied. The idea of
the doctrine of the fall and of redemption by Christ, as
enunciated in their philosophy, agrees in the main with
evangelical principles, however contrary to these may be
the attempt to deduce them on principles of pure science.
The doctrine of the fall is explained as being the disunitI Mr. Theodore Parker thus speaks of the " Old School:' of unitarians, which he
has outgrown, though in a very different way from Coleridge: "' If the Athanasian
Creed. the thirty-nine articles of the English Church, and the Pope's bull'Unigenitus,' could be found in a Greek manuscript, and be proved to be the work of an'inspired' apostle, no doubt unitarianism would in good faith explain all three, and
deny that they taught the doctrine of the Trinity or the fall of man."-Discourse on
Religion, p. 357.
2 Morell's History of Philosophy, vol. ii, pp. I52, 190.




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.             145
ing of the human will from the Divine will. And redemption is regarded as the reunion of man's will to God. The
rationalism of the system is broad and palpable.  But it is
something in advance of former speculations, that the
Christian doctrines are admitted to be in the text of the
Bible. Such intrepid thinkers, the very spirit of whose
philosophy is destructive of the influence of the Gospel,
virtually declare that the attempt to extrude the evangelical
*doctrines from the sacred record is vain, and that, be they
true or false, they must be recognized as occupying a
prominent place in that book which claims to be from
heaven.
Strauss, who is a true Hegelian, and who, as we have
seen, has exploded an historical gospel for the sake of a
philosophical creed, has adopted and more fully developed
the same view of the leading Christian doctrines. He denounces as strongly the old rationalistic method of interpretation as he does the idea of a supernatural intervention.
He denies the historical truth of the New Testament, but
he admits the gospels to be miraculous in their texture, and
that the orthodox tenets are contained in them. His principle is, not that there are no miracles in the sacred record,
but that the miracles there related cannot be literally true,
for miracles are an impossibility. His principle is, not that
the dogmas of the Trinity, incarnation, atonement, the fall
of man, and his regeneration by the Spirit, have no place in
the Scripture text, but that they are a series of myths or
philosophical figments, which can be explained on the principles of Hegelianism.  Thus, in Germany, the attempt to
interpret the New Testament so as to expunge from it the
peculiar doctrines of the Gospel, and reduce it to little
more than a mere theism,- the attempt to make John and
Paul Socinians,-has been for the most part abandoned.'The hostility to these doctrines, as principles of evangelism,
IO




146           SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
may not a whit be abated, but it is granted that they are in
the sacred canon. And the warfare against them is, to a
considerable degree, shifted from the ground of critical
interpretation to that of speculative philosophy.
It has been said that unitarianism gravitates toward
rationalism. And, accordingly, the change that has come
over German rationalism, has, in some measure, influenced
English and American 1 unitarianism. It is assuming something like the shape of a religious philosophy. We seldom
meet it in the field of critical exegesis, and, generally, wherever
we do meet it, the weapons of the new philosophy are found
in its hands. It was from the sensational philosophy that the
unitarianism  of the last century took its character.  In the
time of Priestley, and subsequently, it was deeply stamped
with his own fatalism and materialism. And everybody
knows how D'Alembert and Voltaire exulted in its progress,
and hailed it as an ally in the war in which they themselves
were engaged.  A writer in the EnicyclopedZie remarks: "The
unitarians have always been regarded as Christian divines,.
who had only broken and torn off a few branches of the tree,
but still held to the trunk; whereas they ought to have been
looked upon as a set of philosophers, who, that they might
not give too rude a shock to the religion and opinions, true
or false, which were then received, did not choose openly to
avow pure deism, and reject formally and unequivocally
every sort of revelation; but who were continually doing,
with respect to the Old and New Testaments, what Epicurus
did with respect to the gods,- admitting them verbally, but
1 " It is probable," says Dr. Baird,' that unitarianism in the United States will
disappear in process of time very much as it arose-gradually. The more serious
will return, if proper measures be pursued, to the evangelical churches - many have
done so within the last twenty years. Those who have embraced the transcendental and pantheistic views will go farther astray, until they end in downright infidelity and deism. Indeed, that is their present position, so far as concerns their
opinions of the inspiration of the Scriptures and the Divine nature." - The Religious Condition of Christendom, p. 605, 1852.




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.              147
destroying them  really.  In fact the unitarians received
only so much of the Scriptures as they found conformable
to the natural dictates of reason, and what might serve the
purpose of pr6pping up and confirming the systems which
they had embraced..... From Socinianism to deism there
is but a very slight shade, and a single step to take; and
the Socinian takes it."' And not only the French encyclopaedists, but the German rationalists looked favorably upon
the progress of Socinianism, both in our own country and on
the other side of the Atlantic, as helping them in their attempt
to extrude from the Gospels the miraculous and supernatural
element. But the reign of the sensational philosophy having passed, and the idealistic philosophy having gained the
ascendant, unitarianism, at least among many of its adherents.
has, without losing any of its virulence toward evangelical
truth, undergone a somewhat corresponding change in its
character. It has, in a great measure, laid aside the old
rationalistic method of attempting by forced interpretations
to thrust out from the Bible text the doctrines of redemption.
Its pretensions are philosophical rather than exegetical.
It exhibits Christianity as a system of spiritual philosophy
founded in the nature of things, rather than a body of
truth derived from the New Testament fairly and literally
interpreted. It does not so much deny that the evangelical doctrines are there, as assume that if they were they
could not be literally true. Accordingly, the more modern
unitarianism pays less deference to the Bible, viewed as a
revelation from heaven, than even did the old. It heeds far
less what saith the Scripture, than what says human reason,
or this and that oracle of the speculative schools. The
chiefs of this system of religious philosophy consequently
rid themselves of many of the embarrassments which their
predecessors had to encounter. Holding an increasingly
1 Dr. Smith's Scripture Testimony, vol. i, pp. I35, 136.




148         SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
lax theory of inspiration, or tossing aside the idea of inspiration altogether, the doctrines of the Trinity, incarnation,
atonement, and Spirit's influences, become not so much a
question of scriptural truth as of philosophical possibility.
The stubborn texts have been abandoned, and the weapons
of transcendentalism have been resorted to. Reason is to
be the umpire in every dispute. There are laws of the
mind, say the disciples of this school, which are exact and
uniform. These are absolute tests to man, and by means
of them the pretensions of every doctrine must be decided.
"What is of use to man lies in the plane of his own consciousness, neither above it nor below it."' This is the
motto of the class of writers referred to. Strauss takes up
the position, "miracles are impossible;" and, being pinned
there as firmly as a man in the stocks, proceeds to examine
the miraculous gospel history. In like manner, the more
liberal unitarians fix themselves on the assumption that the
Trinity and atonement cannot rest on evidence; and then,
either deny that they are to be found in the Bible, or finding them there, discard them as false because not according
with their own sense of fitness.
Socinianism, then, properly so called, is not the goal
in which such speculations terminate. Emerson, Parker,
Blanco, White, F. W. Newman and others, have touched
at this point, but they have passed beyond it. There is no
great gulf, indeed, fixed between them and their former
associates. It is only the difference between men who seeing clearly whither the road leads have shot along it, and
men halting dubiously at an intermediate post yet looking
onward to the advanced station. The "School of Progress," conscious of a common linking principle between
itself and unitarianism in all its shades, is calling upon it
to come on. "It must do this, or cease to represent the
1 Parker's Discourse on Religion, p. 33.




()F THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.            149
progress of man in theology. Then some other will take its
office; stand God-parent to the fair child it has brought
into the world, but dares not own."' Mr. Parker, in
America, has taken the office; and Mr. F. W. Newman
aspires to it in England. Our amazement is that such
persons should still profess a vague reverence for Christianity, clothe themselves so frequently in the language
of its cast-off Bible, and claim the privilege of being
accounted Christians. "A certain man," we read, "went
down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves,
which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and
departed, leaving him half dead." Had such depredators
turned again upon their victim and professed friendship,
it would have been somewhat parallel. to the conduct of
many in our day, who, while stabbing Christianity in the
heart, speak of it as something divine.
Mr. Parker, as a member of the Unitarian body, grew
too fast for the body itself, and has been detached from it.
His writings are highly appreciated by the men of the new
school, and they seem not unwilling to acknowledge him as
a leader. He is a strenuous advocate of what he calls
"absolute religion," or those simplest elements of moral
and religious truth which are supposed to underlie all
theologies, Pagan, Jewish and Christian. His talk on this
point is not unlike the rhapsodies of Emerson.  "There is
but one religion," he tells us, "as one ocean." 2 And
again, " There can be but one kind of religion, as there
can be but one kind of time and space." Of course, the
different names given to it indicate "our partial conceptions," or distinctions belonging " to the thinker's mind, not
to religion itself."  Just as in looking over the world, we
see only one race of men, taking the name of Britons or
Esquimaux, etc., according to artificial or local distinctions;
1 Parker's Discourse. p. 357.'M IbAd. p. 6.  3 Ibid. pp. 33, 34



150          SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
or just as it is one and the same element of water though
parts of it be n'amed the Pacific, the Atlantic, or the German Ocean. Two things follow from this view which
occupy a prominent place in Mr. Parker's writings. The
one is, that " there is no difference but of words between
revealed religion and natural religion,'- all religions being
more or less true, and the essence of Christianity being
made independent of all circumstances, "all those extraneous matters relating to the person, character and authority of him who first taught it."2 The other is, that each
man possesses in his own mind the power of discerning the
absolute truth, so that everything supposed to be included
in religion is to be tested by this intuitive susceptibility or
power. "Christianity is dependent on no outside authority.. we verify its eternal truth in our soul."3 He, in
common with some of our own men of progress, resolves,
after the example of Schleiermacher, the religious element
in man into a sense of dependence. This religious sentiment or sense of dependence, supposed to exist at the root
of all religions, is made everything; while the character,
nature and essence of the object on which it depends are
made of little or no importance. The objects of worship
are "accidental circumstances peculiar to the age, nation,
sect, or individual."  This religious sentiment is the
"eternal element," all else  is "mutable and  fleeting."
The problem of our times which he deems himself commissioned to solve, is: "To separate religion from whatever is finite - church, book, person - and let it rest on
its absolute truth."4  Mr. Parker is a sort of Luther in his
own way: "Protestantism delivers us from the tyranny of
the church, and carries us back to the Bible."   Philosophical spiritualism is to effect the next Reformation. " Our
1 Parker's Discourse, p. 33.  2 Ibid. p. I83.  3 Ibid. p. 209.
4 Ibid. p. 37.  5 Ibid. p. 364.




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.                   151
theology," he says,' " has two great idols —the BIBLE and
CHRIST." And Mr. Parker is the iconoclast who would
break them in pieces. It is, after all, however, but the
exchange of one  infallibility for another-  an  infallible
Bible for an infallible Self — the outward for the inward
oracle.  There is an idol still.
We meet with strange reasoning and a confounding of
things, in "A Discourse of matters pertaining to Religion."
Thus, in order to cut away the  external evidences, he
argues, that if it could be shown that Christianity rested
on miracles it would prove nothing in its favor, because
other religions appeal to  the  same authority: which is
something like saying that because there is a great deal
of counterfeit coin in the world there can be no genuine,
or because there are multitudes of knaves there can be no
true men. It is overlooked that Christ has " done the
works that none other man did," that his miracles, in their
simplicity and sublimity, in their power and benevolence,
stand apart from and in contrast to all the pretended miracles alleged in support of false religions.
The character of Jesus is a link in the chain of proof,
and, in order to rend it asunder, it is sophistically argued,2
that as the truth of a demonstration in Euclid is independent of Euclid's character, so what is true in Christianity is independent of the character of Christ.  "If it
depends on Jesus, it is not eternally true... if not eternally true, it is no truth at all..... Personal authority
adds nothing to a mathematical demonstration," Now, in
the first place, we protest against the infidel assumption
that Christianity rests exclusively on this or that thing
which forms only a part of the whole ground of evidence.3
I Parker's Discourse, p. 369.      2 Ibid. pp. T8I, xo8.
3 Our opponents. with great unfairness, charge us with resorting to a sophism
when we hold that the external and internal evidences, the miracles and the doctrines corroborate each other. This is well met by trying it in a single case. " You




152             SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE  DENIAL
And, then, secondly, we can conceive nothing more unphilosophical than this attempt to place mathematical
and moral truth, in point of evidence, on the same plane.
Mathematical truth  has no influence on moral character;
and the bad or good life of a mathematical teacher does
not affect the truth of his demonstrations.   But the character of one who claims to be a teacher sent from God
enters into that amount of evidence by which his message
is substantiated. Common sense never thinks of a connection between a man's life and  the truth of his theorem,
but it does think of such a connection between moral truth
and the character of him who reveals it. The Jews felt
the force of this, and, in order to resist his doctrine, they
endeavored to fasten upon the Great Teacher the charges.
of being a blasphemer and in league with Beelzebub
Besides, religious doctrines may be true without being
eternal-  such  is the  doctrine  of the  incarnation    And
a doctrine may be eternal and  yet historical -such is the
doctrine  of the  Trinity.  Mr. Parker  should  know  that
eternally true and eternally known are quite different
things. It is a similar fallacy, and adduced for the same
end —ridding the world of a fixed doctrinal standard -
which is involved in the assertion that " the phenomena of
religion — like those of science and art — must vary from;
land to land, and age to age, with the varying civilization
have to do with one who offers to your eye his credentials - his diploma duly signed
and sealed -and which declare him to be a Personage of the highest rank. All
seems genuine in these evidences. At the same time the style and tone, the air and
behavior of this Personage, and all that he says, and what he informs you of, and
the instructions he gives you, are in every respect consistent with his pretensions,
as set forth in the Instrument he brings with him. It is not, then, that you alternately believe his credentials to be genuine, because his deportment and his lan-'guage are becoming to his alleged rank; and then that you yield to the impression
which has been made upon your feelings by his deportment, because you have
admitted the credentials to be true. Your belief is the product of a simultaneous
accordance of the two species of proof: it is a combined force that carries conviction, not a succession of proofs in line."- The Restoration of Belief, p. 1o3.




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.             153
of mankind."' The progress of physical truth no more
indicates a similar progress in religious truth, than a man's
bodily growth indicates the enlargement of his soul. And
to conclude that, as we have outgrown the geology of a
past age, we ought to outgrow its religious belief, is as
good as saying that a people who have railways and huge
reflecting telescopes, must be sounder in the faith than
those who ride upon asses and never have resolved the
nebulae in Orion's belt.  "It may be shown," remarks an
able reviewer,2 "that, while what is merely historical in
physics may be of small value, the historical in morals and
in religious faith may embrace all the truth of that nature
the world will ever need, and greatly more than the world
would ever have discovered had it been left to itself."
But the great fallacy in this theory of spiritualism —
that which lies at the very core of the system - consists in
making the religious principle in man find its proper object,.
in the same way that the senses- the eve or the ear —
find theirs  Two things are here confounded; the capacity
for receiving religious truth and the capacity of unaided
reason to discover it.  "This theory," says Mr. Parker,"
" teaches that there is a natural supply for spiritual as well
as for corporeal wants; that there is a connection between.
God and the soul, as between light and the eye, sound and
the ear, food and the palate, truth and the intellect, beauty
and the imagination." He thus cuts off the miraculous
provision.  And then, " as we have bodily senses to lay
hold on matter, and supply bodily wants, through which
we obtain, naturally, all needed material things; so we
have spiritual faculties to lay hold on God, and supply
spiritual wants; through them we obtain all needed spirit —
ual things." He thus excludes the supernatural influence
I Parker's Discourse, p. 37.  2 British Quarterly, No. XXI.
3 Parker's Discourse, p. i6o.




154         SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
which opens the heart to receive the miraculous supply.
Here is a point of fact. Do men obtain peace of conscience and rest for the soul, as naturally as their eyes
obtain light or their palate obtains food.  Do the spiritual
faculties and the spiritual objects come together in the
merely natural way here represented? We trow not. Universal history and individual history disclaim the analogy.
" Each animal, in its natural state, attains its legitimate end,
reaches perfection after its kind."' Yes. But man is the
anomaly here. He fails of reaching the perfection that is
proper to him. It is easy to descant, as our author does,
on the relation of supply to demand in the animal kingdom,
and on the sufficiency of instinct in the ox and the sparrow. But to conclude that because the natural circumstances attending them are perfect, it must be so in the
case of man; that because they obtain rest and satisfaction
in a natural and not miraculous supply, by a natural and
not supernatural guide, therefore the human race needs no
miraculous provision and no other than natural guidance;
is as consistent with fact as to infer that since the fowls of
the air fly, man must have wings. It is true that we find a
race of men, though "we never find a race of animals,
destitute of what is most needed for them, wandering up.and down seeking rest and finding none."2  That capacity
implies the object, and that there are supplies to meet the
spiritual wants of man are truths. But the fact, however
mysterious, in reference to man, is, that the capacity and
the object do not, as in the irrational animals, come naturally together. There is no discrepancy between the proper
destiny and the actual condition of the sparrow, but there
is much between the proper destiny and the actual condition of man. A sense of guilt is a real and powerful element in man's religious consciousness, which this theory of
1 Parker's Discourse, p. 136.  2 Ibid.




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.           155
spiritualism ignores, and for which, consequently, it makes
no provision. That sense of guilt is a fact in the natural
history of man, which remains in spite of all such teaching,
and to talk, amid this felt discordance between actual condition and proper destiny, of throwing man upon himself or
upon the religious sentiment at the bottom of his heart, is
something like bidding a man brood over his disease when
he feels the need of going out after a remedy. Mr. Parker
tells us that " for the religious consciousness of man, a
knowledge of two great truths is indispensable; namely, a
knowledge of the existence of the Infinite God, and of the
duty we owe to Him."' These, of course, may be known,
independently of all revelation and supernatural influence,
by intuition and reflection. Now supposing that man needed
no more than this knowledge, it is asked, does his own unaided intuition furnish it, or is he found in this state of nature discharging his duty? Let the world's history, actual
observation and personal experience answer. Our question
is answered when we think of "many a swarthy Indian,
who bowed down to wood and stone - many a grim-faced
Calmuck, who worshiped the great God of Storms —
many a Grecian peasant, who did homage to PhoebusApollo when the sun rose or went down - many a savage,
his hands smeared all over with human sacrifice," although
Mr. Parker assures us, in his catholicity, that " they shall sit
down with Moses and Jesus in the kingdom of God."2
But much more than this knowledge is wanting. Men who
have it are wandering up and down seeking rest and finding none,  they know that the Infinite God exists, but they
want to know how he can pardon guilt and justify the
ungodly; they know their duty, but there is the want of
inclination or moral power to act up to it. And,- amid
all this fine talk about the light of nature, world-wide
t Parker's Discourse. p. 258.  2 Ibid. p. 83.




156          SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
inspiration, and the power of intuitive sentiment,- the actual condition of the race, without the external teaching of
Christianity, rises up in dark contrast, and forces from us
the exclamation, Has this intuitive power given to the soul
its proper object, as instinct has given to the beast and bird
theirs?
It will be seen, then, what is the attitude taken by this
system of spiritualism toward the Christian revelation. " It
bows to no idols, neither the church, nor the Bible, nor yet
Jesus, but God only..... Its redeemer is within -its salvation within; its heaven and its oracle of God."' The
intuitive susceptibility or power of the mind is placed on
the judgment-seat, and made the sovereign determinator of
what is truth or the "absolute religion." The Bible, irre —
spective altogether of its evidences, is stripped of its authority as the law and the testimony, and is received as a
help only in the degree that its utterances accord with the
sentiment of the mind. The claims of Christianity are settiled, not on the ground of its grand divine peculiarities,
but in proportion as its statements are found to contain the
simple, unchanging principles of the religion called absolute. It " sponges out nine-tenths of the whole: or, after
reducing the mass of it to a caput mortuum of lies, fiction
and superstitions, retains only a few drops of fact and doctrine, — so few as certainly not to pay for the expenses of
the critical distillation."2 Christianity, or what is generally
understood to be its distinguishing principles, is, of course,
well blackened and grossly misrepresented, in order to
insure its condemnation. Spiritualism, we are told, "calls
God father, not king;" whereas popular Christianity "makes
God dark and awful; a judge, not a protector; a king, not
a father; jealous, selfish, vindictive.  He  is the  Draco
I Parker's Discourse, p. 36I.
2 Rogers' Essays from the Edinburgh Review, vol. ii, p. 330.




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.              157
of the universe; the author of sin, but its unforgiving
avenger."' This we can characterize only as a great untruth, and we cannot help thinking that Mhr. Parker knew
it. The design is to array man's moral nature against the
external divine revelation, and to represent the doctrines
of atonement as conflicting with the imperishable religious
sentiments common to the race. But, as we shall afterwards show, spiritualism is as much at variance with analogy in calling God father and refusing to call Him  also
king, as it is dishonest in making evangelism call Him king
only and not father also.
Mr. Parker, like many others, would shift the contest
from the field of the external evidences (by affecting to
despise them as, even if true, of no value), to the matter of
Christianity itself; the intuitive susceptibility or power of
the mind being supreme arbiter. We, without abating a
jot of our regard for these evidences —being more and
more disposed to tell these towers and mark these bulwarks
-are willing to abide by a fair trial of the contents of the
revelation itself. It is part of the disingenuousness of infidelity to represent us as fixed on the one ground, and
reluctant to do battle on the other. The nature of the
doctrine must be taken into account, as well as the external
evidence which attests it. But we demur to making any
inward power of depraved man, be it called intuition or
religious sentiment, a sufficient guide or test in such a question as this.  It is enough that our moral nature, in its
clear imperishable utterances, be not overborne or brought
into collision. But it is not entitled to demand that it
should be made the revealer of truth, or that an external
revelation should disclose nothing but what lies within the
range of our natural faculties, for that were to deny the
possibility of a revelation properly so called. This, how1 Parker's Discourse, pp. 342, 359.




158         SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
ever, is the high claim of modern spiritualism. Common
sense refuses to yield to any such intolerable dogmatism.
It is inconsistent with our dependent condition in this
world, and with the felt wants of the human spirit. We are
led to look for a revelation from without, and if attested by
sufficient evidence, if its documents be proved genuine, and
if its contents, though above the power of our moral nature
to discover, be in harmony with its broad principles and
with what we otherwise know of the Divine government,
nothing on our part should hinder its reception. It is the
alleged discordancy between the two that runs throughout
the whole of Mr. Parker's illogical and intolerant book, and
which is the sharp sword in the hands of philosophical
spiritualism. But let us hear another chief of the same
school, before we turn the weapon.
" Modern spiritualism has reason to be deeply grateful
to Mr. Newman " So says a London journal' that numbers among its contributors men of like stamp. He seems
to have done great things for them whereof they are glad.
His recent work, " Phases of Faith; or, Passages from the
History of my Creed," is looked upon as having thrown up
a highway on which the "new reformation" may safely
advance. People, in certain regions, are thankful for what
in other places would be counted but very bad roads.
And surely the pathways of spiritualism must have been
loose and insecure that it needed Mr. Newman's work to
tread on, and for which it is so grateful. We willingly accord to this book the praise of a simple and good English
style; but we deny it the merit of cleverly sustaining the
part of honesty which it assumes. There is reason to suspect that a man has not overmuch of this virtue, when at
the end of every paragraph in his speech, he is making loud
professions of it. Mr. Newman becomes an unbeliever,
I The Leader.




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.              159
and then he writes a book to tell us that he could not help
it. He would have us to look upon him, in passing through
these " phases," as a man whose sympathies were mainly in
favor of the old doctrines, but who, under a strong sense
of duty, had to sacrifice them and suffer loss. And these
professions, be it observed, are not unfrequently made after
grossly perverting Scripture, or misrepresenting the evangelical creed.  He "struggled to the last, to rest on the
practical soundness of Paul's eminently sober understanding.... But Paul also proved a broken reed."' And
why? Because, in his treatment of the gift of tongues, he
speaks, according to Mr. Newman, like an Irvingite; and
because the Christ of Paul's epistles is a different being
from the Christ of the evangelists! Again, he tells us that
the 53d chapter of Isaiah and some of the other Messianic
prophesies " were the very last link of his chain that snapt."'
After severe tugging, "it still remained strange that there
should be coincidences so close with the sufferings of Jesus:
but he reflected that he had no proof that the narrative
had not been strained by credulity.... And herewith (he
adds) my last argument in favor of views for which I once
would have laid down my life, seemed to be spent. "' We
are thus to judge of the way in which he has made such
mighty sacrifices. And our conclusion is, that Mr. Newman's statements must be taken with some qualification,
when he assures us of being forced, against all his prepossessions, to yield to the authority of Strauss; or, of being
thrown every now and then into great disquietude, because
his "moral sentiment and the Scripture were no longer in
full harmony."'
The impression made on most minds in reading the
"Phases," we are persuaded, will be that its author never
was, in the proper sense of the expression, a Christian.
i Phases of Faith. p. 177.  2 Ibid. p. 197.-     Tbid. p. 8I.




160'        SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
Indeed, his ignorance or perversion of Christian doctrines
and evidences is manifested in almost every page. He
divides the progress of his creed into a number of periods.
In the first period, or what he calls his "youthful creed,"
we have the picture of a young man sent to Oxford without armor, and wounded by all the little fighters that surround him. We may sympathize with his detestation of
formalism and of priestly assumptions. But he lacks judgment to discern the things that differ.  In the second
period, or " strivings after a more Primitive Christianity,"
he occupies the position of a man in open conflict with
other men's opinions, and yet chagrined that they do not
hug and embrace him. He is caught and tossed about by
every wind. He throws aside the leading Christian doctrines as intellectual propositions or dogmas, while pretending much reverence for Scripture. In the third period, his
religion has assumed the shape of moral sentiment, ("if
shape it might be called that shape had none,") which is
independent of our belief in the Bible. The inward power,of judging is here made everything. He touches at unitarianism, but it cannot afford him "half an hour's resting
place."' And before this inward power, "whether called
~common sense, conscience, or the Spirit of God,"2 he
brings, after having in a great measure perverted them, the
doctrines of depravity and the fall, election and future
punishment, the atonement and divinity of Christ, and
having surrendered them, indorses them "Calvinism abandoned." And yet he would have us believe that in all the
workings of his mind about these doctrines, they had little
to do with the inward exercises of his soul toward God.
" He was still the same, immutably glorious; not one feature of his countenance had altered to my gaze, or could
alter.'   Surely, then, a dishonest man might say, after his
Phases of Faith, p. ioI.  2 Ibid. p. 82.  3 Ibid. p. Io4.




OF TIHE BIBE REDEMPTION.             161
work of plunder, What has this to do with my integrity?
The fourth period, or "the religion of the letter renounced," represents him afloat far from land. He lays
hold of all the old objections to the Bible, grounded for
the most part on such things as wrong dates and names,
most of which have been refuted a thousand times. He
would have us infer, that as John and Paul did not understand astronomy so well as Sir W. Herschel, that as their
science as men might be at fault, so might their teaching as
inspired apostles.' It is in vain to tell Mr. Newman it is
not in their character as men, but in their peculiar character as apostles, that we claim for them inspiration and
infallibility; that as they were not commissioned to teach
human science, they might have been wrong in astronomy,
but that as they were commissioned and inspired to teach
Christian truth, they could not have been wrong in theology. He has here reduced the Bible to almost nothing,
being greatly aided, he confesses,' by some German divines,
especially by De Wette, and yet he professes to hold by
Christianity.  He would have us to imagine him "resting
under an Indian fig-tree, which is supported by certain
grand stems, but also lets down to the earth many small
branches, which seem to the eye to prop the tree, but in
fact are supported by it. If they were cut away, the tree
would not be less strong.  So neither was the tree of
Christianity weakened by the loss of its apparent props.
I might still enjoy its shade, and eat of its fruits, and bless
the hand that planted it."3 This may seem beautiful, but
it is not true. The tree, in so far as Mr. Newman is concerned, has disappeared with all its props and stems. And
that under which he is sitting is as like the tree of Christianity as the bramble bush is like the oak. In renouncing
the letter he has renounced the spirit. And the flagrancy
Phases of Faith, p. I21.  2 Ibid. p. I38.  Ibid. p. 143II




162         SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
is, after having openly done the deed, to vaunt of his innocence. In the fifth period, or " faith at second-hand found
to be vain," he has reached the position that miracles cannot be admitted as evidence of moral truth. He does not
attempt so much to deny the miracles as to depreciate
them. The assertion on which he lays stress is, "that
miraculous phenomena will never prove the goodness and
veracity of God, if we do not know these qualities in Him
without miracle."' Granted: but this does not preclude
miracle attesting a special manifestation of the Divine
goodness. That God is good, is indeed a truth " discernible by the heart without the aid of miracle;" but that He
would manifest his goodness in the way implied in the
Christian redemption is not so discernible. And though
such a manifestation, after it has been made, may answer
the yearnings of the heart, yet the want of special evidence
to attest the special and extraordinary interposition is felt.
Mr. Newman and his school can never make good the proposition that moral truth cannot be substantiated by miracles of sense.  Men are so constituted as to associate
(unless willfully blinded by prejudice) the truthfulness of
the moral teaching with the undoubted manifestations of
miraculous power on the part of the teacher. And what
he does to weaken or nullify them, is to represent Jesus as
"solely anxious to have people believe in Him, without
caring on what grounds they believed;" 2 to represent the
logical notions of the apostles as at variance with ours, and
to speak of our moral judgments as at conflict with the
Gospel and its evidences.3 Did he never read the Scripture, how that Christ, resting his claims on his miracles,
said, "The works that I do in my Father's name, they bear
witness of me. If I do not the works of my Father, believe
me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the
I Phases of Faith, p. 157.  a Ibid. p. 146.  3 Ibid. p. 147.




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.              163
works; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in
me and I in him?" And when he assumes that, because
the astronomy of Paul's day was defective, so was the
logic; or asserts' that, because we cannot cross-examine the
apostles, we have no means of assuring ourselves that they
held correct principles of evidence —we tell him that,
though men may have different data in different ages, it by
no means follows that they must have different principles
of reasoning; and we ask if he is prepared to set aside all
but contemporaneous history, to place no confidence in
Thucydides or Josephus, because he cannot interrogate
them.  And then he assumes, what never has happened,
and never can happen, the existence of a miracle that
would authorize him to violate his moral perceptions. It
is, we repeat, a disingenuous resort of infidelity, to separate
two things which God hath joined together -the character
of the doctrine and the character of the external evidence
attesting it —and to represent us as resting on the latter,
exclusive of the former, whereas the faith of the Christian
has regard to both. In the sixth phase of Mr. Newman's
faith, he attempts to cut up historical religion by the roots,
and represents religion as a state of sentiment toward God
that is independent of any outward creed whatever. He
assumes that because we contend for an historical foundation to Christianity, we make it a mere problem of literature; and then argues,' that as he cannot solve literary
problems concerning distant history, and as they lie beyond
"the religious faculties of the poor and half-educated,"
they can form no part of religion.  Here is obviously a
confounding of two different things: the mind's susceptibility of religious sentiment, and the outward law and
testimony which appeals authoritatively to that susceptibility. And, to use the words of Dr. Vaughan,' we ask,
I Phases of Faith, p. I48.  2 Ibid. p. i99.
3 Dr. Vaughan's Letter and Spirit, p. 64.




164         SPIRITUALISM'; OR, THE DENIAL
"What means this constant insinuation, that historical evidence must be wholly without value to men not learned in
history? Is it not manifestly the sentiment of our nature
-a sentiment so common and rooted as to seem to be
instinctive, that there is a credibility in historical testimony, even as relating to the mass of mankind, sufficient to
bring the remote past into a certain and living connection
with the present? Not only is it a fact, that the least
learned are influenced by historical testimony as truly, if
not as immediately, as the most learned, but it is manifestly
a law of Providence that it should be so; and it remains to
be shown why the law which embraces testimony to this
effect concerning Cromwell or Alfred, should not embrace
testimony to the same effect concerning Paul and Esaias."
Mr. Newman, referring we presume to some of the difficulties connected with this subject, says,' "If I have been
seven years laboring in vain to solve this vast literary
problem, it is an extreme absurdity to imagine that the
solving of it is imposed by God on the whole human race."
Now, let him spend seven times seven years in laboring to
solve some of the problems that lie before him in the
domain of natural religion, —for example, the problem of
moral evil —and what will he make out? Nevertheless,
God certainly has not imposed the solution upon him or
upon any of the race.
But Mr. Newman's drift is to get rid of an historical
Christ. He insinuates that Jesus was far from perfect —
that his portrait as drawn by the evangelists is in a great
measure imaginary —and, if asked to specify the faults in
that matchless character, he maintains that he is not bound
to do so, because this were presuming Him to be perfect
until we find Him to be imperfect.2 Yes. If a man is generally reported to be honest, and claims to be accounted so,
I Phases of Faith, p. i99.  2 Ibid. pp. 2Io, 2I2.




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.              165
you, if you deny it, are obliged to establish the charge of
dishonesty. It is generally acknowledged that every mere
man is imperfect —every sane mind admits it. The onus
probandi, therefore, lies on him who denies it. So with the
man who denies the sinless character of Jesus. We meet
with another strange thing here. Mr. Newman 1 represents
it as moral suicide to sit in judgment on the claims of
Jesus, and then to submit our judgment to his authority,
first to criticise and then to cease our criticism, first to
exercise free thought and then to abandon it. We say,
that to yield the mind up to Christ, after having been convinced of the divinity of his claims, is alone worthy of the
name of free thought. And we ask, Do you act thus in
common life -in selecting a friend, for example? You
criticise at first. Do you go on with your criticism? Mr.
Newman would have us believe that it is with pain he
gives up "sentiments toward an historical person, which
have been tenderly cherished as a religion." 2 But, with his
book before us, we refuse to do so.
In concluding the "Phases," he deems himself warranted, from his previous "passages," to consider it as a
settled point that the external revelation is in collision
with the moral sentiments.  We have here Spiritualism
versus Christianity. " If the spirit within us," says he,' and
the Bible (or Church) without us are at variance, we must
either follow the inward and disregard the outward law;
else we must renounce the inward law and obey the outward." 
Matters have been brought to no such pass. The child
has not received " discordant commands" from his father
and mother, and is not reduced to "the painful necessity
of disobeying one in order to obey the other." Mr. Newman, throughout his book, has given such representations
of the atonement and the doctrines connected with it,.not
i Phases of Faith, p. 210.  2 Ibid. p. 214.  3 Ibid. pp. 227, 228.




166         SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
to speak of the old-refuted objections which he brings
against many parts of the sacred record, as to remind us
of the coarseness and unfairness of the school of Paine.
He has first perverted the outward law, and then set over
against it the inward.  He has exalted the one to the
judgment seat, and then brings the other, blackened and
deformed, before it, to be condemned. And what, after all,
does he mean by "the spirit within us," but individual
feeling? One man's spiritualism may differ widely from
another man's. Judging from some recent manifestations,
the inward oracle is far from being harmonious in its utterances. " The authoritative unity claimed for it is a fiction.
Newman's Personal Spiritualism, in place of being a center
of rest, must be a perpetual battle-field between the claims
of feeling and the claims of the understanding."' And then
what willful blindness to, or ungrateful reading of, the
world's history, to speak of the world's religious progress
as having been intercepted or turned back by the claim
of?Messiahshi5p for Jesus.  And what a miserable delusion
to anticipate that, if the world was swept clear of intellectual creeds and an historical Christianity, and men were
thrown on their own inward sentiments, having no doctrine
in common but the vague thing called "God's sympathy
with individual man," the race would move steadily onward! 2 But for the historical Christianity which he contemns, Mr. Newman's religion, most assuredly, would not
have differed in the degree that it does from the religion of
the Greek and Roman philosophers. The "progress " would
not have been quite so " spiritual."
Mr Mackay's " Progress of the Intellect," though differing in many respects from  Newman's "Phases" and
Parker's " Discourse," is a production of the same school,
and assumes a like hostile attitude toward the doctrines of
I British Quarterly, No. XXIII.  2 Phases of Faith, pp. 225, 234.




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.              167
the Christian redemption. These doctrines, with him, are
" a petty sanctuary of borrowed beliefs." And he has much
more admiration for the times when men saw "serious
meaning in the golden napkin of Rhampsinitus, nay even
in the gush of'water from the jaw-bone of Samson's ass,"
than for our age with its doctrinal articles and creeds.' A
floating, ever-changing sanctuary of faith is, in his view,
more beautiful than a fixed one. If the Bible would only
submit to be regarded as a part of this shifting cloud-land,
one of the many phases of our ideal creations, it would, like
the other " playful mythi," be attractive to Mr. Mackay and
his school; but it cannot be tolerated in its claim to be the
law and the testimony. The ancients, with their mythical
legends, "were as the eagle intently gazing on what he
wants strength to reach;" we, with our Bible creeds, are
the owls blinking at the first daylight, which, however, we
are slowly learning to support."2
Our author places the polytheistic systems of the Greeks
and the Jewish and Christian Scriptures on the same plane,
both, according to him, being the mind's own weaving, the
results of investing the inward conceptions with an outward
and divine authority. He assumes that all religion is a form
of symbolism; Christianity and material idolatry being in
this respect on the same level, only the one is deemed a
higher product of the intellectual law of development than
the other. Like Mr. Parker and his fellow disciples, he
holds that Christianity has two aspects. The first is " the
moral conception, which, as eternally good and true, is not
so much its own peculiarity as an essential part of all civilization>" And secondly, its "special dogmas and forms,"
such as the atonement and Spirit's influences, "which,
making up its accidental expression or clothing, have never
ceased to accompany its development, though often threatThe Progress of the Intellect, vol. i, p. 7.  2 Ibid. vol. i, p. I2.




168          SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
ening to obscure or supersede the vital meaning connected
with them."' This is something like taking a man's soul
for his clothes, or depriving him of reason and intelligence
in order to reduce him to the mere animal. Mr. Mackay,
in short, like his fellow on the other side of the Atlantic,
is a resolute disciple of what is called " absolute religion "" an eternal, never-failing principle," of which all religious
symbols or dogmas are but the temporary livery.2 By this
eternal, indestructible principle, we are to understand some
such vague thing as a sense of dependence, or a feeling of
divine sympathy, which, as an ultimate fact, is supposed to
underlie all the religions that the world ever saw,- a sort of
universal soul pervading all systems,- Pagan, Hebrew and
Christian, — a kind of pantheistic element, to which all
"artificial forms of ritual or creed " bear the same temporary
relation that the leaves of the forest, or the grass of the field,
bear to the principle of life that pervades the universe. Mr.
Mackay would, without scruple, indorse Mr. Parker's statement, " There is but one religion, as one ocean; though we
call it faith in our church, and infidelity out of our church." 
And he would shake hands with brother Newman in affirming, " Religion was created by the inward instincts of the
soul: it had afterward to be pruned and chastened by the
skeptical understanding."
The pruning and chastening process goes on; and Mr.
Mackay is resolved, in relation to Christianity, that spare
the knife who will, he will not. The Bible doctrines of
the fall of man, atonement by Christ, and regeneration
through the Spirit, are, according to his theory, excrescences threatening to obscure or supersede the vital element, and he lops them off The work, of course, required
no little daring, and something very different from shameThe Progress of the Intellect, vol. ii, p. 393  2 Ibid. vol. i, p. I7.
3 Parker's Discourse, p. 6.  4 Newman's Phases, p. 232.




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.                169
facedness. It did not consist with the humility professed
in the first sentence of his preface. And, accordingly, Mr.
Mackay, on entering the temple, instead of leaving his
shoes, after the eastern manner, at the door, left his humility.' And then the fall and the atonement, not denied
to be in the Bible, are dismissed as mere " tricks of fancy,"'
"ancient superstitions," "subjective facts in the writer's
mind," in short, only a projection of the inward consciousness into the outward world.2
Dr. Strauss, in dealing with the evangelical histories,
has been spoken of as without an equal in the nil admirari
vein, but we warrant our author, in his manner of treating Jesus and Paul, to match him. He admits that there
existed the notion of atonement in the Hebrew mind, but
he "cannot admit the atonement doctrine to have been
authorized by Jesus as part of his religion." 3 He is aware,.
however, that the teaching of Christ had something to do
with the doctrine, and that the evangelists in recording his
sayings are not altogether silent in reference to it.  But
the "foolishness" cannot be tolerated, the "stumblingblock" must be removed, though it be at the expense of
Christ's character and the credit of the sacred record.
Jesus, accordingly, is represented' as having eventually
been influenced, contrary to his original intentions, by the
prevailing idea of meritorious suffering, in order "to uphold his sinking cause."  "He used the terms and symbols
of his age." These the disciples applied literally, "thereby
creating a superstitious mystery never deliberately contemplated by their master."' That there are "distinct
announcements by Jesus of his propitiatory death," recorded in the gospels, Mr. Mackay does not venture to
deny.  But he easily disposes of them.  Just as Mr.
The Progress of the Intellect, vol. i, p. i8.    2 Ibid. vol. ii. pp. 396, 465, 466.
3 Ibid. vol. ii. p. 464.  4 Ibid. vol. ii, p. 395.'Ibid. vol. ii, p. 464.




170          SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
Newman, after putting the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah on
the rack, and failing to extort a confession to his liking,
settled the matter by saying that he "had no proof that
the narrative had not been strained by credulity,"- so Mr.
Mackay declares that none of the distinct announcements
referred to "can be relied on as authentic;" or, lest this
should be going too far, " it seems needless to ascribe to
them more than the figurative sense."' Miracles are impossible, says Strauss.  The doctrine of atonement is
incredible, says Mackay. And nothing remains but to
falsify the record, or to bring myths or symbolism to account for them.
Mr. Mackay does not say, with Mr. Newman, that the
atonement might be dropped out of "Pauline religion"
without affecting its quality, any more than he says, with
Mr. Foxton, that in the teaching of Christ there is not the
slightest allusion to the doctrine.  On the contrary, this
doctrine is made an essential part of the "Pauline development "-a development very different indeed from the
scriptural one which took place in the minds of the apostles
after the resurrection and ascension of their Lord. Christianity, according to him, had now shifted its ground.
"The Christianity of Paul differs from that of Jesus as
an imparted influence from without differs from moral
effort from within "2  In other words, Christ is represented
as, on the whole, discouraging the idea of vicarious atonement, though using its symbolical terms; and pleading
simply for amendment, sincerity and moral purity. While
Paul is spoken of as having been the first to make the
necessity of atonement felt by proving the inefficacy of
the law for justification, and then as having supplied it.'
Thus it is, according to " The Progress of the Intellect,"
I The Progress of the Intellect, vol. ii, pp. 394. 463.
2 Ibid. vol. ii, p. 39I.    3 Ibid. vol. ii, p. 396.




OF THE  BIBLE  REDEMPTION.                         171
that  "the  Hebrew   Palladium"  has  been  "inherited  by
Christians."'   The  atonement then, even  in  the  estimation of Mr. Mackay, could not be spunged out of Paul's
religion without affecting its quality. He scorns it, however, as an excrescence, a special dogma that loads and
obscures the moral conception or the simple element called
absolute religion. The atonement, which in Scripture is
represented as the brightest manifestation of God's love to
our fallen race, and which has ever been regarded as such
by the Christian world, is consequently made hideous, and
spoken of, after the  Parker fashion, as "practically giving
to Christianity a character, which, though it have an ill
sound, it would be vain as well as dishonest to dissemble,
that of a religion of Moloch."2
Had we been reviewing Mr. Mackay's work as a whole,
we would have felt ourselves called upon to show  the  untenableness of his mythical theory, the baselessness of his
assumption that all religion is and can only be a form of
symbolism. He accounts for the origin of Christianity, as
we have already noticed, in a way somewhat similar to that
of Strauss.   His "Progress  of the  Intellect"  is just the
reproduction among us of what has had its day elsewhere.
So that the answer to Strauss is substantially the answer
to be given to his notions of the Messianic development.3
1 The Progress of the Intellect, vol. ii. p. 465.  2 Ibid. vol. li, p. 466.
3 We should also have taken Mr. Mackay to task in regard to a considerable
number of his Scripture references. It was truly difficult to account for many of
these references, or to see how they bore out his statements, till we reflected that
he had beforehand warned us of his intention to be guided more by German (neological) criticism than by the English version of the Bible. For example. it serves
Mr. Mackay's theory, to maintain that Christ "was unconscious of his own mis-sion " till he was baptized of John' and for proof he refers us to John i, 26, 33; vii,
27. Why did he not tell us how the ignorance of the Baptist and of the people
proved unconsciousness on the part of Christ?  Again,-as an evidence that the
" ancient Hebrew God " was only one of the many gods, and that He acknowledged
their existence, we are referred to Deut. xxxii, i7-2i. On the same principle, it
might be maintained that missionaries acknowledge the real existence of the gods
of the heathen and are jealotui of them. —Vol. ii, pp. 315, 416




172         SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
But it is only with what bears on the atonement that we
have at present to do. And here his development theory
is at fault. History is opposed to it. And it is only by
the most gross assumptions that the conflicting evidence
of history is set aside. Any writer who should deal with
the Hebrew Scriptures as he has done, could not be expected to feel much scruple in twisting the New Testament
record. It serves his theory of symbolism to make out
idolatry or Moloch-worship to have been the practice of
the early Hebrews. The ancient Hebrew God, according
to him, was only one of the many gods of the nations, and
cannibalism was associated with the rites paid to him by
the people. The sacred record is at open conflict with
this, the fact being that in the earliest Hebrew writings we
have some of the sublimest descriptions of the glory of the
one God that are to be found in the Bible. Mr. Mackay
feels this. But in order to preserve his theory, he is forced
to come out with the assertion that the Bible writers have
transferred to olden times improvements of newer date,ancient Moloch practices having been cleansed by modern
whitewash, and then impressed with the stamp of antiquity.' And if we ask for evidence in support of this
"borrowed belief," we receive no better answer than that
it must have been so, because his development theory
requires it. Having in this way made out a Hebrew
development from mere nature-worship up through polytheism  to the recognition of a personal and independent
God, it could not be difficult for him to make out a Christian development in which Christ and Paul stand at antipodes - a development, however, according to his own
showing, in a contrary direction, from better to worse.
But this is no more the development of the New
Testament than the other is of the Old.  There was
I The Progress of the Intellect, vol. ii, pp. 406-445.




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.           173
development throughout the period embraced by the New
Testament record, but it was like the morning light which
shineth more and more until the perfect day. Men must
presume very much upon the unreasoning unbelief or intense hatred of our age in regard to evangelical religion,
who can say, either that there is not the slightest allusion
in the teaching of Jesus to the evangelical doctrine of
atonement, or that He on the whole discouraged the idea
of it. That the doctrine is not so fully enunciated in the
discourses of Christ as in the letters of his apostles must
be admitted. But this is just what might have been expected. In the one case, the work of atonement was
unfulfilled; in the other case, it was finished and had
become matter of history. Besides, the strain of Christ's
teaching pointed to the time when the germs of truth
which He had thrown out among his disciples would be
fully unfolded, when, under an increased effulgence from
on high, they should see the truth enshrined in his sayings
which their prejudices prevented them from now doing.
The atonement was embraced in Christ's teaching. What
can be more explicit than his own words —words which
are felt to be a difficulty even by Mr. Mackay - " The Son
of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister,
and to give his life a ransom for many." The "Pauline
development" was not different from this, nor anything
added to this, but it was this very truth more fully unfolded, and made, as it was designed to be, the grand
central fact of the Gospel of Christ. The progress of the
New Testament was no more "the Progress of the Intellect" than was the progress of the ancient Hebrews. And
Mr. Mackay fails in giving us anything more than assumption for his bold denial that the doctrine of Paul's epistles
is countenanced by the prophets and the Great Teacher,
as completely as he does in finding a basement for his




174        SPIRITUALISM; OR,'THE DENIAL
assertions that idolatry was the established religion in
Israel up to the reign of Josiah -that the prophets then,
in adaptation to the wants of the age, remodeled the
system, made Jehovah, who had hitherto been only one
among the many Gods, now the Universal Power, and then
represented this better religion as the religion of Moses,
and the early Hebrews. We are constrained to say that
Mr. Mackay, in thus dealing with history, is guilty of the
very deception which he would charge upon the " holy men
of God," and our wonder is how he can attempt to palm it
upon the world. But the atonement must be got rid of.
The gospel doctrines must be deprived of their historical
basis. And, since the attempt to expel them from the
sacred page has confessedly failed, nothing remains but to,
resolve them into the conceptions of a past age, to bring
them before the chancery of the mind's own decisions, and
to dismiss them as unfit for this stage in "the Progress of
the Intellect."
In noticing Mr. Morell in this connection, we wish to be
understood as indicating the tendency of his speculations.
on religion rather than their actual results. Wide indeed
is the difference between the spirit in which he treats of
such matters, and that of Messrs. Parker, Newman and
Mackay. And yet the "School of Progress," as if conscious of some links of sympathy between him and them,
regard him as advancing on the same path, only keeping a
little behind. He, in common with them, resolves religion
into a peculiar mode of feeling. And though not, like
them, seeking utterly to demolish the objective element, he
reduces it to comparatively little value. The subjective or
intuitional consciousness has in his speculations a province
assigned to it that can scarcely consist with the claim of
Scripture to be accounted the law and the testimony. It
is not what history has attested to be authentic that we are




OF THE BIBLE REDENIPT'I ()N.         175
to receive, but what we feel to be morally and religiously
true.  "The Philosophy of Religion" is but a form of
spiritualism.
Mr. Morell attaches much importance to the philosophical groundwork that he has laid in the first two chapters
of his book. And it is found to influence all his subsequent speculations on the subjective nature of religion.
Into a minute examination of that groundwork it would be
out of place for us here to enter. With much of it we find
no fault. But the broadly prominent principle that runs
throughout it, is, in our apprehension, unsound and mischievous. We refer to his development of the " principal
points of distinction between our logical and intuitional
faculties "-a distinction, as he says, of vital importance,
and which he carries along with him when arguing on the
relation of philosophy to religion. He says,' "There is
one state of our intellectual consciousness by virtue of
which we define terms, form propositions, construct reasonings, and perform the whole office that we usually attribute
to a mind that acts logically: but there is also another state
of our intellectual consciousness, in which the material of
truth comes to us as though by a rational instinct -a mental sensibility - an intuitive power - a' communis sensus,'
traceable over the whole surface of civilized humanity."
These two classes of phenomena are denominated the
logical and the intuitional consciousness. That there is a
distinction between these two states of consciousness - a
distinction recognized before the times of Mr. Morell -we
readily admit. But we demur to the way in which he disparts the one from the other, exalting the power of intu —
ition at the expense of the understanding, and assigning it
an independence and efficiency which do not belong to it.
"With regard to higher truths and laws," he tells us, " the
I Philosophy of Religion, p. 33.




17(;             SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE  DENIAL
understanding furnishes merely the subjective forms, in
which they may be logically stated, while intuition brings
us face to face with the actual matter, or reality of truth
itself."'  We open  our eyes, and we see at once the blue
heavens and  the  green earth    In like manner, Mr. Morell
would have us to believe, the mind by its simple spontaneous power of intuition looks out, "and the absolute
stands before us in all its living reality." Now we maintain, in opposition to this, that the understanding has much
to do in enabling us to reach the mount of vision, and that
it is not restricted to the humble function of giving logical
expression to the supersensual truth we gaze upon there.
Mr. Morell would kick away the ladder by which he had
been helped upward, and then refuse to admit that it had
rendered  him   any assistance-  "It is not enough  for our
author to say, as all sensible men have ever said, that our
knowledge of'the true, the beautiful and the good,' comes
to us in part from our intuitions; he is peremptory in
asserting that it comes to us only from that source - a
doctrine which can never be made to harmonize with
anything deserving the name of philosophy; and which
must prove eminently hostile to the purity of religion." 2 *
In applying this philosophy to the fundamental questions involved in his subject, Mr. Morell very naturally
I Philosophy of Religion, p. i9.   2 British Quarterly, No. XIX. p. I49.
* The author of " The Eclipse of Faith "- a work that carries very destructive
fire into the enemy's camp - in commenting "on a prevailing fallacy," thus addresses our modern "spiritualists": " You do not sufficiently regard man as a
complicated unity; you represent, if you do not suppose, the several capacities of
his nature -the different parts of it, sensational, emotional, intellectual, moral,
spiritual —as set off from one another by a sharper boundary line than nature
acknowledges.... What can be more obvious than that, whether we have a distinct religious faculty, or whether it be the result of the action of many faculties,
the functions of our'spiritual' nature are performed by the instrumentality, and
involve the intervention of the very same much-abused faculties which enables us
to perform any other function?... Religious truth, like any other truth, is embraced by the understanding- as indeed it would be a queer kind of truth that is
not; is stated in propositions, yields inferences, is adorned by eloquence, is illus



OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.                   177
considers, in the first place, what is the peculiar essence of
religion? He here treats the matter subjectively —not as
a system of truth or form of doctrine, but simply as a fact
or phenomenon in human nature. He lays down the position " that there are just three great and fundamental forms
of man's inward consciousness expressed by the terms
knowing, willing, feeling." 1  And, in determining to which
of these generic forms of consciousness religion belongs,
he, of course, fixes on feeling. The great error in his
philosophy in parting off the intuitional from the logical
consciousness, has here its counterpart in the separation
between religious knowledge and religious feeling. It is
not enough for him to say, " that there may be many gradations of religious intensity in men, whose amount of
knowledge is as nearly as possible identical; and on the
other hand, that there may be about an equal manifestation
of religious intensity where the degrees of knowledge are
immensely at variance." No sane mind denies this. But
he concludes that " religion is really cradled in some phenomenon lying without the region of what we may term
intellectual activity;" and, "that although the cooperation
of knowledge may be necessary to the perfection of our
religious life," yet it does not necessarily enter into the
"essential germ " of religion.2  We do not much object to
the statement, that religion, subjectively considered, consists in the feeling of dependence upon God; but we deny
that any emotion worthy of the name of religion can exist
without some knowledge of divine things. Mr. Morell obviously felt himself entangled here by his philosophy, for
while the drift of the chapter is to assert the independence
trated by the imagination, and is thus, as well as from its intrinsic claims, rendered
powerful over the emotions, the affections and the will.... Hence we see the
dependence of the true development of religion on the just and harmonious action,of all our faculties. They march together; and it is the glorious prerogative of true
religion that it makes them do so." —The Ecli7jse of Faith, p. 305, etc.
1 Philosophy of Religion, p. 66.     2 Ibid. p. 69.
12




178         SPIRITUALISIM; OR, THE DENIAL
and exclusive importance of feeling as he had done that of
the intuitional consciousness, he yet asserts that the co6peration of knowledge may, "in a subordinate sense," be
necessary to the very existence of our religious life. If the
scholastic and many of the rationalistic theologians made
too much of the mere form of knowing, Mr. Morell assuredly makes too much of the mere form of feeling. It
results, as we have seen in such men as Parker and Newman, in attaching no importance whatever to an objective
revelation; and, as we will see, in the case of such as,
Morell, in assigning a very subordinate place to it.
In treating of the Essence of Christianity, which is done
in the next chapter, the subjectivity of our author becomes.
more and more manifest. We reckon this chapter a complete misnomer. It is as if an astronomer were to give us
an historical description of the thoughts and feelings awakened within him during his surveys of the heavens, and to
designate it a treatise on astronomy, instead of giving us a
discourse on the magnitudes, distances and revolutions of
the planets. The Essence of Christianity is a phrase which
conveys to an English reader the idea of those grand doctrines which distinguish it from all other forms of religion.
But Mr. Morell generally here puts the effect for the cause,
and sometimes plays on the two different senses of Christianity as objective and subjective. He says, "The only
mode in which we can assign the true nature of Christianity, relatively to all other religions in the world, and show
wherein its essential and distinguishing feature consists," is
to consider "what is the distinguishing feature of man's
religious nature, when it has come properly under the
Christian influence."' He denies that what are esteemed
the prominent facts and main doctrines of Christianity
determine the essence of Christianity itself. This, he tells
1 Philosophy of Religion, p. ioo.




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.              179
us, " does not consist in any development of thought, but
in the flow of holy affections."' The outward revelation,
according to this system, is not Christianity, it is only a
means to awaken it. The Gospel is viewed rather as an
external provision for cultivating certain states of feeling,
than as an authoritative communication from heaven, designed to build us up in the knowledge of divine things.
Christianity, as a distinct spiritual life, is made to occupy
the place of Christianity as a body of inspired truth by
which the sjpiritual life is organized. The true state of
matters is completely reversed. And this Philosophy of
Religion tends, like the systems of Parker and Newman, to
make everything of the feelings within, and to reduce to
little or almost nothing the objective truth that lies without.
Mr. Morell, though chiefly engrossed with the subjective point of view, does not, however, ignore the objective.
He defines Christianity, viewed as an outward condition of
the religious life, to be " that religion which rests upon the
consciousness of the redemption of the world through Jesus
Christ."2 He very properly notices two great and essential
points here " the exclusiveness of Christianity as the sole
appointed means of human recovery and the concentration
of the agency for such recovery in the life and person of
Christ, historically considered."3 But beyond this we have
no explanation. He does not say what is implied in the
redemption of the world, or what was the nature of the
moral expedient devised for its accomplishment. And he
is silent also as to the truth about the personal Redeemer.
This is unpardonable even in a philosophical discussion
of the essence of Christianity, and while professing to look
at the objective side of the question.  Mr. Morell knows
very well that the redemption of the world through Christ
is about one of the vaguest expressions current in modern
1 Philosophy of Religion, p. 256.' Ibid. p. ii8.   3 Ibid. p. II9.




180            SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
times. It would cover the whole "school of progress."
Under its ample shade would come multitudes of teachers
in Germany, America, England, and elsewhere, whose ideas
of redemption and the Redeemer are as far apart from the
Christian doctrines as the east is from the west. This
vague and brief allusion to the objective element can only
be explained on the principle, so dear to our modern sentimentalists, of unduly magnifying everything within man
and lessening whatever comes to him in the shape of religion  from  without.  What Mr. Morell's views are of the
process through which the redemption of the world has
been effected, and of the personal constitution of the
Redeemer, we know not. But he has laid himself open to
the suspicion of making the essential elements of the Christian life independent of those grand peculiar doctrines
which have been generally understood to be the truth as
it is in Jesus.'
It is foreign to our purpose to review the whole of
"The Philosophy of Religion." We only point out some
of its strongly marked tendencies toward that philosophic
spiritualism which is so destructive of the essence of Christianity. These are, indeed, to be found in every chapter
of the work. In passing on, for example, to speak of the
method by which Christianity was first communicated to
the human mind, he defines revelation to be "a process of
the intuitional consciousness gazing upon eternal verities."2
He denies that the Bible, strictly speaking, is a revelation,
1 " No philosophy of religion that assumes to embrace Christianity can be complete if it does not show that salvation was effectuated by a process alike congruous
with the Divine character, and with man's constitution and moral necessity. It
may be replied, that this is the province of Christian theology, and not of internal
subjective Christianity. We incline, however, to the opinion that the idea of'a
just God and a Savior,' through the atonement of Christ, is the meeting-place, the
point, where Christianity as a theology loses itself in Christianity as a religion."Mr. M7orell and the Sources of his Information, p. 38.
2 Philosophy of Religion, p. I42.




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.              181
"since a revelation always implies an actual process of
intelligence in a living mind."' And he asserts, that "the
power which that book possesses of conveying a revelation
to us, consists in its aiding in the awakenment and elevation of our religious consciousness." We have here, as
throughout the whole treatise, a systematic undervaluing of
objective truth. Christ and his apostles are represented as
giving no exposition of Christian doctrine to the understanding, but as seeking to awaken man's power of spiritual
intuition; and since it cannot be denied that Paul gives
such a systematic inculcation of truth, we are reminded
that "his writings were designed not so much to be a revelation of truth, as a farther explication of it."' He would
make Paul the theologian, and John the intuitionist. Now,
in reply to this, it might be said, in the first place, that it is
not true that Christ and the apostles gave no systematic
exposition of doctrine. The sermon on the mount, and
the discourse on the way to Emmaus, when "beginning at
Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all
the Scriptures the things concerning himself," not to mention other discourses, contradict the statement in so far as
the Great Teacher is concerned. The book of Acts falsifies the statement in reference to the apostles. And, in the
logical expositions of Paul, we have as many new ideas
revealed as in John, which proves that truth may be given
first in a systematic or theological form. Besides, it is a
mere play on words to say that the revelation was made in
the mind, not in the Book. The Bible is the actual revelation imparted to the minds of the sacred writers. It brings
us in contact with knowledge which, in its origin, lay beyond both the intuitional and the logical consciousness;
and in conveying the truth to us, it addresses the understanding, and, through it, rises higher into the region of
I Philosophy of Religion, pp. 143, I44.  2 Ibid. pp. I39-I4I



182         SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
actual experience. God disclosed the revelation originally
in the minds of Isaiah and Paul, and the inspiring Spirit so
guided them that the oracle came forth unchanged to us.
What Mr. Morell, then, calls special and divine arrangements for elevating the religious consciousness, we persist
in calling the revelation of God.
The preceding remarks have prepared us for considering what our author's views are as to the true bond of
religious fellowship, and as to the true basis of religious
certitude. And here, also, the man of mere feeling appears very prominent.  Things which God hath joined
together are here put asunder. "The ground of all true
union amongst Christians," he tells us, "is to be found, not
in the common consent of the understanding to certain
theological definitions, but in the common development of
the intuitional consciousness as regards man's religious
life."' It is not enough for Mr. Morell to say that no
system of theological doctrine can of itself secure religious
fellowship, he must maintain that the latter is independent
of the former. He reasons on the assumption that if the
basis of fellowship be moral in its character it cannot be
theological, or that if it be theological it cannot be moral.
We have always thought that the moral power of Christianity lay in its doctrines understood and believed, and
that Christian fellowship, or a true evangelical alliance,
must depend upon unanimity of religious feeling and adoption of common doctrines combined; and not only so, but
that the influence of the two things would be reciprocal,
the belief in the common doctrines strengthening the common feeling, and the common feeling strengthening the
belief in the doctrines. But " The Philosophy of Religion,"
in accordance with its previous speculations, separates the
one from the other.
1 Philosophy of Rel-gion, p. 288.




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.              183
Mr. Morell's first reason for rejecting a fixed theological test of fellowship, is the want of authority for it in
the apostolic church.  "The bond of union," he says.'
" amongst the early churches was, the powerful awakening
-of the religious consciousness, originating in and maintained
by an intense belief of the great facts connected with the
life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ." And what,
we ask, were these great facts but a doctrinal basis? His
second reason, which he anticipates will startle us, is, that
theological statements do not contain any essential element
of Christianity.2 This arises out of the false principle that
the essence of Christianity is only cognizable directly by
the intuitional consciousness, and is supported only by telling us of persons who " take the sign for the thing; the
counter for the money." But his principal objection, " and
one which admits of historical verification," is, that a fixed
logical or doctrinal basis, " tends inevitably to the gradual
extinction of all that is positive in Christianity."' Mr.
Morell's historical evidence only proves that churches,
despite their doctrinal standards, have often lost the life of
true religion, a thing which no one denies, but against
which the mere flow of feeling, irrespective of objective
truth, affords no guarantee. He appeals, among other
places, to Geneva and Scotland,4 and so do we. And we
tell him that there is a church in Geneva -though it be
little among the thousands of Judah -possessed of life
and power which adheres firmly to a doctrinal basis; and
that no country has ever enjoyed more of the religious life
than Scotland, which has always attached much importance
to theological doctrines. We have as little sympathy as
Mr. Morell with lifeless forms and barren orthodoxy. But
the idea that men, or communities, can be knit together in
1 Philosophy of Religion, p. 271.  2 Ibid. p. 2733 Ibid. p. 278.              4 Ibid. pp. 284-286.




184          SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
holy love, while at variance on great essential doctrines, is
perfectly utopian. There is much in this talk of leaving
doctrinal matters undetermined in view of a broad and
general fellowship, that reminds one of Parker's " absolute
religion" and Newman's "doctrine of divine sympathy,"
over each of which might be inscribed, "Wide is the gate
and broad is the way, and many there be which go in
thereat."
Mr. Morell's basis of religious certitude accords with
his basis of religious fellowship. He removes it from the
Bible page to the religious consciousness of humanity
which it awakens.  "The basis of certitude," he says,
" lies in the essential characteristics of the intuitions themselves- in their distinctness, in their uniformity, and, under due influences, in their universality; not in their symbolical representation upon the sacred page.'' The test
is thus shifted from the inspired Book —the law and the
testimony - to a comparison of inward experiences. The
ultimate appeal is not, What saith  the Scripture? but,,
What is the catholic feeling and thinking of the Christian
community? Such an appeal may, in certain circumstances,.
serve to corroborate, but can never afford a sure criterion.
And then, how could it be applied in cases where the
teachers of Christianity have stood almost alone, their
intuitions of spiritual things being very partially experienced by others? Besides, how are distinct, uniform and
universal intuitions to be secured, except through a living
faith in the great Christian doctrines as revealed in the
Bible?  So that the catholic feeling and thinking of the
whole Christian community must fall back on the Scriptures
as at once a ground and test. The want of uniformity
in the results of Biblical interpretation, is urged by our
author as a formidable objection against making the Scrip1 Philosophy of Religion, p. 337.




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.               185
tures the basis of religious certitude; and the doctrine of
private judgment is falsely represented as if rationalism
were its inevitable landing-place.' It were easy to retaliate
the charge of want of uniformity, and to show that we have
no security for it in mere inward experiences; but the
charge is unduly exaggerated. There is a wonderful har —
mony in the several sections of the Christian church, in
regard to the bearings of Scripture on the great doctrines
of salvation; and our complacency in that harmony is not
disturbed, any more than our confidence in the principle
of private judgment is shaken, by pointing us to such reckless unbelieving interpreters as Paulus and Strauss. We
deny that the doctrine of private judgment necessarily cuts
us off from the Christian consciousness of mankind, while
we assert that its legitimate exercise is in searching the
Scriptures, to see whether or not these things are so. But
the " Philosophy of Religion " will not allow " that the data
of Christian theology lie before us fixed and complete in
the Bible,"'   And intimations are given as if Christian
ideas were subject to the same laws of development as the
truths of astronomy.  It is a fallacy to speak of Christian
doctrine as a germ which received its first great unfolding
in the apostolic age, and which goes on receiving other
unfoldings.  The Christian  doctrine is not more fully
unfolded in the mind of a believer now than it was in the
days of Paul. The progress made from the day of Pentecost till the apostles finished their course, does not find its
parallel in the progress subsequently made in the church.
In the former period, the revelation was going on; the
latter period received it complete. And the only kind of
progress that awaits Christianity is the glorious one of seeing,
nation after nation coming to this " sempiternal source of
truth divine," and all the sections of the church deeply
1 Philosophy of Religion, pp. 334, 33K.  2 Ibid. pp. 375. 376.




186               SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
influenced by, and united together in, the belief of the
"common  salvation."   Mr. Morell's  hopes  for the  world,
and for unity  and  peace  to  the  church, rest, however, on
the power of the intuitional consciousness, and on the
development of a new philosophy which shall smite all our
theological dogmas and elevate us to the region of catholic
feeling. The spiritualism of Mr. Morell wants the bold
offensiveness of Parker and Newman, but it has this feature
in common, that it unduly magnifies everything within man,
and  leaves  little  or  no  authority  to  the  objective  truth
lying without.'
Such speculations as the above, surrender Christianity
into the power of mere sentiment. That, as we have seen
in the case of Parker, Newman, and Mackay, is made the
test and  arbiter of truth.   And  the  tendency of much  in
the "Philosophy of Religion," is to bring matters to the
same  standard.    Mr. Morell  imagines  that, under  such
custody, we would be led " from the barren region of mere
I It is with this principle of subjectivity that the Evangelical Church in Geneva
has now to contend. There is much in Scherer's letter to D'Aubignu that reminds
us of some of our own spiritualists, all of whom have drunk of the philosophy beyond the Rhine. He says" The Scriptures are the productions of great saints or
of great religious heroes." " The inspiration of the apostles is purely religious."
" For the simple believer, the Bible is no longer an authority, but it is a treasure."
B' ibizcissz is not merely a theological error, but it is a plague upon the Church."
Calvin, Beza, and the other Genevese theologians, had to combat the same errors
three centuries ago. The President of the Theological Institute, who is now fighting the same good fight, says, in his well-timed treatise:'" I dread this subjective
tendency in our times. I dread it, convinced that it cannot fail to have the same
developments, and the same consequences, that it had in the sixteenth century.
You have remarked the sad progression of this opinion. ChAtillon simply taught
the doctrine which substitutes the authority of the individual spirit for the authority of Divine Scripture. But every seed bears its fruit. This doctrine, soon after
professed by Socinus and Servetus, first overthrew all the doctrines of faith; then,
interpreted by Coppin, Pocquet, Gruet, and the libertines, overthrows all the precepts of morality. It thus brought forth great heresies and frightful irregularities.
The progression is terrible, but inevitable.... The foundation of Christian.dogtaz and Chiristian morality, is ilzvolvetd in these opinions."- The A uthority.of God, by D'Aubign6, (pp. I89, 90o.)




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.            187
logical forms into the hallowed paths of a divine life."
The men of the " School of Progress " know full well what
these paths are, and hence their complacency in his specuiations. He has not urged the moral argument against the
evangelical doctrines, nor do we charge him with denying
them; but those who do urge it are disposed to look upon
him as an auxiliary in the same warfare. It is this argument that runs throughout, or underlies, many of the writings of our philosophical spiritualists. It extends, like a
broad belt, through Parker's " Discourse," and Newman's
"' Phases." It is involved in very much of Mackay's " Progress." And, in some other productions, it is supposed to
receive a tacit, if not an avowed, support. Texts of Scripture, involving the obnoxious doctrines of redemption,
which will not bend before a neological exegesis, are
reduced under the weight of what is called the moral argument. We shall scrutinize it for a little.
The argument is grounded on the supposed contradiction between men's moral sentiments and the peculiar
tenets of the evangelical creed. God is the author of our
moral nature, and his revealed will must harmonize with its
utterances. The voice of the Immutable One within the
breast, pronouncing decisively on right and wrong, can
never be falsified, or disputed, by the voice speaking in the
word. Man's reason and moral consciousness, it is alleged,
are opposed to much of what currently passes for the
Christian theology. In the latter, views are given of God
and man so dark and awful as to be repulsed by the
former. There is a collision, it is maintained, between the
dark creed of depravity, the vindictive justice of God as
exhibited in the atonement, and the indestructible judgments and feelings of the human heart. Christ has revealed
unto us the Father, and it sufficeth us. He has taught us
to look up to heaven, and, inspired with filial confidence, to




188        SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
say, " Our Abba, our Father." He has inculcated love to
our enemies, that we may be the children of our Father in
heaven, who maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the
good. He has bidden us behold God as a Father feeding
the fowls of the air, clothing the lilies of the field, and
much more caring for men, his own children. These are
sentiments which meet with a welcome response in every
human bosom, and they proclaim themselves divine. They
are in unison with those genial currents of thought and
feeling which flow through the soul of every man of sensibility, when looking on the shining heavens and the green
earth, and which move him to say, "My Father made them
all." It is in this endearing character that we must view
Him as presiding over the universe, pitying men even as a
father pitieth his children, and making all things to work
together for their good. And it is in this character that
we would expect to meet Him, in making a special revelation of Himself to the world. But the doctrines of what
is called evangelism, continues the objector, conflict with
such sentiments as these. Man is therein represented as a
most wretched object, a creature shapen in iniquity, and a
child of wrath. The God of mercy is exhibited as incensed
against his own offspring, making a heavy exaction for their
guilt, and being appeased only by the interposition of his
well-beloved Son. Repentance does not suffice to procure
forgiveness, as, from the fatherly character of God, we
would have been led to suppose. But an atonement must
first be made to turn away God's wrath, and a supernatural
power must be exerted to raise man up from his degradation.
These are strong statements. There is in them much
gross misrepresentation. But it is in some such way as this
that the religion of the moral sentiments and the orthodox
creed are arrayed against each other. It is not, as in the




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.            189
old rationalistic controversy, a warfare waged on the ground
of critical exegesis. But it is an attempt to set the moral
nature of man over against what the general mind of Christendom has pronounced to be the Revelation of God.
Are, then, the doctrines of redemption irreconcilable with
the paternity of God? and do the persons who urge the
moral objection give a view of the Divine character that is
adequate, and consistent with the nature of things?  We
trow not; and we assign our reasons.
I. This argument is unsupported by analogy. Although
urged by professed theists, it is as applicable to natural
religion as to revealed. If it has any bearing against the.
great facts of the scriptural record, it has not less against
the great facts of the book of providence. The argument
is an old and by no means an invincible one. The answer
is old also, and, in our estimation, a truly satisfactory one.
The gist of the argument is, that God must always act in
accordance with the simple idea of his paternal character;
and that the doctrines of redemption, militating, as is
alleged, against that idea, cannot in their orthodox sense
be true. Carrying along with us, then, the simple and
exclusive idea of paternity, suppose that from the date of
our creation we had dwelt in another reign of God's empire
where sin and misery were unknown, where knowledge of
the most delightful kind was diffused wide as the light,
and where all the inhabitants were perfectly holy and
happy. Suppose, farther, that we had known nothing, by
report or otherwise, of the moral and physical condition
of this earth, but that at a certain period we alighted on
its soil and mingled with its children, would we not have
found much in the condition of mankind irreconcilable
with the simple and exclusive idea of the paternity of
God? We are far from believing that there is any part
of the wide universe, however sinless and happy, the in



190         SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
habitants of which have no other idea of the Eternal than
that of a Father. The idea of paternity is of all others
the most delightful, and, in such a province of the Creator's
dominions as that supposed, will be most vivid; but it is
not all-comprehending. It is a glory that blends with
other glories in the Divine character, and the idea will
consequently be associated with other ideas in the minds
of those beings who have the most enlarged and correct
knowledge of God. But, for the sake of argument, we
suppose ourselves to have lived in some remote happy
region, and then, bringing along with us the exclusively
vivid idea of paternity, to have come into this world; and
we ask, How much in its condition would we not have
found apparently at variance with it?
There is the palpable fact of moral evil meeting us at
every step, a fact which, however much men may attempt
to disguise or mitigate it, cannot be denied. The existence
of this, in any part of the earth, would be to us a monstrous anomaly, and conflict mightily with our exclusive
idea of the Divine paternity.  Much more would this
happen, when we ascertained that it was neither local nor
temporary, that traces of it were to be found wherever
man set his foot, and that it had been perpetuated from
generation to generation ever since the existence of the
first family. Here, we might say, is a phenomenon, which,
judging from our notions of the paternal character of the
Divine dispensations, we would never have expected. And
how account for the permission at first, and for the prevalence hitherto, of this dreadful evil in a world under the
supreme control of Him whom we have been accustomed
to regard as the Father of his creation, the wisest and best
Father of his people?
Then, again, there is the moral nature of man, speaking
clearly, by its primitive judgments, on behalf of truth and




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.             191
rectitude, and yet ever in love with error and swerving
from the right path. The human soul declaring, by the
wondrous natural powers with which it has been endowed,
that it is celestial in its origin; and yet making it evident,
by the manifestation of these powers, that it is allied to,
the dust.  This is what we never would have anticipated
under the government of Him who is the Father of spirits.
And, as we traveled through this world, or read its history
in past ages, and became acquainted with the ignorance,
the irreligion and suffering that prevailed, our preconceived
notions would be the more scattered, and our exclusive
idea of paternity be brought the more into conflict with
actual realities. Here and there, we would perceive a
few minds, like tall trees studding at intervals a level
tract of country, rising by their intelligence and attainments above the crowd, while the greater part of that
crowd were groveling, ignorant, sensual. The perplexities
would increase, and the gloom thicken upon us, as we
proceeded to consider the religious condition of mankind
in general. Here, on an insignificant spot of the world's
map, would we behold a small portion of the race possessing anything like worthy conceptions of God; and, even
among these, an ever manifesting tendency to corrupt that
knowledge and to depart from Him; while, in reference
to the rest, we would find the description of the sacred
oracle to be by no means exaggerated, "darkness covered
the earth, and gross darkness the people."
The darkness would become the more visible, and the
anomalies the more bewildering, on noticing the moral and
physical suffering that prevailed. What a vast and varied
amount of mental and bodily distress meets the eye in
this direction and in that! The thirst for happiness is
insatiable, the cry is deep, earnest and incessant, "Who
will show us any good?" The yearnings and strivings of




192         SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
the human spirit indicate that happiness is "our being's
end and aim,"- and yet men in general fail of attaining
to it. The moral viciousness of individuals and communities has its counterpart in dreadful and complicated
sufferings.  Here, we see physical ills following moral
transgressions with something like the certainty of fixed
laws; and there, we behold ever and anon in history terrible special interpositions, in the form of famine or flood,
pestilence or war, proclaiming to those who have ears to
hear, that there is verily a God that judgeth in the earth.
The innocent are involved in these calamities, as well as
the guilty. The sins of the fathers are visited upon the
children. The good and beneficent are not unfrequently
overwhelmed in the same national judgments that come
upon the evil-doers and the profane.
This is a state of matters, a complicated scene of ignorance and irreligion, of moral and physical suffering, which
the inhabitants of a sinless world, having a vivid idea of
the paternity of God, would have found on their arrival
(until the explanation was given) to be awfully and distressingly embarrassing.  And, had it been possible for such
intelligences to have had no other idea of God but the
paternal one, they would have learned that some other
must be embraced, and that between them there was the
most perfect harmony. Here, then, we meet the objection
against the doctrines of the Christian redemption, urged on
the ground of their supposed contrariety to the paternal
character of God. The objector says, the atonement and
the system of which it forms the center are utterly at variance with what we, judging from his character as a father,
would have supposed God to have done had He interposed
on behalf of the human race. We ask the objector, Is that
world without and around you such as you would have supposed it would be? Had you come from another sphere,




OF  THE  BIBLE  REDEMPTION.                        193
with no other idea about God in your head than the
paternal one, would you have expected to have found that
mysterious and mighty thing, moral evil, at the heart of
humanity, perpetuating and diffusing itself from age to age,
and bringing in its train such an amount of moral and physical wretchedness as has inscribed on the world's history
mourning   and   lamentation  and  woe?   We ask  you  to
reconcile that fact, which is patent to every eye, with your
preconceived notions of the paternity of God; and we tell
you, that you could no more ward off the objection which
the supposed visitant might bring against the condition of
our world, than, as you suppose, it can be warded off from
the doctrines of the Christian redemption.'
2. The view of the Divine character taken by this argument, is one-sided andpartial.  It embraces a delightful and
important truth, but it is not the whole truth, nor the whole
of the most important truth. God is the common father
of all his creatures.   "Have we not all one father, hath not
one God created us?"   And it is in this character, that He
opens his hand, and satisfies the desire of every living
thing. The child feels the sweet power of this truth, when
with bended knee and uplifted heart and look, he says,
" Our Father which art in heaven." The man of feeling,
casting his eye over the varied face of nature, is moved,
I Harrington, the skeptic, who had been prevented from taking refuge in the
>'half-way houses" between the Bible and religious skepticism, says:'If I acquiesce, on Mr. Newman's grounds, in the rejection of the Bible as a special revelation of God, I am compelled on the very sanze principles to go a few steps farther,
and to express doubts of the absolutely divine original of the World, and the
administration thereof, just as he does of the divine original of the Bible. If I concede to Mr. Newman, however we may differ as to the moral and spiritual faculties
of man, that these are yet the sole and ultimate court of appeal to us; that from our
intuitions' of right and wrong, of'moral and spiritual truth,' be they more perfect
according to him, or more rudimentary and imperfect according to me, we must form
a judgment of the moral bearings of every presumed external revelation of God; I
cannot do otherwise than reject much of the revelation of God in his presumed
Works as unworthy of him, just as Mr. Newman does very much in his supposed
Word as equally unworthy of him. "-The Eclizse of f1aith, p. 147.'3




194         SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
and justly so, at the thought of that immense paternity
which embraces heaven and earth, and the whole empire
of animated being from the seraph to the reptile. And the
Christian has been taught, by the holy oracles, to look
upon God as being in the highest sense his Father, and as
thus making all things work together for his good. But
the regal character pertains no less to the Divine Being
than does the parental; and nature and revelation teach us
to regard Him as a Sovereign no less than a Parent. The
two ideas blend together, and are realized, in the utmost
perfection, in the Divine nature; and so should they blend
in our conceptions of what God is, and of what are his rela —
tions to our world. He is not only the best and wisest of
fathers, but the most righteous, benignant, and powerful of
kings. The same dispensation of Providence may bring
impressively before our mind this two-fold view of the
Divine relation. Afflictions, in one sense, are sovereign;
judgments; and, in another sense, they are fatherly chastisements. In one view, they are punishments for sin; and,
in another view, they are tokens of a father's love. They
manifest at once the righteous Sovereign and the benignant
Parent. Justice has been defined to be goodness regulated
by wisdom, and the sovereign relation may be said to be
the parental controlled by the same attribute. It would,.
however, be a very defective view of the Divine character,
to exclude the idea of justice, and adopt the bare idea of
goodness, as comprehensive of the whole truth about God.
And it is the very same defect in that theory which regards
Him simply and exclusively as the Parent of all. It is a
gross misrepresentation of the Christian atonement, to
speak of it as if the fatherly character of God was there
overshadowed or shut out. "Go to my brethren," said the
Apostle and High Priest of our profession, "and say unto
them, "I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.           195
my God and your God." It is, indeed, in the atonement,
that we see the paternal relation in its richest elements and
loveliest manifestation, not dissociated from or shrouded
by the regal, but the majesty of the one rendered attractive
by the love of the other, and the love of the one appearing the more grand and costly in union with the other.
"Mercy and truth meet together, righteousness and peace
embrace each other." We behold at once, "the just God
and the Savior." The theology of the natural religion is
no less meager and contracted than that of the revealed,
and the view of the Divine character as the God of providence, is no less partial than the view of Him as the God
of redemption, which does not embrace the twofold relationship of Jehovah as the King and Father of his people.
Whether we contemplate Him as seated on the circle of
the universe, presiding over the movements of the spheres,
and magnifying the affairs of men; or, as manifested in the
cross, magnifying his law and bringing redemption to a lost
world; we do not contemplate Him aright, unless it be in
the blended relations of the righteous Sovereign and the
benignant Parent. "The Lord reigneth; let the earth
rejoice; let the multitudes of isles be glad thereof. Clouds
and darkness are round about Him; righteousness and
judgment are the habitation of his throne."
3. The doctrine of depravity, as stated in Scripture or
implied in the atonement, is not a whit more aggravated
and mysterious than the actual condition of man. The Bible
doctrine, on this subject, has been denounced as dark and
perplexing; but it is not more so than the palpable facts
that come under observation and experience.  To hear
some men speak about the dark and mysterious doctrines
of Scripture, you would imagine that, without the pale
of Christianity, difficulty and darkness were unknown, that
all was unclouded sunshine, comprehensible and plain.




196         SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
Whereas, it is just because there are mysteries in nature,
that there are mysteries in revelation. No one disputes the
existence of sin in the world. The mountain stands before
us, however different inay be the estimates formed of its
origin and size. But some would represent its existence in
nature, and account for its presence in the human soul, in
such a way as to set the natural religion over against the
revealed. The conflict takes place at two points. The
Bible teaches that sin is an element of positive evil in the
heart, consisting in the corruption of the will, and that, as a
depraved force, it affects all the mental powers, and manifests itself in the outward conduct. Opponents consider
sin as a negative thing, consisting rather in the defect
of a positive good than in the presence of a positive evil.
The Bible traces all human transgression up to the inward
depraved principle, which is strengthened and developed
by outward circumstances. The objectors maintaining the
original goodness of the heart, regard sin as an accident,
and the product of external forces acting upon man's constitution. There it is, however, in the heart of humanity,
account for it as you will.
The first thing we affirm respecting it is, that it is not
represented more darkly in Scripture than it exists actually
in the world. There is not a darker picture of depravity
in the Bible than that which is drawn by Paul in his epistle
to the Romans. He there proves, by an induction of evidence, that mankind are deeply and universally depraved.
And the testimonies of historians, who were by no means
friendly to Christianity, may be appealed to in proof that
the apostolic description is not darker than the outward
reality. Experience and observation are in perfect harmony with scriptural representations on this point. The
book declares that all have sinned, and the world sets its
seal to the statement as true. The book declares that the




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.             197
heart is deceitful, and what man of self-reflection will deny
it? The plague raged not less fearfully in the city, than
Daniel Defoe describes it. The desert is not less arid and
cheerless, than it appears in the pages of the traveler.
And the actual state of the moral nature of man, before
better influences came down upon it, is no less dark and
depraved than it is represented in scriptural statements, or
implied in the doctrine of atonement.
But we assert, farther, that the Bible account of the
origin of sin, however mysterious, is more in accordance
with fact than the view given in the opposite argument.
The doctrine of Scripture is, that all men have been involved in the fall of their common parent, and that, in
consequence of the first sin of the first man, they have
inherited a depraved nature. Not that men actually sin
without the concurrence of their own will, but that the
principles of depravity are inherent within them. This we
hold to be more philosophically true than the explanation
that sin is an accident, the result of external agencies, a
thing not proceeding from the soul within, but coming to it
from without. It is true that we cannot detect depravity
till some time after the birth of an individual, but neither
can we detect reason or the rudiments of a moral nature.
The child, in the process of time, however, gives signs of
the existence of the reasoning faculty, and of the moral
constitution, and contemporaneously therewith does it manifest tendencies to evil. Now, as has often been remarked,
we never ascribe the existence of reason and the moral
sense to education or to any external influences. They
may develop them, but they do not produce them. Men,
in all circumstances, manifest reason and a moral nature;
and this is to us a proof that they are inherent in the
human constitution.  Men, in all circumstances, manifest
depraved affections. These circumstances may call them




198         SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
forth, strengthen them, or even counteract them, but they
do not originate them, and this we take to be a proof of an
original depraved propensity. The uniform occurrence of
moral actions is not a stronger evidence of a moral nature,
than the uniform occurrence of wrong moral actions is an
evidence of a corrupt moral nature.
It is somewhat strange, that certain reforming projectors, who persist in maintaining that inherent depravity is to
be found nowhere but in the "dark creed " of the Gospel,
and that all the evils which afflict man are to be traced
to external circumstances operating on his mental and
physical constitution, should, on the supposition of their
theory being true, never have succeeded,- in those genial
climes whither they have removed, and amid those favorable circumstances by which they were surrounded, — in
rearing up plants without spot or wrinkle or any such thing.
They have had their Utopias, their Icarias, and Harmony
Halls. But old Adam has always proved too strong for
young Melaricthon. The power of inward evil has sported
with all their fondly-cherished schemes to subdue it, and
shown such schemes to be visionary and vain. And, it is
not less strange (on the supposition of the truth of the
theories of Parker and Newman), that, notwithstanding the
alleged virtue of the "absolute religion," and the " spiritual
faculty," which are said to render the Gospel unnecessary,
men, uninfluenced by that Gospel, should have everywhere
continued corrupt and corruptors. But it is not strange on
the belief of the Scripture doctrine, that man is radically
depraved, that the principle of evil is within, and that out
of the heart come the things that defile the man. This
doctrine, as we have admitted, is dark and mysterious,
standing boldly forth as it does on the Bible page. But it
is not a whit more so than the actual condition of man in
the world. The account of the astounding phenomenon




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.            199
as given in the inspired volume, is, however, vastly more
in accordance with observation and experience, than any
opposite theory. And we ask, when are men of philosophical pretensions to cease assuming, or how long is the world
to tolerate their assumption, that darkness and mystery
belong only to the theology of the Gospel which they disown, and that these horrible things have no place in the
theology of nature of which they profess themselves the
disciples and friends?
4. The doctrine of pardon on the ground of an atonement
is neither unreasonable nor inconsistent with the Paternity of
God, as is supposed. We assent to the remarks of the eloquent preacher,' " that there is in this doctrine something
extremely remote from ordinary apprehension, apart from
the instruction derived from Holy Writ. That one of the
human race, by submitting to an ignominious and painful
death, should be the moral source of the salvation of an
innumerable multitude of mankind, and, if duly improved,
a sufficient source for the salvation of all, is surely one of
the most extraordinary of the Divine proceedings with regard to man. Nothing like this has ever existed. It seems
to stand by itself, an insulated department of Divine Providence, to contain within itself a method of acting which
was never seen before, and will never be repeated." It was
a mysterious exigency, altogether unprecedented, that had
to be met, and the expedient devised by Infinite wisdom has
a height and depth that pass knowledge. And yet, notwithstanding the unique and unparalleled nature of this distinctive act of moral mediation, the idea of moral substitution
has a foundation in nature, and pardon through a mediator
is a principle not unfrequently exemplified in history. Some
men speak under a kind of horror at this doctrine, because
it represents the God and Father of mankind as inflicting
1 Robert Hall.




200         SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
punishment on the innocent, and thus reversing all our ideas
of moral rectitude, that where there is no sin there should
be no suffering. But,- not to dwell on the assumption involved in this objection, that the objector knew all the
ends God had in view in the work of atonement, or that
these ends are not better secured by the sufferings of
Christ than they could have been in any other way — does
it not frequently happen in God's providential administration that persons are involved in sufferings in consequence
of the sins of others, in the commission of which they had no
part; and that men possessed of little or no virtue in themselves, have much respect shown to them, and many benefits conferred upon them, solely on account of the virtues of
others? Some of the most direful calamities that ever fell
on individuals or communities, have been the consequences
of the wrong-doings of others, of which they themselves
were innocent. And some of the richest blessings that
ever descended upon families or nations, may be traced to
the merit and suffering of those who, for righteousness'
sake, perished in the field, at the stake, or on the scaffold.
In such cases as these, we see the existence of a principle, which is manifested, in a manner altogether unparalleled, in the Christian redemption, the principle of moral
substitution, the principle of conferring benefits on individuals or communities from a regard to the merits of others,
and of the innocent suffering in consequence of the deeds
of the guilty. And that this principle is in harmony with
the general sentiments of mankind, is abundantly testified
by their religious observances even in lands where the
Gospel is unknown.  It is altogether unphilosophical to
ascribe any permanent and universally diffused feeling and
sentiments to what have been considered a few interested
classes of the community. " To affirm, as some have done,"
says Isaac Taylor,' "that priests are the authors of religion
I Man Responsible, p. 8.




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.            201
and moral sentiment, is a sort of upside-down logic, not
easily understood.  Surely it were more philosophical to
invert the terms of the proposition, and to affirm that religion and moral sentiment are the authors of priests." The
altars which have been reared and the sacrifices which have
been offered, in every age and quarter of the world, show that
the idea of vicarious interposition has its foundation in the
constitution of nature. And the same principle is evinced
in cases, unconnected with religious rites and observances,
of the good and great in history suffering for the unworthy,
and the virtues of such illustrious sufferers being so reckoned
to others as that on account of them undeserved favors
have been bestowed. We never look, in anything among
men, for a parallelism to the amazingly grand fact of salvation by the interposition and sacrifice of the Son of the
Highest. But, in such cases as those to which we have
adverted, we see, be the actions blameworthy or commendable, that the notions of vicarious suffering and of treating
the undeserving kindly for the sake of the deserving, are
not so strange and unnatural as some persons, in objecting
to the atonement, would seem to suppose.
It was one of the unworthy expedients of the old
deistical writers, and the same is not unfrequently resorted
to in more modern times, to misrepresent and disfigure the
atonement, and then hold it up to the execration of man —
kind.  The following is a specimen from  Bolingbroke.
"Let us suppose a great prince, governing a wicked and
rebellious people,-he has it in his power to punish, but
thinks fit to pardon them. But he orders his only and
well-beloved son to be put to death, to expiate their sins,.
and satisfy his royal vengeance. Would this proceeding
(asks the writer) appear to the eye of reason, and in the
unprejudiced light of nature, wise, or just, or good? No
man dares to say that it would except it be a divine."'
TLeland's Deistical Writers.




'202        SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
No person deserving the name of a divine but would cry
out on the monstrous injustice as loudly as the philosopher
himself. But is such a case parallel to the Christian atonement? Far from it. It fails in two things, and failing in
these, the whole is vitiated. In the first place, the highest
injustice would have been done to the substitute, in the
case supposed; whereas, no injury whatever was done to
Christ, for, with a perfect knowledge of what he would
have to endure, his undertaking was entirely voluntary.
He is represented in the ancient oracle as saying, when
about to enter on the work of mediation, " Lo! I come, I
delight to do thy will, 0 my God;" and, on earth he
declared, " No man taketh my life from me. I have power
to lay it down and I have power to take it again." In the
-second place, no sentiment is more derogatory to the
Divine character, and more opposed to the declarations
of Scripture, than that which represents God as naturally
implacable toward the human race, and as being appeased
by the interposition of his beloved Son.  The sacred
penman, and the adherents of the doctrine of redemption,
always speak of the mission and death of Christ, not as
the cause, but as the effect of the Father's love, not as
rendering Him merciful toward us, but as the divinely
appointed way of manifesting his self-moved benignity to
the guilty. What can be plainer than the golden passage
in John, " God so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not
perish, but have everlasting life." The paternal theory, as
we have seen, embraces only one aspect of the twofold
relation in which the Supreme Being stands to men; it
separates the glories that blend in the Divine character,
and overlooks one of them as if it had no existence.
Whereas, it is the pre-eminent excellence of the Christian
doctrine of atonement, that it is comprehensive of the




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.             203
whole. In it, we see at once the righteous Governor of
the world maintaining the integrity of his just and good
laws, and the benignant Parent, in perfect consistency with
the holiness of his character and the honor of his administration, extending mercy to his rebellious children. We
behold in the theory of the atonement, what we fail to
perceive in the paternal theory, a high regard to the cause
of moral right and to the general interests of the universe,
and an altogether extraordinary manifestation of Divine
benevolence to guilty man. It speaks loudly in behalf
of its truthfulness, that it harmonizes so wondrously the
Divine relations of sovereign and parent; exhibiting in
the world's great exigency, righteousness inviolable and
uncompromising to be the girdle of God's throne, and
love, unexampled and ineffable, going forth from his heart.
The angels embraced the blended glories of king and
father, when they sung over the plains of Bethlehem,
"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men."
But this is mysterious doctrine! As if, by crying up
mystery as a bugbear, men are to be scared away from it.
We reply to the taunt by saying, there is a mystery no less
inscrutable and astounding before your eyes, a mystery
which has called this other forth - the mystery of moral
evil. Solve that mystery, or deny it, before you urge
mystery as an objection against the Divine provision that
has been made to meet it. It is the mystery of man's fall
that has occasioned the mystery of man's redemption.
"Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness;
God was manifested in the flesh." But, "herein he hath
abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence."
5. The doctrine of Divine influence as indispensably
necessary to regenerate the souls of nen, is a reasonable
doctrine; at variance neither with the dictates of nature




204         SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
nor the principles of sound philosophy. It deserves notice, that while the earlier unitarians shrunk from boldly
impugning this article of the evangelical creed, their successors generally ridicule and deny it; or, in accordance
with the " School of Progress," merge it in the very commonest natural influence. Men may think to construct a
religious philosophy without it, but it requires little consideration to see, that of all philosophies it is the most
unphilosophical. It has been already shown, that, to be
thoroughly consistent in denying the intervention of God
in preserving and ruling the universe, men must take up
their position in atheism and deny the existence of God
Himself. And it may as justly be affirmed, that, to be
thoroughly consistent in denying a Divine influence on the
soul, men must either hold that the soul exists independently of God, or is placed beyond the reach of his operations. The possibility, not to say the probability or actual
certainty, of the Almighty Maker exerting an influence on
the material worlds, in accordance with the laws and prop —
erties which He has impressed on them being granted; it
cannot, with any pretensions to philosophy, be denied that
God may exercise an influence on the souls which He has
formed, so as not to interfere with their free agency and
responsibility.  No one will venture to assert that it is
more difficult to conceive how the spirit of God operates
on mind, than how He operates on matter. Yea, we will
venture to say that it is more easy to conceive the action
of mind on mind, than the action of mind on matter.
Many of the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, as
has often been shown by quotations from their writings,
admitted not only the possibility but the necessity and
reality of Divine influences on the mind for the attainment
and practice of virtue.  Seneca declares, "It is God that
comes to men; yea more, He enters into them, for no




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.             205
mind becomes truly good but by his assistance.". Plato
has remarked, "that virtue is not to be taught but by the
assistance of God." And he introduces Socrates as declaring, "that wheresoever virtue comes, it seems to be
the fruit of a divine dispensation." These considerations
show, not only that the exercise of a Divine influence on
the mind is possible, but that the want of it has been felt,
and the reality of it admitted, by the greatest men living
under the glimmering light of nature. This augurs something in favor of its reasonableness and accordance with
sound philosophy. And surely, if we admit a supernatural
intervention in revealing Christianity at the first, it is more
in accordance with right reason to believe that it makes its
way through this world, rife as it is with powerful principles that are hostile to it, accompanied with an influence
from on high, than that it has been left to struggle alone,
unaided by the spiritual energy which gave it birth.
But the objection is, that it interferes with the moral
freedom of man. As if an influence coming from without
could not but destroy or impair the freedom of the will
within. It is a sufficient reply to this objection, that the
operation of such an external cause no more implies interference with human liberty than the operation of any
other external causes. One man exerts an influence upon
another by his speech or example, without it ever being
supposed that the moral freedom of that other is interfered
with. The orator in the senate, or from the pulpit, influences men to change their opinions and follow a different
line of conduct, and no one ever imagines that the responsibility of men is thereby lessened. We are thrown into
society, or brought into contact with the scenes of external
nature, and passively receive impressions from the objects
that surround us, but we, nevertheless, feel that our free
will is not interfered with in avoiding or pursuing any train




20 6        SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
of thought or course of conduct to which they would lead
us. And why should it be thought to be otherwise with
an influence coming not from earth but from heaven, not
from objects that are natural but divine and spiritual?
Men, it has been remarked, are passive in receiving natural
light and bodily strength from God, and yet free and active
in making use of them. And so it may be conceived that
men derive spiritual light and strength from the same
source, and enjoy their moral freedom in like manner. If
it be objected that the cases are not parallel, we answer
that they are perfectly parallel in the point for which they
have been adduced-viz., non-interference with man's
moral liberty. We are conscious that the influence exerted
on our minds by human spirits is according to the laws of
our moral constitution. We feel that influence, and nevertheless we are conscious that we are morally free. In like
manner, the subjects of Divine influence know that it is
God that worketh in them, and yet they feel, too, that they
are free to choose the good and avoid the evil.
Such are the aspects in which the doctrine is presented
in Scripture, and in that orthodox creed which is objected
against. It is obviously implied in those inspired statements which speak of men resisting and quenching the
Spirit's influences, that these influences do not in the least
interfere with man's free agency, nor diminish but rather
increase his responsibility. David, conscious of his moral
freedom, meditated on his comparatively small and dark
Bible, while he lifted up his heart to the heavens and said,
"Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things
out of thy law." Paul gave the exhortation, "Work out
your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God
that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good
pleasure."  At this point, then, the Scripture doctrine,
however inscrutable otherwise, accords with human con



OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.             207
sciousness, and with the principles of sound philosophy.
We attempt not, and wish not, to strip it of its mysteriousness. But mystery here is not mystification. And, as Dr.
Vaughan remarks,' "The mystery is, that men should be
in a condition to need regeneration, not that, such being
the fact, the Spirit of the Lord should be sent to' regenerate
them."
In farther confirmation of the reality and reasonableness
of this doctrine, we appeal to three unquestionable facts.
The first is, that where the Gospel is unknown, men are
morally degraded and vile. Whether we look at the ancient
or modern heathen world, the testimony given is the same,
that men, without Christianity, are unregenerate and destitute of moral loveliness. Let any one read Tholuck's
admirable treatise "On the Nature and Moral Influence
of Heathenism, especially among the Greeks and Romans,"
and he will bebconvinced, if unconvinced before, of the
truth of the proposition which he seeks to demonstrate,that "heathenism as such, did not restore, but profaned the
image of God in man." "History," observes Maclaurin,2
" showeth the weak and contemptible efficacy of the sublimest philosophy of the heathens, when it is encountered
with inveterate corruptions or violent temptations. How
many of them that spake of virtue like angels, yet lived in
a manner like brutes: whereas, in all ages, poor Christian
plebeians, unpolished by learning, but earnest in prayer,.
and depending upon grace, have, in comparison of these
others, lived rather like angels than men; and shown such
an invincible steadfastness in the practice of virtue, as
shameth all the philosophy in the world." Plato represents
Socrates as saying, in his discourse with Alcibiades, " Methinks, as Homer says, that Minerva removed the mist from
1 The Age and Christianity, p. 299.
2 Maclaurin's Works, p. 78 (Collins' Edition).




'208        SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
the eyes of Diomede, in order that he might well distinguish God from man, so it is needful that He (the heavenly
teacher), first removing from thy soul the mist which is now
present, should then impart means by which thou shalt
know good and evil; for now thou dost not appear to me
capable of fhis." And the absence of life in modern heathenism to renovate and raise up man, and the presence.and power of it in the Gospel, are strikingly illustrated in
the veritable records of Christian missions. "Why do you
believe in the Divine origin of Christianity?" said an officer,of a British ship to some converted islanders of the South
Sea. "We look," replied one of them, "at the power with
which it has been attended in effecting the entire overthrow
of idolatry among us; and which, we believe, no human
means could have induced us to abandon."' If, over
against all this, men will set the corruptions which have
existed in the presence of Christianity, and assert that the
moral pollution within the pale of the church has not been
less than within the province of heathenism, we reply, in
the words of Tholuck, that, "The question is not, in what
the Christian, who is merely baptized with water, is better
than the heathen, but the one who is baptized with the
Spirit and with fire.... Vain would be the task of him
who would prove that the mass of weeds which have luxuriated within the pale of the Christian church from the
beginning might have sprung from the root of the Spirit of
Christ."2 It can be shown that the Divine life has been
wanting wherever a native or baptized heathenism prevails,
but it cannot be shown that a spiritual deadness has been
prevalent where the Gospel, in its purity and simplicity, has
been believed and obeyed. This of itself is a strong presumptive proof that a Divine influence accompanies, in a
1 The Bible not of Man. By Dr. Spring, p. 156.
2 Nature and Moral Influence of Heathenism, pp. 6, 7.




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.              209
greater or less degree, the truths of Christianity among
men.
The second fact' to which we appeal is, that where
Christianity is exhibited stripped of all its grand distinctive peculiarities as a system of atonement and spiritual
regeneration, and reduced to a kind of religious philosophy,
it is seen to be destitute of life, and morally impotent to
regenerate men. It is " Christianity in the frigid zone."
It contains no elements of truth fitted to arouse the conscience of the ungodly, or to interest the heart of the virtuous. In so far as doctrinal truth is concerned, it is negative rather than positive; and Christianity in its hands,
having dwindled down to little more than a code of ethics,
is supplied with no power to counteract the stubborn principle of depravity, and to infuse a holy, heavenly life into
the soul. Having shorn the Gospel of its mysteries, it has,
in a great measure, deprived it of its strength and left it
to move a cold, meager, uninfluential thing among men.
Let it be carried, accordingly, into the lanes and hovels of
our cities where ignorance and vice hold their ancient
reign; or let it, if it has the zeal, cross the seas and be
brought to bear on the malignant and inveterate forms of
heathenism; — and it is alike powerless in reclaiming the
vicious, and in turning men from idols, to serve the living
and true God. It is by their fruits that we are to judge of
systems as well as of men. And may it not be asked,
(without breach of charity,) is the power of godliness manifested, does a lofty, unearthly piety prevail, are the duties
of religion generally attended to, do works of faith and
labors of love begin and progress, do real conversions to
God and a radical reformation of heart and life take place,
under a system of religious teaching that expunges from
its creed the doctrines of atonement andS Divine influence?  Is there not rather a great congeniality of spirit
I4




210         SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
between this system of an impoverished Christianity and
the skepticism and indifference of men who wish to retain
an outward form of religion, while destitute of its inner
life? Dr. Priestley honestly acknowledged that infidelity
and unitarianism were not very far from each other. The
little state of Geneva, under the predominance of such
principles - the progress of which afforded such delight to
D'Alembert and Voltaire -was characterized by its depravity, its neglect of public and domestic religion, and
the dissoluteness of its manners in general. And though
the system, in the hands of some of its chiefs, has recently
begun to assume a more spiritual aspect, and "to represent
the progress of man in theology," it is not the spiritualism of
the revelation' that has come from above, but that of the
idealistic philosophy; and, being as destitute as ever of
the great distinctive elements of the Gospel, it is as ineffectual to make men holy and happy. But it is of little consequence what shape systems may assume, or what name
their abettors may take,- go forth as they may, avowing
themselves to be religious teachers, so long as they have the
corruptions of the heart to contend with, they will be seen
to be visionary and powerless, and will leave the race, as
similar systems have left it, depraved and unrenewed,
because they have not the Spirit. And this we take to be
another presumptive proof of the reality and reasonableness of the doctrine of Divine influence.
The third fact to which we appeal is, that wherever the
Gospel has been influential in working a radical change on
masses of men, or in adorning the individual character with
the beauties of holiness, strong faith in the doctrine of
Divine influence has existed in the minds of its teachers
and disciples. It was so in the beginning of the Gospel
age. The whole machinery of means had been completed,
the atonement had been finished, the apostles had been




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.            211
chosen and instructed, the Lord had risen from the grave
and ascended up on high,- -but life in the wheels was
wanting, and no remarkable success followed the movements of the moral machinery, till a supernatural influence
came down from heaven. The first teachers of Christianity
waited in expectation of such an influence. It descended
according to the promise of their Lord, and they had
power in converting, sanctifying, and saving men. Paul
and his fellow-laborers never failed to acknowledge, in any
distinguished success that attended their preaching, the
presence and power of the Spirit of God. And a similar
devout recognition of the regenerating Spirit has been
made in every succeeding epoch of revival and missionary
achievement. It was so at the Reformation, when the
Gospel trumpet sounded anew and awoke the nations. It
was so in the times of the good and brave Puritans, men of
whom the world was not worthy, and who were instrumental
in bringing about an age of strong faith and reviving
earnestness.  It was so in the age of Whitfield and Wesley and Romaine, men born to summon the dead to life,
and quicken again the things that were ready to die. It
has been so in the brilliant successes that have crowned
modern missions, and in the times of refreshing that have
ever and anon come upon the church of God. The most
honored instruments in advancing the world's regeneration
have been persons who had firm faith in the doctrine of
the regenerating influences of the Holy Spirit. And a like
testimony is obtained, on perusing the memoirs, or in mingling in the society, of eminent private Christians. The
choicest spirits of our race, whether in the public or retired walks of life, whether standing forth before the world
and battling with its vices and errors, or shedding noiselessly a hallowed influence in the domestic circle, have
been men who looked up to God for the high life of the
soul, and for success to their benignant labors.




212         SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
This doctrine has often been stigmatized as chimerical
and visionary. But such epithets are misapplied, unless
they are kept to brand projects and systems which count
on the world's regeneration while unaccompanied with a
power that can overcome the world's depravity. "Their
work," says John Foster,' "is before them: the scene of
moral disorder presents to them the plagues which they are
to stop, the mountain which they are to remove, the torrent
which they are to divert, the desert which they are to
clothe in verdure and bloom. Let them make their experiment, and add each his page to the humiliating records in
which experience contemns the folly of elated imagination."
The world's regeneration meanwhile goes on; and it must
go on, with the same system of moral means, and accompanied by the same heavenly energy, (though it may be
with greater potency,) as it has proceeded hitherto, until
the glorious consummation shall have come, when voices
in heaven shall be heard saying, "The kingdoms of this
world have become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his
Christ."
6. The charge of gloominess which opponents bring
against the doctrines of redenzption is unfounded. Some men
are incessantly speaking of these doctrines as if they tended
to hang the world in mourning, and to repress every genial
impulse of the soul.  They taunt us, in no measured
terms, with the "dark and horrible creed of depravity," as
if this article were a shade darker in the Gospel than in the
book of nature. The hideous thing has its origin in the
world, not in the Scripture, and it is dark in the one just
because it is dark in the other. They taunt us with the
doctrine of sacrifice and atonement as if it clothed the
Divine Being with the most unamiable attributes. But we
repel the taunt as a gross misrepresentation, and maintain
I Foster's Essays, p. 173.




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.           213
the atonement of the Gospel to be the most illustrious
manifestation of Him who is at once inflexibly just, immaculately holy, and inconceivably kind. They taunt us with
the doctrine of Divine influence as implying that man is
unequal to his duties and destiny, as interfering with his
moral freedom, and tending to unnerve all his energies.
But we reply that man's moral impotency is a fact that lies
within the range of observation and experience, that Divine
influences no more necessarily interfere with his moral freedom than other external influences, and that the doctrine,
scripturally understood, instead of unnerving, rouses and
quickens the energies with which man has been endowed.
And not only do the doctrines of redemption, abstractly
considered, falsify the charge under consideration; but the
fact is undeniable, that persons in every age who have
yielded themselves up to the influence of these doctrines
have generally been the best and happiest of men. The
tree is known by its fruits. In rebutting the charge of
gloominess, then, we appeal to palpable testimony. The
power and character of principles are especially manifested in circumstances of fierce opposition and severe trial.
In such circumstances were the early Christians placed,
men who were of one heart and of one soul in reference to
the doctrines of redemption, and to them we appeal for
evidence of their power to elevate man above his depraved
condition, and to assimilate him to the holiness and happiness of heaven. They gladly receive the word - the word
about the person and work of Him who had suffered and
died the Just One in the room of the unjust -they continued daily with one accord in the temple, and did eat their
meat with gladness and singleness of heart; they departed
from the councils, whither they had been summoned, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer for Christ, in
the prisons into which they had been cast, they prayed at




214         SPIRITUALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
midnight and sung praises to the God of heaven; and, of
the generality of primitive believers, Peter could say, when
speaking of their Lord, "whom having not seen ye love;
in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye
rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." Paul was
no dreaming visionary, no weak enthusiast, but a man of
towering intellect and acute powers of reasoning, and yet
who ever grasped these doctrines more firmly; and what a
well of joy sprung up within him under their influence!
"I would to God," said he to king Agrippa, "that not only
thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost,
and altogether, such as I aim, except these bonds."
There have been, and may be, many melancholy Christians, but, passing over the fact that all the melancholy in
the world is not to be found within the pale of the church,
it requires little philosophy to perceive that that melancholy is no part of their Christianity. It may be resolved
into a natural gloomy temperament, into weak faith, into
partial views of divine truth, or into a want of devotedness
in the life; but the Scripture says, and the cross says, "It
is not in me." Solemnity is not to be confounded with
gloom; seriousness and joy are quite compatible. Hume,
sporting on his death-bed, was liker a fool than a philosopher. The world in which we dwell is fitted to make
men grave and thoughtful. But, it may be unhesitatingly
affirmed, that the believers in the atonement are not less
sensible to the grand and beautiful in nature, and not less
capable of appropriating to themselves the good that is to
be found in the world, than any other class of men. Yea,
we go beyond this, in asserting that the truth as it is in
Jesus is better fitted than any other to expand every intellectual power and to purify and strengthen every moral
feeling, and that, in the view of the mind in whom it dwells,
creation is the more radiant and lovely, and God, even our




OF THE BIBLE REDEMPTION.              215
own God, "sits enthroned on the riches of the universe."
The recorded experience of Jonathan Edwards has, in
some degree, been the experience of many, who, being
originally endowed with susceptibilities to receive impressions from external nature, have had the eyes of their
understanding enlightened at the foot of the cross. But
we appeal specially to it as an illustration of a mind, second to none in acuteness and vigor, holding with a strong
faith the doctrines of redemption in what some men count
all their repulsiveness, and yet sunning himself, as it were,
amid the light and beauty of God's world.  "The appearance of everything," says he, in speaking of the influence
produced on his mind by the clearer views which he had
obtained of the work of Christ, "the appearance of everything was altered; there seemed to be, as it were, a calm,
sweet cast, or appearance of divine glory, in almost everything. God's excellency, his wisdom, his purity and love,
seemed to appear in everything; in the sun, moon and
stars, in the clouds and blue sky; in the grass, flowers and
-trees; in the water and all nature; which used greatly to
fix my mind. I often used to sit and view the moon for a
long time, and in the day spent much time in viewing the
clouds and sky, to behold the sweet glory of God in these
things: in the meantime singing forth, with a low voice, my
contemplations of the Creator and Redeemer."
He looks abroad into the varied field
Of nature, and, though poor, perhaps, compared
With those whose mansions glitter in his sight,
Calls the delightful scenery all his own.
His are the mountains, and the valleys his,
And the resplendent rivers. His to enjoy
With a propriety that none can feel,
But who, with filial confidence inspired,
Can lift to heaven an unpresumptuous eye,
And smiling say —My Father made them all!"




CHAPTER V.
THE DENIAL OF MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY, OR INDIFFERENTISM.
-A diluted kind of skepticism —Not necessarily implying open hostility to the
generally-received body of truth -A weakened sense of responsibility, or an
actual denial of it, lies at the bottom of indifferentism - Indifferentism on the
Continent-Remarks of Dr. Krummacher-Continental Churches-Characterizes rnmch of our own literature - Man's responsibility for his dispositions,
opinions and conduct maintained.- A matter of consciousness - Rests on the
fact of man's free agency - Measured by ability and privilege - Remains indestructible amid all objections from original temperament and external influences.
- Phrenology - Case of Alexander the Sixth - Men individually, and societies
in general, advance morally in proportion as the sense of responsibility is high.
N  this case, no hostile attitude to the generally-received
body of truth  may be taken.  The  doctrines respecting the Divine existence, personality, providential government and the Bible redemption, may theoretically be
admitted, but there is a want of stern fidelity to these doctrines.   The  truth  is not, like  a fortress, stoutly  assailed
and bravely defended. But it happens, either that those
who are without pass by and turn toward it a look of indifference; or that some of its professed guardians would
shake hands alike with friends and foes, persuade them
that their variance is a mere trifle, and receive the one as
well as the other within the citadel. The man does not
go forth before us fully equipped and boldly defying the
armies of the living God, but he shouts for a truce, alleges
that mere matters of opinion are not worth contending for,
and that a man is no more responsible for his belief than
he is for the color of his skin or the height of his stature.
This diluted kind of skepticism is large in its toleration.
Not attaching much importance to any kind of religious
belief, it is indulgent toward all.  It cares not to assail by




INDIFFERENTISM.                217
argument, or otherwise, this creed or that; and it cares as
little about defending what it may have adopted as its own.
It says, Leave me alone to the indulgence of my opinion,
and I will leave you to the indulgence of yours. Different
forms of religious belief are much the same, in its estimation, as the different shaped or different colored coats
which men wear. And it is disposed to think that the
one sits with as little responsibility on the conscience as
the other does on the back. It will stand up resolutely
for a political creed, and unsparingly denounce its opposite; it will have its favorite theory in science, and argue
keenly for it against every other; it will be engrossed with
its land or merchandise, and suffer nothing to interfere
with the most intense devotion thereto. But it has no
zeal to spend on religious opinions, it has nc article in
theology so dear as to muster up an argument in its defense, and it will suffer itself to be engrossed with anything
or everything rather than with the system of truth which
it professes to believe. It is indifferent itself toward religion, and it cares little what quiet shape it may assume
in others. Gibbon, speaking of the paganism of ancient
Rome, says, "The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman'world were all considered by the
people as equally true, by the philosopher as equally false,
and by the magistrate as equally useful." The comment
of some one is, "After eighteen centuries of the Gospel,
we seem unhappily to be coming back to the same point."
A very weakened sense of responsibility, or an actual
denial of it, lies at the bottom of that indifferentism which
is so extensively prevalent in the present age. On the
Continent, especially in Germany and France, not only are
opinions destructive of the sense of responsibility widely
diffused among the masses, but in the case of vast multitudes, who would not wish to be counted the foes of




218         INDIFFERENTISM; OR, THE DENIAL
Christianity, there is an utter absence of anything like
the religious obligation of belief. This state of matters -
the showing a kind of civil deference to religion while
utterly heedless of the obligation which rests upon the
individual conscience in reference to religion itself — exists
among all classes from the higher ranges to the low levels
of society. "We find especially," says Dr. Krummacher,
speaking of Germany, " an indifference to all that is called
religion in that mass of people with whom care and anxiety
for daily bread exists. In this so-called proletariat, particularly in large towns, this indifference often borders on
animal stupidity; the material wants fill the whole soul... The number of the indifferent are, however, unhappily not less in the circles of the well-instructed, and particularly among State functionaries.  Besides that time
which is necessary for the fulfillment of their official duties,
they have but barely sufficient left for the more trivial dissipations which they find in literary and political lectures,
and in social intercourse.  In regard to all higher interests,
Piiate's question reigns —'What is truth?' They believe
that they are able to infer from the religious controversy,
by which they are on all sides surrounded, that in the
region of supernatural things nothing certain is to be
learned.  They therefore consider it wiser not to enter
upon their consideration, and passively to await what is
once to be revealed as truth or as a lovely dream."' This
picture is too true a description of other parts of Europe
besides Germany. It is obvious that such a state of things
can only consist with an avowed rejection or with the very
faintest recognition of the principle that man is responsible
for his religious belief.
Indifferentism as to the real import of evangelical truth
— the result, it may be, of an indiscriminate recognition
I The Religious Condition of Christendom (I852), p. 423.




OF MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY.            219
of widely-differing churches by the political powers-is
sadly prevalent in some of the continental religious bodies
at the present day. It is no uncommon thing, to find men
of all shades of opinion, from simple deism up to the dry
skeleton of an orthodox creed, blended together as parts
of the same professedly Christian church. Recent events
have shown an unwillingness, on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities to moot the subject of a confession
grounded in its details on the law and the testimony, and
to insist on a personal adherence to the articles of evangelism  as an indispensable condition of membership.  The
liking of some of the continental Protestant churches for a
coat of many colors, has long been evinced; and the same
ecclesiastical robe is made to cover the man whose Christianity consists merely in a bare recognition of the New'Testament and a respect for Jesus as a better moral teacher
than Socrates, and the man who professedly holds the
divinity of Christ, the atonement and the regenerating
influence of the Spirit. This state of things indicates an
-enfeebled sense of responsibility, or the existence, somewhere, of the notion that religious belief is not a matter,of personal obligation for which we are accountable to
God. It was against such indifferentism that Arndt, Spener, Bengel, Franke, and others, lifted up their voice in the
two preceding centuries. And on the side of a spiritual
Christianity, of a sound doctrinal faith, and man's responsibility for the same, have their illustrious successors, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, Muiller, Neander, D'Aubign6, Monod,
and others, fought valiantly in our own times.
This vague sort of infidelity, sometimes associated with
a professed respect for Christ and the Scriptures, and, at
other times allied with unbelief in some of its bolder forms,
is often to be met with in the workshops, and in the higher
circles of our own land. It has not lacked advocacy on




220        INDIFFERENTISM; OR, THE DENIAL
the part of some whose position and talents give them
influence. It is stated or implied, in much of our current
popular literature, that a man's creed does not depend upon
himself. This dogma pervades the writings of Mr. Emerson.' Napoleon, one of his "'representative men," of whom
he tells " horrible anecdotes," must not, in his view, "be set
down as cruel; but only as one who knew no impediment
to his will." He depicts him as an " exorbitant egotist,
who narrowed, impoverished, and absorbed the power and
existence of those who served him;" and concludes by
saying, "it was not Bonaparte's fault."  He thus condemns.
and acquits in the same breath, sends forth from the same
fountain sweet water and bitter.  Mr. Theodore Parker
makes each form of religion that has figured in the history
of the world, "natural and indispensable." "It could not
have been but as it was." And, therefore, he finds truth, or
the "absolute religion," in all forms; "all tending toward
one great and beautiful end."2 Of course, the idea of the re —
ligious obligation of belief resting upon the individual conscience, is here quite out of question. Mr. F. W. Newman,
who is so fond of parting off things that most men connect
together, would persuade us that there may be a true faith
without a true belief, as if the emotional part of our naturewas independent of the intellectual. "Belief;" says he, " is
one thing, and faith another." And he complains of those
who, on religious grounds, are alienated from him because
he has adopted " intellectual conclusions" different from
theirs-" the difference between them  and him" turning
merely "on questions of learning, history, criticism, and
abstract thought."3 The philosophy is as bad here as the
theology. In the view of common sense and Scripture, a
living faith is as the doctrine believed. But Mr. Newman,
1 Emerson's Representative Men, pp. 144, i27.
2 Parker's Discourse, p. 8i.  3 Phases of Faith, Preface.




OF MAN S RESPONSIBILITY.               221
in common with Mr. Parker and others, can lay down his
offensive weapons when he wills, and take up a position on
the low ground of indifference as to religious belief. T/zen,
creeds become matters of mere moonshine, and responsibility is regarded as a fiction invented by priests. This is
part of the bad theology of Mr. Bailey's " Festus," as we
formerly noticed. The hero of the poem is made to say:
"Yet merit or demerit none I see
In nature, human or material,
In passions or affections good or bad:
We only know that God's best purposes
Are oftenest brought about by dreadest sins.
Is thunder evil, or is dew divine?
Does virtue lie in sunshine, sin in storm?
Is not each natural, each needful, best?"'
And, to come down to the lower levels of our literature, it
is an avowed principle of the Owen or Holyoake school,
that a man who does wrong is not to be blamed but pitied;
-and, if restraint be necessary, he must be restrained like a
wild bull, merely that society may be uninjured. Man is
thus degraded, in the attempt to set him free from the
Divine moral government. And these philosophers are
every day acting an absurdity, in speaking of "wrong " or
"bad " actions; since, in their view, men cannot help performing them, and these actions are but parts of one harmonious whole.
But, to rise up in the scale, a greater name than any yet
mentioned has, in an "inaugural discourse," lent his authority to the pernicious doctrine of non-responsibility for
belief. Many of our ingenuous academic youth were
startled, some years ago, on hearing it given forth, with
something like oracular authority, from the halls of science,
as a great truth, that man has no control over his belief,
1 Bailey's Festus, p. 49.




222        INDIFFERENTISM; OR, THE DENIAL
that he is no more responsible for his opinions than he is
for his color or his height, and that an infidel or an atheist
is to be pitied but not blamed. This, we are persuaded, is
a piece of flimsy sophistry, which no man durst utter, and
which would not be listened to for a moment in connection
with any other subject but that of religion. It would be
condemned in the senate and at the bar, it would be
drowned in the tumult of the exchange and the marketplace. Common sense, and a regard to worldly interests,
would rise up and hoot down the traitor. Unfortunately,
however, in the province of religion, the natural indisposition of the mind to things unseen and spiritual, allies itself
with the pleadings of the sophist, and receives his doctrine
of irresponsibility with something like flattering unction.
Nothing more than this is requisite to undermine the
foundation of all religious belief and morals, to let open
the floodgates of immorality, and to make the restraints of
religion like the brittle flax or the yielding sand. In opposition to such latitudinarianism, we maintain that man is
responsible for the dispositions which he cherishes, for the
opinions which he holds and avows, and for his habitual
conduct.  This is going the whole length of Scripture, but
no farther, which affirms that every one of us must give
an account of himself unto God. And this meets with a
response from amid the elements of man's moral nature,
which sets its seal that the thing is true.
I. Our first remark, then, on this subject, is, that responsibility is a matter of consciousness. A sense of moral responsibility naturally springs up in the mind of man. It does
not depend upon processes of reasoning, nor does it arise
originally out of the truths of revelation. But it is itself a
fundamental truth in moral science, a primary principle of
our mental and moral constitution. Like the doctrine in
physics of the existence of a material world, or that in




OF MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY.           223
metaphysics of the free agency of man, it is not to be
brought to the bar of reason, but it is a simple question of
fact to be determined by observation and experience.
Revelation takes it for granted, and reasons and exhorts
upon it. And we often find it healthy and vigorous in men
whose reasoning powers are feeble and little exercised.
Every man knows and feels that he is a moral agent, that
he is placed under a system of government which takes
cognizance of right and wrong, and that he is accountable
for his dispositions and conduct to his fellows here, and to
the Supreme Being hereafter. We may be told that travelers have described savage nations so degraded and brutalized, as to have no such consciousness as that of which we
speak. We may be pointed to individuals living and moving amid civilized society, so besotted and sunken in vice
as apparently never to be disturbed with the idea that they
are the subjects of invisible government and accountable
to God. Yea, we may be directed to those few philosophers who stood out from the crowd in persuading themselves, and in endeavoring to persuade others, that the
notion of moral responsibility is a mere chimera invented
by priests and fanatics for frightening and enslaving men.
And we may be asked, how, in the face of all these exceptions, we can maintain that the consciousness of responsibility belongs to all mankind.  Why, suppose that a man
with a jaundiced eye were to hold that the fleecy clouds
which float over the face of the sky, or the pure snow that
covers the sides of the hills, or the white paper on which
he looks, were yellow. What would that prove? Not that
these objects, which everybody else believed to be white,
were of a different color; not that men's eyes were organs
which in general conveyed false impressions, but that the
eyes of the individual himself were diseased. We would
never think of going among savage nations which have




'224      INDIFFERENTISM; OR, THE DENIAL
become brutalized by a long course of sensuality and
ferocity; we would never appeal to this individual or that
individual, who, by vicious indulgences, has sunk himself
below the level of the brutes; nor would we sit at the feet
of skeptical philosophers, in order to obtain any very
strong proofs of the universality and force of those moral
convictions which we assert to be fundamental principles
in man's nature. But we would make our appeal to minds
where conscience sits invested with some authority, and
where she is listened to with some degree of deference;
where the moral sense, so to speak, is not drowned
in sensuality, nor bewildered and led astray by a false
philosophy; and, in such minds, we would find that the
consciousness of moral responsibility springs up naturally
and is strong. We are not disposed, however, to exclude
these exceptions, as they are called, altogether. We might
appeal to these very savage tribes, and amid their brutal
degradation, and in their cruel and superstitious rites,
discover the rudimental principles of man's moral nature.
We might follow the man whose conscience seemed seared,
and whose heart seemed reprobate, whose perceptions of
right and wrong were severely blunted, and who appeared
never to be troubled with the idea of responsibility -we
might follow him into his retirement, and, in his hours of
calm reflection, we would see conscience asserting her
supremacy and avenging her wrongs, the banished idea of
responsibility returning in its vividness, and the dread of a
Supreme and Omniscient Being forcing itself upon the,soul. We might appeal to the sophist himself, and, notwithstanding all the refinements of his false philosophy,
we would see that at times he could no more divest
himself of his moral nature, than he could of his belief
in matter and a material world, when he walked the streets,
jostled the crowd, or came in contact with the pillars that




OF MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY.            225
stood by the way. Men are responsible, they know it and
feel it, and it is only by a long-continued process of vicious
indulgences, or by the refinement of an unreasonable philosophy, that their sense of accountability is deadened or
subdued.
Now we affirm that men are responsible for the dispositions which they cherish, and that this is a matter of
consciousness. Look at that man who is ever and anon
hurried into scrapes and calamities by a proud, ambitious,
and hateful temper. And you will see that, when the
storm of passion is passed and reflection has succeeded
to fury, the individual blames himself, and suffers keenly
in his own bosom. His own unsophisticated mind never
tells him that over his temper he had no control, that it
was as purely the result of physical causes as the swollen
river that chafes and fomes in its bed, or as the ebbings
and flowings of the sea. No. The consciousness of responsibility rises naturally on his bosom, and, under its
influence, he bewails his folly and condemns himself. We
affirm, too, that men are responsible for their opinions, and
that this also is a matter of consciousness. Men's opinions
are generally very much influenced by their dispositions,
their belief on most subjects is in a great measure controlled by their inclination. And of this every man is
conscious. We feel that we cannot believe otherwise than
that two and two make four. And were an individual,
without jesting, stoutly to maintain that two and two make
five, we would set him down for an idiot, and pity - not
blame - him for the aberrations of his understanding. But
we know that we may, if we will, reject or receive this and
the other moral truth; and we not merely pity, but blame
the man, who, in spite of the strongest and clearest evidence, refuses to believe. Now, it may be asked, How is
this fact to be accounted for - a fact in the natural history
I5




INDIFFERENTISM; OR, THE DENIAL,
of man - that men feel they can embrace or reject this
opinion or that opinion if they will, and that they commend or condemn others for embracing or rejecting it,.
except on the principle that God has made man a moral
and responsible agent, and that man himself is conscious of it? "His creed may be his crime; and surely
none ought to see this more clearly than the writers who
deny it; for why their eternal invectives against'dogmas,'
-and especially the tolerably universal dogma that men
are responsible for the formation of their opinions, —except upon the supposition that men are responsible for
framing and maintaining them?  If they are not, men
should be left alone; if they are, they are to be thought
of as'worse and better' for their'intellectual creeds.'""
We affirm, too, that men are responsible for their conduct
in general, and that this also is a matter of consciousness.
Our conduct is very much the result of our dispositions
and opinions. So that, if it be admitted that we are
responsible for the one, it must be admitted that we are
responsible for the other. But it is not so much with the
philosophy of the fact, as with the fact itself, that we have
at present to do. There is the feeling of remorse bearing
witness to this truth. "Remorse," says Isaac Taylor,2 " is
man's dread prerogative, and is the natural accompaniment
of his constitution as a knowing, voluntary agent, left in
trust with his own welfare and that of others. Remorse,
if we exclude the notion of responsibility, is an enigma in
human nature, never to be explained."
It will not do to say, as has been said, that these feelings are altogether factitious, that they have been instilled
into our minds by our fond mothers who have spoiled us,
or by the ministers of religion who, from policy or selfinterest, would frighten us; and that, but for such artificial' The Eclipse of Faith, p. I15.  2 Man Responsible, p. 25.




OF MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY.            227
training, the spendthrift, the sensualist, and the criminal,
would never shrink from the fear of a present God, and the
anticipation of a future reckoning. For, besides remarking
with the author of the "Natural History of Enthusiasm,"
that, " nothing can be more unphilosophical than to attribute
any permanent and universally diffused modes of feeling to
the influence and interested teaching of some one class of
the community "- we ask, How comes it that men who
never crossed the threshold of the sanctuary, and never sat
at the feet of the teachers of religion, who have despised a
good mother's counsels, and whose lives have run contrary
to the parental example - how comes it that they, in their
calm moments of reflection, cannot divest themselves of the
unwelcome idea of responsibility, of an invisible Power, and
of a coming account?  It is a fact, then, in the natural
history of man, not to be proved by reasoning, but to be
decided simply by observation, that the consciousness of
responsibility attaches to him. Independent of all external
teaching, the conviction is naturally produced in his mind
that he has, in a great measure, a control over his opinions
and conduct, and that for these he is accountable here and
hereafter. And it is only when he has unmanned himself,
as it were, by vicious indulgences, or been led astray by a
corrupt philosophy, that he becomes dead to the feeling
that he is the subject of moral government and responsibility to God.
2. Our second remark is, that Responsibility rests on the
fact of man's free agency. The ground has been denied.
But what has not? We appeal to every man's conscience
and unsophisticated sense in proof of it. "It moves for all
that," said Galileo, after signing his memorable recantation.
And endeavor to persuade men as you will that they are
driven on by irresistible physical causes, they declare, in
spite of all your reasonings, We are free after all. Now, it




228       INDIFFERENTISM; OR, THE DENIAL
is obvious, on the slightest reflection that our will, and our
will only, is the proper object of command; and that we
are no otherwise responsible or susceptible of moral government, than as we are the subjects of moral powers. Man
is accountable because he is a free agent. And the dispositions which he habitually cherishes, the opinions which
he holds, and the conduct which he pursues, are, in a great
measure, under his control, and as he wills them to be.
The distinction between moral and natural inability is a
sound and useful one.  Moral inability lies in the want of
disposition, inclination, or will, to do that which a man has
natural faculties to perform. Natural inability, on the other
hand, arises from the want of natural faculties and means
to do that which the individual, it may be, would very gladly
do. This distinction is before us, when we notice that man
is responsible for his dispositions, his belief, and his conduct, in so far as they are the result of his own free agency.
Man is responsible for his dispositions, because the Creator has endowed him with faculties in the right exercise of
which he can bring them under his control. We make all
reasonable allowances for original temperament, or peculiarities in the organic structure of individuals. These, however, are not altogether beyond the reach of moral culture.
On the contrary, it is a chief business in education to study
these peculiarities, to bring proper motives to bear upon
them, and thus, in some measure, gain a mastery over the
original temperament. In asserting that man can, to a considerable extent make himself master of his dispositions,
and that for their state he is responsible, we do not mean
to say that he can, at any given moment, by a direct volition
of his mind, call forth this emotion or that emotion, this
kind of temper or that kind of temper. But what we mean
to say is, that he can, at his will, attend to those truths, or
come in contact with those objects, the natural influence of




OF MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY.            229
which is to excite certain emotions, and produce such a
disposition of the mind and heart. Take an example in
illustration of this principle. Benevolence toward the suffering poor is an excellent disposition of the soul. I may
not be able by a direct effort of the mind, to call up this
emotion at any time or in any place. But I can, if I will,
listen to the honest tale of distress which the virtuous poor
have to tell; I can, if I will, visit the fatherless and widows
in their afflictions. And thus, by a voluntary exercise of my
own power, place myself in circumstances that will excite
or strengthen compassion and benevolence toward the
wretched. The frequent repetition of this voluntary process of attending to and impartially examining scenes of
distress, results in the production of the man of feeling and
of a benevolent disposition. Whereas, in the case of a man
who meets every suppliant with a surly look, and refuses to
listen to the tale of the stranger, who, like the Levite in the
parable, coldly and unconcernedly passes by the sufferer on
the wayside; that callous and unfeeling disposition is forming which is not only proof against compassion, but which
even delights in producing scenes of woe
It is just in like manner with the devout emotions.
One man moves day after day amid the glories of earth
and sky, without a pious sentiment or feeling toward Him
who stretched out the heavens like a curtain and clothed
the grass of the field, because he does not attend to them
as manifestations of the wisdom and goodness of God.
Another individual, of no greater strength of intellect, it
may be, directs his attention to these evidences of the character and presence of the Divinity, habitually meditates on
them, and feels that"These declare
God's goodness beyond thought, and power divine."




230       INDIFFERENTISM; OR, THE DENIAL
In these and similar cases, men are responsible for the
moral state of the heart, because they have the power of
attending to those truths and objects which are fitted to
produce such impressions on the soul. We say to the
ferocious man, to the avaricious man, to the sensualist, and
the revengeful, and to the man all whose mental tendencies
are away from the absolute good, that for these dispositions
you are responsible, because you voluntarily sought and
familiarized your minds with those objects and scenes that
produced and strengthened them, and turned away from
those other objects and scenes that would have counteracted them, and produced dispositions of a different and
nobler kind. It is thus that a man is brought in responsible for those ungodly emotions and dispositions, which,
having grown with his growth, and strengthened with
his strength, have carried him captive, and hold him in
fetters which nothing but a mighty spiritual influence can
rend asunder.
It is on the very same principle, that we hold man to be
responsible for his belief. Our opinions, in so far as they
are influenced by our dispositions, our beliefs in so far as
they are controlled by our inclination, are legitimate subjects
of responsibility. Inclination has nothing whatever to do
in believing that two and two make four, or that the three
angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles. A man
in his senses could not believe otherwise. But inclination
has much to do in receiving or rejecting moral and religious truth. All enlightened belief depends upon evidence,
the effect of the clearest and strongest evidence depends
very much on attention, and attention is a mental exercise
over which we have a complete control. This being the
case, it is very obvious that a man may contract deep moral
guilt, by neglecting to attend to evidence in support of a
subject of intrinsic magnitude and bearing on man's high



OF MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY.            M31,est interests. The case of the Jewish people is in point.
When Jesus of Nazareth appeared among them, He claimed
to be the Son of God and the Messiah of promise. In
support of these claims, He openly wrought miracles of
surpassing grandeur and benevolence. He did not call on
them to believe on the ground of his own bare assertions,
but He pointed them to his mighty deeds in proof that
He had come from God. He said, If ye believe not me,
believe the works. Now, we do not assert that the Jews
were under a moral obligation to believe at the very first
that Jesus was the Messiah, but we do assert that they were
morally bound to attend to that clear and strong evidence,
to weigh it fairly, and to let it have its full influence on
their minds. Those of them that did so, hailed Him as the
deliverer and consolation of Israel; while the vast majority of them, because his doctrines thwarted their fondest
wishes and frowned on their groveling expectations, ridiculed his pretensions, ascribed his works to Satanic agency,
and treated Him as the vilest of impostors. That inclination had much to do with this, is evident from the fact that
the multitudes, at his first appearing, would, on the ground
of his miraculous deed, have made Him their king; and it
was not till they saw his designs to be running counter to
their wishes, that they rejected Him and cried out, "Crucify him." It was in their refusal honestly and impartially
to attend to that evidence, that the Israelitish nation incurred deep moral guilt in the sight of heaven.
A messenger from majesty arrives in the condemned,cell of some gaol, and presents the doomed criminal with
a document containing a full and free pardon, to which is
affixed the royal seal. He is skeptical at first as to the
truth of the document. But he carefully examines the seal.
He is convinced that it is the sovereign's, and on that
evidence he joyfully and gratefully receives the pardon.




232       INDIFFERENTISM; OR, THE DENIAL
The Bible is such a document. It claims to be divine. It
contains important statements on subjects of vast magnitude.  It presents itself to our notice under the highest of
all authority.  It declares that on its reception or rejection
depend our greatest interests in time and eternity. And,
in support of all these claims and assertions, it exhibits an
amount of evidence which, for weight and clearness, can
be produced by no other book in the world. It says, Attend to that evidence, look at it fairly and impartially.
And it dreads not the consequence. We do not say that a
man is morally bound to believe the volume, on the naked
assertion that it is divine.  But we do say that he is responsible for whatever opinions he forms in reference to
it, be these opinions friendly or hostile. He can, by a
voluntary effort, examine the evidence; he can search the
book, he can look at the seals, he can question the witnesses. This he can do, and must do honestly. And, in
this intellectual process over which he has a direct control,
in this effort of the attention which he has at his will, lies
his responsibility for his belief.  The very fact that the
book, irrespective altogether of its truthfulness, claims to
have come from the throne of the Eternal, the very fact
that the subjects of which it treats are of vast moment, the
very fact that it presents such a brilliant array of evidence
in proof of its divinity,-these place all men, among whom
it comes, under a moral obligation to attend to it, and, in
the face of the evidence, impartially to form their opinions
regarding it. One man may refuse to do this, because his
mind is habitually so listless and indifferent as never to
care about having any settled opinions on such subjects.
Another man may be so profligate and sensual as, like the
beast in his lair, to be unwilling to be disturbed by the
approach of the light. While another man, from pride of
intellect, or station, or self-sufficiency, may never bend his




OF MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY.            233
mind humbly and fairly to consider whether or not the
Gospel is the truth of God. Hume, the celebrated infidel,
tells us that his readings in the New Testament were but
scanty. Voltaire and Paine betrayed gross ignorance of
the Christian system which they thought to banish from
the world. But whatever be the specific moral cause that
keeps men from attending to the Gospel testimony, or in —
duces them to examine it in a frivolous and prejudicial
manner, it is in the attention, over which they have a direct
control, that lies their responsibility for their belief.
This point being established in reference to dispositions
and opinions, nothing need be added to show that the principle holds good in reference to actions. Our conduct, as
already said, is very much the result of our opinions and
dispositions.  I cherish such dispositions and form such
opinions in reference to my neighbor and the Supreme
Being, and I act accordingly. If I have a control over my
dispositions and opinions, and am responsible for them, I
have a control over and am responsible for the actions that
proceed from them. This is never questioned in the sphere
of worldly concerns. It is only when you venture within
the sphere of religion that skepticism is thrown over it.
Some men who talk and act rationally enough in their
ordinary intercourse with the world, would doff that
rationality and play the fool, when they touch upon man's
relation to things unseen and eternal. They assail and
condemn men of a different political creed from their own
for the opinions which they advocate, and the thought
never occurs to them that it is folly so to do, because over
their belief they have no control. But no sooner does the
politician become a moral teacher, than (as in a well-known
instance, not, we trust, to be repeated) he announces it as a
great truth which has gone out through all the earth, that
man has no control over his belief, and that an atheist is to




234        INDIFFEREN'IS'M; OR, THE DENIAL
be pitied but not blamed. True philosophy and man's un-:sophisticated nature, common sense and revealed religion,
tell us that we have such a control, and that for our sentiments and conduct we are responsible to God.
3. Our third remark is, that responsibility is to be measured
by ability and privilege.  Responsibility springs, as we have
seen, from the structure of the human mind as endowed
with faculties, in the exercise of which man can direct his
thoughts to a given subject, compare all the facts and considerations bearing upon it, and thus arrive at an honest.and impartial decision regarding it. But the measure of
responsibility, in the case of particular communities or individuals, is to be estimated by such things as the following:
the capacity of their understanding, the means and opportunities of information, and the force of evidence. The
poor, harmless idiot, who fancies himself a king, and
declares the reigning monarch a usurper; who talks day
after day of raising armies, and marching on to London to
take possession of the crown; is never accounted a traitor,
tried and condemned as such. The man whose intellect is
naturally so imbecile as scarcely to comprehend the ideas
of a God, of his own moral relations, and of a future life,
occupies a vastly lower position in point of responsibility.(if he occupies any position on that ground at all), than
the man whose intellect is naturally sound and vigorous,
but who, in reference to moral and religious truth, is a
child in understanding.
It is, in like manner, with the means and opportunities
of information. No one would ever say that the Bechuana
of the desert, who had lived like his forefathers, remote
from civilization, who had never seen the face of a missionary, nor heard a word about the Savior of mankind, is
responsible in the same degree as a Briton living in this




OF MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY.            235
land of light and liberty, where knowledge runs to and fro
and is increased.
Responsibility takes its measure, not only from the
capacity of the understanding, and the means and opportunities of information, but also from the force of evidence.
This is strikingly illustrated by Paul in the first two chapters of his epistle to the Romans, and the inspired illustration accords with uninspired testimonies and man's moral
sentiments.  Look abroad, then, upon the ancient heathen
world, upon the seats of intellectual refinement, Egypt,
Greece and Rome. And what do we witness?  Men professing themselves to be wise,- claiming to be philosophers,-worshiping images in the shape of men and birds
and beasts and creeping things; debasing and dishonoring
God, and debasing and dishonoring themselves. But some
will say, They were not responsible for this; over their
dispositions, their opinions and their conduct in this matter, they had no control. They were to be pitied, not
blamed; no more to be blamed than for the color of their
skin or the height of their stature. Yes, says Paul, they
were to be blamed; they were responsible in this matter,
they were guilty in cherishing these vile affections, in holding these erroneous opinions, and in manifesting such
degrading conduct.  They had evidence which, if they
had duly attended to it, would have led them to feel, to
think and to act differently.  There was a sufficiency of
evidence in the works of creation, in the shining heavens
above them, and in the fruitful earth around them, to have
convinced them that one almighty and all-perfect Being
had made and presides over the whole. It is not the want
of evidence, but the want of relish for the truth about the
Creator, that accounts for their idolatrous opinions and
practices. "For the invisible things of him from the crea-tion of the world are clearly seen, being understood by




236       INDIFFERENTISM; OR, THE DENIAL
the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead; so that they are without excuse." 
The heathen, then, were responsible; and that responsibility took its measure from the means of information,.
and the force of evidence which they possessed. But the
measure of our responsibility is vastly greater than theirs.
We walk amid a clearer light than what is emitted from
these resplendent heavens, we hear louder, fuller and more
impressive voices than any which proceed from the hills..
and the valleys, the woods and the waters. The revelation which has come to us direct from the throne of the
Eternal, containing, as it does, ample information on sub —
jects of supreme importance,- information which none
of the wisest of the heathen could have evoked from the
material heavens and earth,- this places us on a ground
of responsibility higher far than that occupied by the most
gifted sage of the Grecian schools, who had no other light
but the glimmering light of nature. This is what the
apostle means when he says, "As many as have sinned
without law (that is, without a special revelation of the
divine will), shall also be condemned without law (or by a
different standard); and as many as have sinned in the law
shall be judged by the law."2 All who, without a divine
revelation, have erred from the truth and done wrong, will
be condemned by the evidence afforded by the light of
nature; and all who have sinned under the revelation of
God's will shall be judged by that revelation. Reason and
Scripture thus unite their testimonies in establishing the
position that responsibility is in proportion to the means
of information and the weight and clearness of evidence.
An individual may be very unwilling to avail himself
of these means, and to look calmly and impartially at that
evidence; but this indifference only adds to his guilt, and
1 Romans i, 20.     2 Ibid. ii, r2.




OF MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY.          237
does not, in the least, lessen the measure of his responsibility. Responsibility takes its measure not from an individual's inclination, but from an individual's capacity of
understanding, his opportunity of arriving at the truth, and
the sufficiency of evidence which he enjoys. Were an individual to hold that responsibility takes its measure from
the inclination, or what is called moral ability, he would be
landed in the very strange position that a man is under an
obligation only to do that which he is inclined to do. In
other words, he would tear up responsibility, root and fiber,
and cast it to the winds. Suppose that, in reference to
some disturbed district, a royal proclamation were issued
forbidding the inhabitants, under severe penalties, to go
abroad after sunset. The proclamation is read aloud at
the market-cross, it is posted up on the church doors and
all other places of public resort. None who wished to
become acquainted with the purport of the royal decree
could remain ignorant of it. But some individuals who
gave no heed to royal proclamations, and would not
trouble themselves to ascertain the meaning of this particular one, venture abroad in the time prohibited, are
captured, charged with breaking the law, and put upon
their trial. Would any judge, knowing the capacity of the
men, and the means of knowledge within their reach, listen
for a moment to the plea, We never heard the proclamation, and were utterly ignorant of the law in this matter.
No. The judge would say, You are persons who can read
and understand; this proclamation was published in your
streets, and placarded in the most frequented places; you
were indisposed to become acquainted with it, you are
responsible for the consequences, and must endure thU
stated penalty. Now, it is on this principle, we hold, that
men, having available means of coming to the knowledge
of the truth, and yet indisposed to avail themselves of




238       INDIFF'EREN'TISM; OR, THE DENIAL
them; having the Bible within their reach, and yet refusing to read it; having the Gospel at the very threshold
of their doors, and yet unwilling to come out and hear it
— it is on this principle, we maintain, that their responsibility is little less than if they knew that Bible, and understood the truths of that Gospel. A man may say, I did
not know that the Book prohibited such a course of conduct, and threatened such penalties against those who
pursued it. I did not know that it prescribed such a path
to be followed, and promised such blessings to those who
entered,upon and prosecuted it. There would be force in
such a plea coming from an individual so situated as that
it was physically impossible for him to have access to the
divine record, to read and understand it. But the answer
to an individual having access to ample means, and urging
such a plea, would be: You had the volume near you and
could have read it, you had the Gospel within hearing and
could have listened to it, you were indisposed to come to
the knowledge of the truth, sin lies at your own door, your
responsibility is to be measured not by your inclination but
by your privileges. " Unto whomsoever much is given, of
the same much shall be required."
4. Our fourth remark is, that responsibility remains indestructible amid all objections from original temperament and
external influences.  It is not necessary that we here pronounce any judgment on the claims of phrenology to be
regarded as a system of intellectual philosophy. We would
only say, that as long as any of the results of comparative
anatomy disagree with it, and physiologists of the first rank
can urge some strong objections against it, so long must we
regard it as far from being a fixed and settled science.
But assuming that the physiological facts upon which it is
grounded are correct, that the feelings or faculties of the
mind are in proportion to and determined by the protuber



OF MAN S RESPONSIBILII'Y.           239
ances in the cranium, human liberty and accountability are
not, as some have alleged, affected thereby. Mr. George
Combe, who advances such high claims for the science,
obviously thought it consistent with responsibility, when he
says, "To the animal nature of man have been added, by a
bountiful Creator, moral sentiments and reflecting faculties,
which not only place him above all other creatures on
earth, but constitute him a different being from any of them,
a rational and accountable being."  But some men, with
the phrenological map of the human skull before them, and
knowing it to be a fundamental principle of'the science
that mental dispositions are determined by the form, size
and constitution of the brain, leap at once to the conclusion that an individual's character is made for him, not by
him, and that for it he is not responsible. It were vain to
deny an original difference of temperament and organization in different individuals, or to underrate the difficulties
arising thence in reference to man's moral agency, but the
admission of these can be made while firmly holding the
doctrine of responsibility.  That is a matter of consciousness, a fact in the natural history of man, of which it were
needless to seek any further explanation, and it consequently must harmonize with all the other facts and principles of the human constitution. But this is not all. Some
men have originally, it is admitted, powerful tendencies to
certain vicious dispositions and practices. Such propensities may be said to ally them to the brutal tribes; and,
were they not possessed of a higher order of faculties, they
would stand on the same level of irresponsibility. But
man is distinguished from the lower animals by the possession of faculties, and a susceptibility of motives, of which
they are destitute and incapable. These raise the worst of
men above the level of the brutes, place them within the
1 Constitution of Man. p. 2. (People's Edition.)




240       INDI)FFERENTISM; OR, THE DENIAL
sphere of moral agency, and give them a power of counteracting or controlling an original bad temperament. We
take an extreme case for illustration.  It was said, by.Spurzheim, of Alexander the Sixth, the most infamous man
that ever sat on the Papal chair, that his "brain was no
more adequate to the manifestation of Christian virtues,
than the brain of an idiot from birth to the exhibition of
the intellect of a Leibnitz or a Bacon." 1 Here were great
difficulties arising from original temperament and organization; but these difficulties were not of the same kind, nor
insuperable in the same manner, as the difficulties that
beset the mind of the idiot. Alexander was endowed with
mental faculties, and a susceptibility of moral motives,
which gave him a power counteractive of the evil propensities, and rendered him, in some measure, the trustee of
his own well-being, and responsible for his moral character.
It may have been a vastly more difficult thing for such a
man to manifest Christian virtues than it was for Philip
Melancthon; but conscience must have been torn wholly
out of his breast, and he must originally have been utterly
incapable of moral sentiment, before he could have been
divested of the character of a moral and responsible agent.
The pontiff, though carried along in a vicious course by
powerful depraved tendencies, was doubtless conscious of
his moral freedom; and unless given up to a reprobate
mind, must at times have had a sense of his responsibility.
It is as natural for such men, amid all their depravity, to
have a sense of desert, before the process of searing the
conscience has been completed, and for others to hold
them responsible for their dispositions and conduct, as it is
for the idiot to be undisturbed by such a feeling, and to be
accounted guiltless of the evil that may arise out of his
actions.
I Combe's Constitution of Man, p. 42.




OF' MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY.           241
The remarks made in reference to organization are substantially applicable to external influences.  Both may
modify human responsibility, but neither of them destroys
it. The temperament and situation of one man may be
much more favorable for manifesting whatsoever things are
lovely and true than the temperament and situation of
another, but responsibility is an attribute of the character
and circumstances of both. If there is power on the side
of individual organization and outward influences, so that
some men are less favorably situated in a moral point of
view than others, there is power also in those energies supplied by the moral world which are counteractive of evil
and productive of good, and which men are under an
obligation to study and employ. They may refuse to
acquaint themselves with these moral forces, or to avail
themselves of them, and thus be carried away without a
struggle on the current of depraved propensity or external
vicious influences; but in that refusal lies their guilt, as in
the availableness of the moral power lies their responsibility. It is an easy thing to muster up arguments against
human liberty. Let the doctrine of the Divine prescience
and foreordination of all things be asserted, and some men
at once conclude that no room is left for man's moral freedom. The doctrine does not paralyze their energies in the
workshop or in the field, and they never dream that it renders them irresponsible for the operations of their hands.
And yet the objection is as tenable in the one case as in
the other. In like manner, let the force of original temperament and external circumstances be admitted, and man,
by some, is represented as helpless and destitute of moral
freedom, as a raft carried irresistibly down the river on
which it floats. It is not so easy, however, to destroy the
argument grounded on the facts that man is possessed of
faculties and susceptible of motives that give him, in some
i6




242        INDIFFERENTISM; OR, THE DENIAL
measure, a control over original temperament and external
circumstances.  Far less easy is it to destroy that consciousness of moral freedom which every man possesses,
whatever be his mental conformation, and the influences.
that are brought to bear upon him. If, then, the sense of
responsibility cannot be destroyed, without falsifying the
testimony of all our primitive beliefs, it may be said to
remain truly indestructible.
5. Our fifth remark is, that men individually, and societies
in general, advance morally in proportion as the sense of
responsibility is high. No one doubts the absolute necessity of a belief in this doctrine in the daily business of life.
The dealings of the shop and the exchange could not be
carried on without it. We would not intrust a servant
with a letter, or admit a professed friend into the confidence and hospitalities of the domestic circle, if they
avowed themselves to be irresponsible, and acted on the
avowal. From the first minister of an empire who kisses
the hand of majesty on receiving office, down to the private
soldier who takes the oath of allegiance on entering the
ranks, the necessity and reality of responsibility are acknowledged. And not only so, but it is just in proportion
as the notion of responsibility in individuals, or in societies,
assumes a decidedly religious aspect, that it is powerful for
good. France, a country where experiments on human
nature, on a large scale, have often been made, gave, at the
close of the last century, a fearful illustration of what the
social system becomes when it loses its hold of moral obligation. The philosophers and wits of the Voltaire school
jestingly cried out, "What is truth?" declared the moral
system to have been superseded, ridiculed the notion of
responsibility as an antiquated fiction, taught that the only
causes in the world are physical and irresistible, and that
men are the offspring of an invincible necessity. It was




OF MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY.             243
this doctrine of irresponsibility, propounded by the Encyclopaedists, countenanced by statesmen, and propagated
throughout the masses, that was expressed in the torrents
of blood that flowed during the reign of terror.  Men
being looked upon as creatures of physical necessity, were
no more accounted of than stumps of trees or ruined
houses when they stood in the way of the revolutionary
movement.  They were leveled to the ground and torn up
by the roots. The principle, laid down by Diderot, was
acted upon,- a principle that rose out of the ruins of
man's moral agency,- that those who encumbered the
social system should summarily be destroyed. And what
more is necessary to let loose the reins upon fury, corruption and massacre, than to instill into men's minds the
notion that they are the creatures of fate, and no more
responsible for their belief than for the color of their skin
and the height of their stature!
It is very much with the doctrine of man's responsibility
as it is with Sabbath observance. Public men in our country generally acknowledge the moral and physical advantages of the weekly day of rest, just as they recognize the
utility and necessity of a sense of accountability being
diffused throughout the state. But, as by far the most
valuable benefits of the Sabbath result only from its religious observance as a day sacred to the memory of the
resurrection of Christ; so the real and high advantages of
responsibility are only experienced when the doctrine is
felt to link earth with heaven, man with his Maker, and the
judgment of conscience with the judgment of the great
white throne. " This practical doctrine of responsibility,"
says Isaac Taylor,' "can rest on no fulcrum short of the
center of the universe - the throne of God. Rest it at
any intermediate point, and though it may bear some stress,
1 Man Responsible, p. 63.




244        LNDIFFERENTISM; OR, THE DENIAL
it will not bear every stress; and it fails where most it will
be needed." Take an individual or a community, in which
the sense of responsibility is weakened, or associated merely
with worldly calculations; and take another individual or
community, in which it is religious and vivid; and it will
be found that while the one- is unstable as water, the other
is steadfast as a rock; that while the one is ever in danger
of sacrificing principle to selfish gain, the other counts
nothing dear that comes into competition with principle
itself. It is the man deeply imbued with the religious
sense of responsibility that stands firm amid all temptations, while another is driven with the wind and tossed;
and it is in the former that even men, who have no vivid
sense of religion themselves, prefer reposing confidence.
It will also be found that in societies professedly religious, where the dry skeleton of a creed remains, — but
where men nominally adhering and others avowedly opposing are gathered under one ecclesiastical organization
around it,- the doctrine of responsibility, in its high import,
is either denied or fluctuating and feeble. Wherever religious belief comes to be regarded as an accident of the
mind just as color is of the hair of the head, or wherever
responsibility, though admitted, is languid,- doctrinal articles are counted as of little worth, the standards are either
deserted, or friends and foes proclaim a truce, and shake
hands around them; and the distinction between the church
and the world,- a distinction so much insisted on in the
New Testament,- disappears and is lost.
Individuals of the brightest moral excellence have been
those who were influenced by a high and religious sense of
responsibility.  Men, to whose instrumentality the world
owes its reformations, and the church its life and purity,
would never have struggled as they did, and could never
have effected the regenerations which they have effected,




()F MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY.         245
had they not had firm faith in the truth that we are responsible to our fellows here and to God hereafter. And those
communities in which the truth shines conspicuous as a
star, and who have faithfully guarded the church from
the abomination of desolation, have been mightily influenced by the idea of their stewardship and the prospect
of rendering an account. Is, then, a doctrine so influential for good both on individuals and societies, on
churches and states; a doctrine that has been the guardian
of so much that is true and holy, and the spring of so
many grand and benignant enterprises; a doctrine that is
beneficent in proportion as it is believed and acted upon,is it to be regarded as a beautiful and useful fiction, necessary for the well-being of society, but having no foundation
in truth? This were something like yielding to the tempter,
and falling down and worshiping him. But it cannot be. It
is written upon the heart -and nothing but a long process of
vicious indulgence can cover or efface it; it is written upon
the social system under which men live safely and happily;
and it is written more legibly and impressively in the inspired page,- that every one of us must give an account
of himself unto God. Happy the individual or the community, who moves under a felt sense that the Great
Searcher of hearts is in the heavens and looks down upon
men, and that He will hereafter judge the world in righteousness, and render to all according to their works.




CHAPTER VI.
THE DENIAL OF THE POWER OF GODLINESS, OR FORMALISM.
Not infidelity in theory, but in practice - Nature of formalism - Prevalency of it -
Philosophy of formalism - Religions of ancient heathen world generally of this
description - Many of our men of taste and science chargeable with it - Remark
of Foster- Strong tendency to formalism in the ancient Hebrews - Pharisees
of the Christian Age - Formalism in the Christian Church - Result of Romish
theory of fellowship —The Oxford Ritual —Remarks of Morell, D'Aubign6
and Taylor- Formalism not peculiar to Romanism or Tractarianism- General
remarks on it: Its utter worthlessness to satisfy the great wants of human
nature -The pleasure found in spiritual religion not experienced - Its tendency
to intolerance - Diametrically opposed to the spirit and precepts of the Gospel.
ERE we advance from  the region of speculative into
that of practical infidelity.  All the body of truth
previously noticed, which some men have denied wholly or
in part, is supposed to be admitted; but the grand influence of that truth on the conscience and conduct is virtually disowned. The primal truth that God is, the selfexistent, independent, and all-perfect One,-is unhesitatingly assented to; but the practical testimony to that truth
which is given in enduring as seeing him who is invisible,
is withheld. The proofs of the being and character of
God, drawn from the phenomena of mind and matter, convince the understanding; but, amid all the light that beams
from these phenomena, the heart is alienated and darkened.
That God is really a Person —not a merely infinite substance — a Person related to us as Father and Lord, Savior
and Judge, is not questioned; but there is no devout recognition of Him as being, in these relations, the glorious and
gracious One with whom we have to do. The no less wellattested truth that God is ever-present with, and exercises
a minute inspection and control over his creatures, has a




FORMALISM.                   247
place willingly assigned to it among the things believed;
but there is an utter absence of the manifested power of that
truth, in (as Scripture significantly expresses it) walking with
God. The Bible doctrines of redemption, including and
presupposing, as they do, the guilt and depravity of man,
the atonement of Christ, and the regenerating influences of
the Spirit, are essential parts of the creed; but that creed is
like the dry, lifeless skeleton, the body without the spirit.
The man never thinks of questioning the dark doctrine of
sin, but he is not penitent and humble under the conviction
of his own sinful character. He musters up no argument
against the work that expiates and the influences that sanctify, he no more doubts that they are truths in the Bible than
he doubts that the sun is in the heavens; but he is not found
standing on that work, or living under the power of those
influences, any more than if their existence and efficacy
were restricted to some distant world. He would no more
think of denying that man is responsible for his dispositions, opinions and conduct, than of denying that he
thinks, feels and acts.  Words implying moral agency and
accountability are ever flowing over his lips, and yet his
habitual sentiments and conduct are such as could only be
formed under an habitual forgetfulness of Him whose eyes
behold and whose eyelids try the children of men. There
is no infidelity in theory, but there is abundance of it in
practice.  In so far as the mere letter of a creed is concerned, all may be evangelical and correct; but the inner
and outer man are as little influenced by it as by the abrogated notions of the Ptolemaic system. There is religion,
but it is merely professional and verbal. "The sign is
taken for the thing, the counter for the money." The
structure is complete as regards shape, size and bones;
but the flesh and blood, the sparkling eye and the agile
limbs are wanting. This is what the Scripture means when




248           FORMALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
it speaks of men having the form of godliness, but denying
the power thereof.
Formalism is the tendency of the mind to rest in the
mere externals of religion, to the neglect of the inner life
of religion itself. It is just as when a child runs his lesson
rapidly over without heeding the import of the story which
he reads. It is just as if our knowledge of a man was confined to his stature, to the shape and color of his coat; so
that, when his name is mentioned in our presence, we immediately think of his size and dress, but nothing more.
It is the folly of valuing the tree for its bark, instead of its
goodly timber; the folly of choosing a book for its binding, irrespective of the nature of its contents; the folly of
delighting in painted windows and adorned walls, regardless
of the character of the society and accommodation within.
It is the very essence of formalism to set the outward institutions above the inward truths, to be punctilious in
going the round of ceremonial observances while neglectful of those spiritual sacrifices with which God is well
pleased, to substitute means in the room of ends, and to.
rest in the type and symbol without rising to the glorious
reality.  It will stand up for the skeleton creed, though the
life be as little influenced by it as by a mummy; it will, in
the strength of its zeal, put on armor, brandish weapons,.
guard the courts of the sanctuary from unhallowed intrusion, and shout lustily, " The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are we;" while it lacks heart for fighting
the good fight of faith, and wrestling with spiritual wickedness. The church and the sacraments, the symbol and the
lettered creed, fill the sphere of its vision, and draw forth
its devotion, to the almost utter exclusion of those grand
spiritual objects that are unseen and eternal. Such, in
general, is the character of formalism.
It is not a thing peculiar to any age or country, though




OF THE POWER OF GODLINESS.            249
it may be more prevalent at one time and in one place than
in another. Wherever there is a field, we meet with weeds
or thorns; and wherever humanity dwells, we witness, to
some extent or another, formalism. We may travel over a
large tract of inhabited country, and find there no such
monster as absolute atheism; we may meet with large
masses of men among whom pantheism, or naturalism,
has scarcely a local habitation; we may enter into one
crowded congregation after another, and hear the doctrines
of Socinianism, of a false spiritualism, and of irresponsibility, repudiated; but formalism is a thing at hand as well
as afar off, it lies everywhere about us, many colored and
many shaped, sometimes gorgeously decked and at other
times meanly clad, sometimes prominently manifested and
at other times scarcely perceptible. Man will worship. It
seems to be as natural for him to have something in the
shape of religion as it is for him to have a place to dwell
in. And there may not be a greater variety in the habitations which he constructs than in the religions which he
adopts. The gradation, in the one case, varying from the
gorgeous palace to the hole dug in the earth, may not be
more than the gradation in the other, —  varying from  a
purely spiritual Christianity to the lowest form of fetichism
or nature-worship. And not more true is it that man will
have a religion, than, if left to himself, he will choose a
corrupt one, or corrupt a spiritual one into a system of
formalism.
There is a principle in man which leads him out of
himself to worship and perform religious services. That
principle, in a holy being, would fix his thoughts and affections on the most excellent glory, and the forms which he
employed would only be used as symbols of eternal realities, or means by which to rise up to the Supreme Good.
But that principle in man, as he now is, participates in the




'250         FORMALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
depravity of his nature; and while it goes forth after a
religion, it is one which, though demanding much bodily
service, lies very lightly on the conscience and heart; one
which says, Go this round and that, but seldom or never
summonses the soul to an earnest conflict with the power
-of evil. Man will have a religion, but depraved man will
have a formal instead of a spiritual one,- one consisting
in mere outward observances, in preference to one requiring the homage of the heart and the consecration of the
life. The philosophy of formalism is, therefore, easily
explained. It is the result of two opposing forces. The
one of which will not let man live without a religion, and,
if undisturbed by hostile influences, would lead him spiritually to worship God who is a Spirit. The other is of
the earth earthy, and, by its greater potency, prevents the
former in the natural man from rising above rites and
ceremonies, above the symbol and the lettered creed. An
adjustment or compromise of the claims of two rival parties takes place. The one pointing the thoughts and affections upward to God, and the other seeking to draw them
away from Him. Both are persuaded to meet and shake
hands over a religious form, and thus the former is hoodwinked while the latter triumphs.
Our object, more especially, is to notice the formalism
that lies within the domain of revealed truth, or that is
thrown up within the pale of the visible church. But before doing so, we may glance at some of the formalism that
lies beyond.  In fact, that is formalism, be it baptized
pagan or Christian, natural religion or revealed, which,
though bearing the name of a religious belief, exerts no
influence in transforming the character, and produces no
love and likeness to God. The religions of the ancient
heathen world were generally of this description. What
were the creeds and rites of Greece and Rome, but splendid




OF THE POWER OF GODLINESS.          251
and imposing systems of formalism? Objects of religious
worship met the Greek or Roman wherever he turned his
eyes. Every street down which he passed, every house into
which he entered, every fountain at which he drank, and the
summit of every little hill on which he stood, reminded him
of the divinities that he was to adore. Religion blended
itself with almost every piece of daily business that he performed, with almost every journey that he took, and with
nearly every amusement that he witnessed. There were
numerous and magnificent temples into which he could
enter.  There was a gorgeous and attractive mythology
with which he was familiar. There were statues and paintings everywhere, on which unrivaled art depicted to his
view things sacred and divine. And there were rites and
ceremonies of the most engrossing description which he
was ever called upon to observe. But, amid all this sen-.sible pomp and grandeur, there was no provision for the
wants of the inner man. Heathenism had no line to reach
the depths of human depravity, and no power to raise man
up from his degradation, to break the spell by which he
was bound to sensual objects, and to set his spirit free.
It had no object of religious worship fitted to call forth
love, veneration, gratitude; and no body of truth that could
be instrumental in purifying and ennobling man's mental
powers, in connecting him with the higher world and renewing him after the image of God. It was a system
every way fitted to gratify and strengthen the tendency in
human nature to rest in mere external symbols, regardless
of spiritual and invisible realities. The heathen duly went
his round of religious observances, but it was merely a
round of formalism.
Much of the same thing constitutes the religion of
many of our men of taste and science. We give forth no
sweeping condemnation against philosophers as a class.




FORMALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
Not a few of them have been, and are, spiritually-minded
men — men who, while prosecuting enthusiastically their
researches into nature, have held high converse with nature's God. But against a large proportion of them must be
brought the charge of formalism. They are conversant with,
and have much admiration for, the material types; but there
they rest. As if afraid of being counted pietists or fanatics,
they guard their researches effectually from the intrusion
of the living God, and shrink from having their language
imbued with anything approaching to a deep devotional
feeling. In the case of such individuals, the existence
and providential agency of the Holy One may be admitted,
but the admission is only formal, not elevating and consecrating. There would be no difficulty in getting them to.
acknowledge that the Great Eternal Spirit sits behind all
those wondrous creations that meet their eye, that the
heavens are bright with his glory, and the earth full of his
praise; but there is a difficulty in getting them to allow
that truth to occupy its legitimate position in their minds,
and to exert its legitimate influence over their thoughts
and speculations. There is in them no lack of sensibility
to the grand and beautiful assemblage of natural phenomena. They may feel a kindling of fancy, and an aggrandizement of thought, in looking, from some eminence, over
a magnificent region, rich in all the elements of sublime
and graceful scenery, or in taking a telescopic view of the
innumerable worlds that move harmoniously throughout
the fields of space; but there is apparently a sad want of
the capacity of rising from the grandeur and loveliness of
creation up to the infinitely greater grandeur and loveliness.
of creation's God,- a sad want of being moved and subdued under the impression that He who is supremely good
reigns over all these scenes, is present in every star and
atom, witnesses every thought and feeling, and will one




OF THE POWER OF GODLINESS.            253
day call us to account. The world has tolerated not a few
books in the shape of travels and journals, in which the
writers have been more careful to tell us how many miles
they passed over in a day, how they slept and were fed,
than to make us acquainted with the moral and physical
aspects of the country and people where they sojourned.
These writers are not more chargeable with a want of good
taste and natural sensibility, than are those philosophers
and men of genius to whom we have alluded chargeable
with being insensible to the glory of the Divine character,
while impressed with the loveliness and grandeur of the
Divine works. We would not have our men of science
and cultivated taste to turn theologians, and mingle doctrinal discussions and prayers with their descriptions of
mental and material phenomena; but we would have them
to rise up from the magnificent symbols that meet their eye
to the High and Holy One, whose perfections they shadow
forth. "It is unfortunate," says John Foster,' "I have
thought within these few minutes,-while looking out on
one of the most enchanting nights of the most interesting
season of the year, and hearing the voices of a company
of persons, to whom I can perceive that this soft and
solemn shade over the earth, the calm sky, the beautiful
stripe of cloud, the stars, and the waning moon just risen,
are things not in the least more interesting than the walls,
ceiling, and candle-light of a room." But it is still more
unfortunate that there are men of genius fascinated and elevated by the grand scenes of earth and sky, and yet unattracted by the excellency of God, of which all that material
grandeur and gracefulness is but a type. It is sad to think
that the thought of nature's magnificence should so often
fail, in the case of men in whom that thought is vivid, to
bring in its train the more ennobling thought of the unrivaled glory of the Author of Nature himself.
i Foster's Essays, pp. i6, I7.




254           FORMALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
"These are thy glorious works, Parent of good,
Almighty! Thine this universal frame,
Thus wondrous fair: Thyself how wondrous then,
Unspeakable!"
It is not of such a writer as the author of " Cosmos," who
has given us a great picture of nature without any reference
to the living God, that we are now speaking. He has, at
least, in this melancholy exclusion, been consistent with his
own established belief, "that the forces inherent in matter,
and those which govern the moral world, exercise their
action under the control of primordial necessity."  But it
is of those of our men of taste and science, who, while
acknowledging the truth about God as the Creator, Preserver, and Moral Governor of the universe, seem to rest.
in the mere natural phenomena; to concentrate there all
their thoughts, and spend there all their feelings; and can
carry on their researches, and give us graphic and useful
descriptions of the material world, without being led themselves, or attempting to lead others, to the contemplation
of Him who has set his glory above the heavens. This,
whatever other epithet may be applied to it, must be denounced as mere formalism.
The tendency, in the domain of revealed religion, to
halt in mere forms, was strongly evinced by the Hebrew
people.  The Levitical economy, containing a large machinery of divinely-appointed rites and ceremonies, though
cumbersome compared with the dispensation of the Gospel,
was admirably adapted to the state of the Israelites, in conveying to their minds, and preserving in the midst of them,
those elements of Divine truth which have been fully developed in all their simplicity and majesty in the Gospel age.
But their history, as faithfully recorded in Scripture, shows
that their besetting sin was to idolize the symbol, instead
of rising from it to the thing signified; to go the mere




OF THE POWER OF GODLINESS.            255
round of external observances, neglectful of the cultivation
of the heart and that spiritual worship which God requires.
And it deserves notice that, in the same record where the
typical and ritual system is so fully and minutely detailed,
the most strict cautions are given against resting in it; and
the most terrible denunciations are uttered against those
who substitute the symbol in the place of the invisible
reality. The burden of prophecy, while leading the mind
forward to the glory of the latter days, and seeking to concentrate the thoughts in Him who was emblematically
represented in every lamb that bled on the Hebrew altars,
contained often a strong rebuke to the hollow formalism
that prevailed. The divinely-appointed rites were repudiated as worthless, when men converted them into idols, and
failed to be led by them to the high spiritual realities.
"Hath the Lord," said Samuel to Saul, "as great delight in
burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the
Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to
hearken than the fat of rams."  "To what purpose is the
multitude of your sacrifices unto me?" was the question
which Jehovah addressed to the punctilious formalists
among the ancient Hebrews. This system of religious
ceremonialism appeared in all its odiousness in the Pharisees of the Gospels. And it was against the men who were
scrupulously exact in paying tithe of mint, and anise, and
cummin, while regardless of the weightier matters of the
law,-judgment, mercy and faith,- that the meek and lowly
Savior pronounced the most tremendous woes. Rigid adherence to bare rites went hand in hand with the mostgross corruptions. Men would stand up and stoutly contend for the mere letter of the law, while shamelessly violating its spirit. The formalism of the system was complete, and the Amen, the faithful and true witness, denounced
the hypocrisy of its worshipers.




256          FORMALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
The new economy is distinguished from the old by its
greater simplicity and spirituality. It has no gorgeous and
imposing ritual. The schoolmaster, necessary for the instruction of the Jews, has been dismissed. The shadow
has vanished away and given place to the substance. And
the hour has come when neither in this mountain exclusively, nor yet at Jerusalem, men should be required to
worship the Father, but when the true worshipers should
worship Him in spirit and truth; for the Father seeketh
such to worship Him. But under the shadow of Christianity, formalism soon grew up, and extended its cold,
withering influence for ages over the church. Judaizing
teachers-the masters of forms —insinuated themselves
into the first Christian societies, and insisted on the observance of abrogated ceremonies as indispensable to salvation.
Apostolic vigilance and zeal, in a great measure, thwarted
their pernicious efforts, and preserved the truth of God,
pure and unclogged.  But, soon after the apostles had
fallen asleep, and the spiritual energy which they had infused
into the church had diminished, the tendency to exalt the
material above the spiritual, and bind up the living element
of truth in a system of forms, appeared almost unchecked.
The symbols were aggrandized, and occupied the place of
the grand realities. The inherent efficacy of the sacraments was preached, instead of the doctrine of the cross.
And that deadly dishonoring system of pinning men's faith
to the priest and the mere external rite, of identifying baptism with regeneration, and of making the tithe of mint and
anise and cummin, a substitute for the practice, and a plea
for the omission, of the weightier matters of the law, almost
everywhere prevailed. History bears witness to the fact,
that the darkest period in the annals of the church, when
the question might have been put, Were the Son of man to
come, would he find faith in the earth? was the period when




OF THE POWER OF GODLINESS.             257
Christianity was ritual bound, ministers and people as intent
on mere forms as the heathen on idols.
Such is the result of the Romish theory of fellowship.
Instead of making the church, as the apostle Peter did, a
living body, composed of faithful men, who "as lively
stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood,
to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus
Christ," it has set up a lifeless, artificial system of mosaic
work, the essential qualifications to a name and place in
which are, not the faith of the truth and the love of the Savior as manifested in a life of moral loveliness, but a strict
attention to rites and ceremonies. It matters not, according to this theory, how much glorying there may be in the
cross of Christ on the part of individuals, and how brightly
in them the features of the new creature may shine, if the
party watchword cannot be pronounced, and the party rite
cannot be submitted to, there is no recognition of them as
belonging to the Israel of God. It is in accordance with
this theory that some Romish missionaries have baptized
large companies of the heathen in a mass, pronounced
over them the name of Christ before they really knew who
Christ was, set them down as children of the truth before
the truth had gained an inlet into their minds, and reported them as accessions to the Holy Catholic Church,which is just like the swelling of a body with diseased
flesh.  "We find," Mr. Morell truly remarks, "as the result
of this theory, multitudes of the most debased, most unscrupulous, most antichristian of mankind, standing in due
right and order, as channels of Christian truth to the
world; while, on the other hand, we find multitudes of
the humble, the holy, the self-denying, hopelessly thrust
out beyond the pale of brotherhood, as not being in the
legitimate succession of official validity. If the fellowship
of the faithful is to depend upon such principles as these,
I7




258          FORMALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
then, to make it all intelligible to the reason or consistent
with the moral sense of mankind, we need altogether a
different interpretation of the whole nature and design of
Christianity from what we have in the life of Christ and
the writings of the apostles."' There are, doubtless, not
a few spiritually-minded men in the Romish Church, but
they are spiritually-minded in spite of her theory of fellowship. As a whole it is a gigantic system of formalism.
Formalism  has not, however, been restricted to the
ample and imposing shades of Popery. It has taken root,
also, grown up and been carefully fostered in the bosom of
Protestantism. The Oxford ritual, as it has been called,
makes a very near approach to that of Rome. And the
doctrines propounded by the Tractarians, viewed as a
whole, come in direct antagonism with those grand spiritual principles of the Reformation, which have been so
happily expressed by Merle D'Aubigne: THE WORD OF
GOD ONLY; THE GRACE OF CHRIST ONLY; and THE WORK
OF THE SPIRIT ONLY. Their theory of the church, and of
the efficacy of its rites, is the very theory that quenches
spiritual life, dries up the goodly sap, blights every green
thing and superinduces a dark and leaden system of formalism. The church and the priest come between the
soul of the sinner and the Savior; and the church and the
sacraments are made to dispense those spiritual influences
for which we, as Bible-taught, look to the church's Head.
Let men be instructed, as multitudes of our fellow-countrymen are, that the sacraments are the wells of Divine grace,
that they are efficacious only as administered by the hands
of episcopally-ordained men, and that perishing souls can
find the bread of life only in this particular fold,- and,
within the pale of the Protestant Church, will soon become
rampant a system that will eat out the very life of the Gos1 Philosophy of Religion, p. 268.




OF THE POWER OF GODLINESS.            259
pel — a system having the form of godliness but denying
the power thereof. "If we be Christians ecclesiastically, it
is enough; all besides is illusion,"- is the ingrafted word
which thousands of cultivated and uncultivated minds have
in our day received within the church of Cranmer. "And
such, in fact," says Mr. Isaac Taylor, " are every day seen
to be the products of the ecclesiastical theory, which we
denounce as, at this time, the antagonist of Spiritual Christianity. In its recent revival it has shed a cold arrogance
into many bosoms that once glowed with Christian affection; and at the same time, it has drawn such aside (in
how many sad instances!) from an enlightened regard to
the substantial truths of the Gospel; while they give all
their cares to frivolous and servile observances."'
The snake is to be found creeping among the grass, as
well as displaying its sinuous form under some stately plant
or tree. And formalism is not a sin peculiar to Romanism
or to a Romanized Protestantism. It is to be met with,
not only under the imposing shade of the cathedral pile,
clad in white vestments, kneeling before the altar, clasping
to the bosom a crucifix, and going punctiliously the prescribed round of gorgeous ceremonies; but it often has a
place in the plain-built chapel, and on the low wooden
form where no sacramental theory has even been propounded, where a creed thoroughly evangelical has been
adopted, and where nothing but the pure spiritual Gospel
of Christ has been heard. It may have a much more ample
shelter, and be much more countenanced amid great architectural splendor, venerated altars, and a rich ceremonial;
but it can and does exist in the absence of everything external that is fitted to rivet the eye, regale the ear and
engross the heart. Men may place a false dependence on
the simplest observances as well as on the most artificial
I Spiritual Christianity, p. Ioo.




260          FORMALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
and splendid, and there may lurk as deadly and hateful a
spirit of self-righteousness under an appearance of Puritan
meekness, as ever did in the bosom of the ostentatious
Pharisee who, in the temple and before God's throne,
boasted of his fast-days and the regular payment of his
tithes. It matters not whether the forms be few or many,
bald or costly decked,- if they are unduly confided in,
shifted from the position which they may lawfully occupy
as means, to that which in God's sight they never can occupy as a ground, and if the observance of them is made a
substitute for piety and holy obedience,- the system must
be branded as mere formalism.
I. Our first remark on such a system is, its utter worthlessness to satisfy the great wants of human nature. The
wants of man, in a religious point of view, are obvious.
He is guilty before God, and needs expiation. He is the
subject of depraved principles, and needs to be regenerated.  Formalism, whether gorgeous or naked, can no
more remove the condemning sentence from the head, and
root out depraved principles from the heart, than saying to
a destitute brother or sister, Be ye warmed and filled, can
profit, if we give them not those things that are needful to
the body. To look amid a mere ceremonial for some
power to atone and purify, were as foolish and vain as to
seek the living among the dead. And yet this is a folly
which multitudes of cultivated and uncultivated minds are
repeating every day. Forms are necessary, in this world
at least, to display and maintain the power of godliness.
But it should never be forgotten that in the forms the
Divine efficacy is not inherent. The internal religious sentiments and emotions must express themselves in some
outward shape, and neither reason nor revelation forbids
that the external institutions of piety should be imposing
and graceful. But as man cannot feed upon flowers, nor




OF THE POWER OF GODLINESS.           -261
his natural life be sustained by the most enrapturing music;
so, amid the most strict observance of even divinelyappointed rites, he will, if halting in them, remain, in the
scriptural sense of the expression, dead in trespasses and
sins. The use of a ladder is to ascend by it to some lofty
eminence; but if men were merely to run up and down
the steps, and imagine that they had reached the height to
which it pointed, and that they had beheld the view which
the summit commanded, they would be regarded as under
a strange hallucination. The hallucination is not less real,
and infinitely more dangerous, in the man who goes the
round of religious observances, stops short at them, builds
upon them, and deems himself all the while to have
attained to the position and character of a child of God
and an heir of heaven. It betrays a littleness of conception in reference to the character and law of the great I
AM, to suppose that, by mere outward rites and ceremonies, men are to be pardoned, sanctified, and saved. It
manifests a great lack of spiritual discernment, to regard a
punctilious attention to a ritual, and a reliance on forms, as
occupying the place, and answering the ends, of faith and
repentance, holy love and spiritual obedience. It is acting
as if the reverse of the proposition —and not the proposition itself —were true: man looks upon the outward
appearance, but God looks upon the heart.
The worthlessness of such a reliance, in reference to
the two great wants of human nature,- deliverance from
guilt and from the dominion of evil, —is attested by observation and experience. Men have run, countless times,
round the circle of prescribed observances, leaning on the
symbol without rising up to the thing signified; and it has
either been, in their experience, a round of anguish, or a
dead tread, in which they were destitute of a sense of
reconciliation and peace with God. Sacrifice after sacri



262          FORMALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
fice has been offered, the yoke in a thousand forms has
been borne, words of what seemed holiest prayer have been
daily uttered, hymns of sweetest harmony and devout fervor have been chanted; and, after the, excitement, produced by the pomp of ceremony, by a religion of refined
ceremonial, or a religion of primitive simplicity, has subsided, the soul has been, like a stricken deer, ill at ease,
and panting again for the excitement of the chase. The
splendid ritual and the plain, the divinely-appointed institute and the human, the sacrament stamped with heaven's
authority and that bearing only man's, have, each and all
of them, declared, the merit that atones and the grace that
pardons are not to be found in them.
The inefficacy of the system to regenerate, and assimilate men to the likeness of God, is as manifest as its powerlessness to remove the burden of guilt. Be it in the shape
of a court ceremonial, of things appealing to refined taste
and sentiment, or of the common sacred decencies of the
Sabbath-day, if it be a religion merely formal, men will
observe its rites, and pass through its forms, without throwing off any more of their impurity and receiving any more
of the beauties of holiness than if they paced to and fro
the floor of a gallery amid cold marble statues. The man
of taste has stood amid some glorious amphitheater of
nature, and felt his soul elated by the majesty of the hills,
the green loveliness of the valleys, the splendor of the setting sun, and the concert of the rejoicing creation. He
has witnessed the same magnificence and felt its power
over and over again. But when the excitement of the
imagination has been subdued, and the charm has passed
away like a dream, and the man has fallen back upon himself, or mingled with the world, his heart has been found
without God, and his life reflecting not a ray of the Divine
image. Thus making it manifest that the formalism of




OF THE POWER OF GODLINESS.            263
taste, gratified though it be by the grand and graceful in
scenery, has, in itself and independent of influences from
above, no efficacy whatever to purify the heart and clothe
man in moral beauty. The formalist has gone up, demurely
and punctually, to the temple at the hour of prayer, and,
whether it has been amid the architectural splendor of the
cathedral, where the pealing organ carries the soul aloft,
and gorgeous ceremonies are observed; or whether it be in
the humble meeting-house, where psalms are plainly sung,
and the Gospel is plainly preached, he has felt himself
attracted and regaled as with a lovely song. But it has
been a mere round of formal excitement, which has never
moved the depths of the heart to harmony with the will,of God, and thrown no hallowed comeliness over the life:
thus showing that the ritual of a sanctuary, be it splendid
or simple, can of itself no more regenerate the soul of man,
than the ritual of material nature. Men may speak of the
efficacy of the sacraments, but daily observation makes it
too palpable, that multitudes who are baptized and received
-to the Lord's Supper, even by those claiming to be the
successors of the apostles, differ little or nothing in their
temper and conduct from the ungodly world around them.
And the same thing is evinced in the observance of other
forms, when these are made halting-places on which the
mind unduly leans. Whatever observances men may substitute for the finished work of the Son of God and the
regenerating influences of the Holy Spirit, be they costly,or mean, imposing or simple, appointments of heaven or
appointments of earth, their worthlessness to satisfy the
wants of man's moral nature will be made evident.
2. Our second remark is, that, in mere formalism, the
pleasure found in spiritual religion is not experienced.  It is
impossible that it should. The creation is not so joyous
and full of life when a mass of dark clouds intercepts the




264          FORMALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
rays of the sun, as when that sun beams brightly forth on
hill and valley, and covers heaven and earth with light as
with a garment. God is a sun. He is the infinite good.
Nothing but a living, sensible communion with Him can
displace heaviness from the heart, and shed a holy happiness over the life. Formalism interposes thick shadows
between the fountain of light and the human soul. It is as.
when a man halts on the somewhat bleak and rugged borders of a lovely region, without ever entering into the
beautiful territory itself. Forms were designed, by Him
who knoweth our frame, to be the means by which we
might ascend to the enjoyment of Himself. But when the
mind halts in the symbol, instead of rising from it to the
thing signified; when the man runs up and down the lad —
der, instead of reaching the eminence which commands the
glorious prospect, he loses the enjoyment inseparable from
intercourse with the blissful reality.  It has often been
remarked, that, in those countries and ages where religion
has appeared in her most gaudy trim, —ages characterized
by the architectural splendor of churches, and by the
observance of a gorgeous round of rites and ceremonies,the spiritual element in worship has been feeble and
scarcely perceptible. And there, too, the light, loveliness
and joy inseparable from the Gospel truth have been wanting, and gloom and slavish fear have prevailed in their
room. When one passes from a country that lies under
the deadly grasp of civil and ecclesiastical despotism, to
another where political and religious liberty is richly enjoyed, it is like making a transit from a region of thick
gloom to one of joyous sunshine. And the difference is
not less discernible between a religious community where
the spiritual element is buried in the formal, and one in
which the former pervades and gives life to the latter; or
between an individual who has a feeling of the Divine




OF THE POWER OF GODLINESS.            265,
presence and a relish of the Divine excellence, and one
whose idol is the church he attends and the rites in which
he engages. It is not the ritual in itself- at least, it is not
the divinely-appointed ritual — that is incompatible with
or obstructive of spiritual life and joy, but the substitution
of it as means in the place of ends. David and Asaph, who
lived under the Levitical economy, so full and minute in
its provisions regarding forms, lost not sight of the spiritual
element, and had a vivid experience of the joy inseparably
connected with it. The mere formalist is a stranger to
that life of godliness which enables a man to say, — when
he looks abroad upon the fields of creation, or when he has
entered into his closet, shut his door, and is conscious that
no eye sees him and no ear hears him but the eye and ear
of God,-" Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is
none upon earth that I desire beside thee."  "There be
many that say, Who will show us any good? Lord, lift
thou up the light of thy countenance upon us."
Formalism may be found in all religious communities,
for it is the besetting sin of human nature; but we look in
vain, in the religion of the formalist, for those robes of fine
linen, as joyous as pure, which clothed such men as Leighton and Doddridge, Baxter and Edwards, and thousands
of others whom the world never heard of, and of whom the
world was not worthy. There is a pleasure which a man
of taste and sensibility enjoys in contemplating the grand
and beautiful objects of nature, but the pleasure is poor
and transient compared with what the same man experiences when, in filial confidence, he views them as the creations of his Father. Byron, amid the lovely scenery of the
isles of Greece, never felt what the great metaphysician of
New England felt, when, as he tells us, he "spent much of
his time in viewing the clouds and sky, to behold the sweet
glory of God in these things; in the meantime singing




266          FORMALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
forth, with a low voice, his contemplations of the Creator
and Redeemer." There is a pleasure, too, felt under the
shadow of the cathedral pile, derived from the imposing
splendor of the place, the enrapturing music, and the rich
ceremonial; but it is a pleasure different in kind, and
vastly inferior in degree to what is experienced by the man,
observant it may be of the same forms, who rises through
them to divine fellowship with the Father of spirits, and the
God of his salvation. And there is a pleasure, also, in
going up to the humble chapel, amid the hallowed calm of
the Sabbath morning, and bearing a part in the routine of
its simple services; but that pleasure, likewise, may have
little or none of the life and joy of godliness, and be as
unlike the holy inward happiness of the man who worships
God in spirit and in truth, as earth is unlike heaven. Men
do not gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of thistles; neither
do they experience that joy which is a fruit of the Spirit, in
a religion which is merely formal and not spiritual.
3. Our third remark is, that formalism ever has a tendency
to intolerance. Men, in proportion as they are imbued with
the spirit of the Gospel, have enlarged hearts. Love is
represented, in almost every page of the New Testament,
as the characteristic of the Christian.  It is not an attachment to men merely because they are members of this or
that particular society, but because they belong to the
church of the living God. It is not entwined around a
man because he bears a humanly-devised name, but because he wears in his bosom, and shows in his life, the
Savior's image. This holy principle looks beyond the outward appearance, and fastens its regard on that image,
though it be found in a Lazarus sitting in rags and seeking
to be fed with the crumbs of the rich man's table. Nor
does it confine its regards to those who are united to the
common Savior, and are made partakers of the common




OF THE POWER OF GODLINESS.             267
salvation. It looks on the wide world with an eye of compassion, and feels toward it those stirrings of benevolence
which seek to save that which is lost. It is like the sun in
the firmament, which confines not his radiance to any little
spot on the surface of the earth, but spreads it over the
wide fields of creation. "Its going forth is from the end
of the heaven, and its circuit unto the ends of it: and there
is nothing hid from the heat thereof."
Formalism engenders a spirit the reverse of all this. It
is sectarian. It is pent up within the pale of its own community; and whatever religious zeal it possesses is spent on
its own creed and ceremonies.  We see this in the Pharisees of the Gospels. They were proud, haughty separatists.
Men who stood aloof from others on the ground of mere
outward observances. They erected the banner of party
distinction in the temple where all meet on a common
level. They said to others, by their looks and actions,
" Stand by yourself, come not near to me, for I am holier
than you." We see this in that church which arrogates to
itself the exclusive claim of being " Holy Catholic." The
most massive system of religious formalism, it has ever
been the most intolerant in theory and practice. Out of
the Romish pale there is no salvation — is an infallible
dogma which every good Catholic is bound to believe. It
is instilled into the minds of youth by the Catholic school
book. It is the vital element that pervades Papal decrees.
It ever and anon drops from the priest's lips, in the hearing
of young and old, of peasant and noble. And, in accordance with this monstrous dogma, members of other communions are consigned over to eternal perdition, though
they may have been the most excellent ones of the earth,
men of seraphic piety, the very salt of the earth, and the
lights of the world. Sectarian exclusiveness is strikingly
characteristic of Oxford Tractarianism. It refuses even




268          FORMALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
the name of church to whatever Protestant body lies
without the pale of its own communion, arrogates the
commission to administer Christian ordinances to episcopally-ordained ministers only, denounces dissent as apostasy from the true church, and considers it sinful to have
fellowship with any beyond the episcopal border. Hence
the intolerance, which has sometimes been manifested in
high places, in prohibiting the catholic-spirited men in that
portion of the church from co-operating in good works
with Christian men of other denominations. But it behoves us not to be unmindful that the same exclusively
sectarian feeling may exist in persons, mere formalists,
sitting side by side with each other in the same church
pew. Whoever -instead of humbling his heart before
God, and recognizing in the meanest worshiper a child
of the same bountiful Father, and alike welcome with
himself to a participation in the fullness of his house —
assumes a conceited sentiment of his own superior sanctity, such as removes him in fancy to an elevation apart
from other men, is filled with the same self-righteous and
intolerant spirit which actuated the Pharisees, and which
Jehovah, by the prophet, so strongly reprobates: "These
are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day! "
The transition from such separatism to a rancorous.
fanaticism is easy and natural. The full-blown separatist
not only stands aloof from other men and disregards their
claims, but he assumes toward them an attitude of scowling defiance. He carries his hateful spirit into the very
exercises of the sanctuary, and utters his denunciations at
the altar. The formalist, wrapped up in the robe of his
own righteousness, feigns a " God, I thank thee," that he is
not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, but that he fasts
twice in the week and gives tithes of all that he has. With
his tongue blesses he God, even the Father; and therewith




OF THE POWER OF GODLINESS.            269
curses he men, which are made after the similitude of God;
out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing, and
we behold in him a fountain sending forth at the same
place sweet water and bitter. This odious system stings
like a serpent, and bites like an adder, at every species.of spiritual piety that crosses its path. It varies in the
manifestation of its intolerance, from the man who, like a
sentinel, goes the round of his own church observances,
and inwardly says, " The temple of the Lord, the temple
of the Lord are we," to the man who would erect the
gibbet and kindle the faggot for schismatics and heretics,
and persuade himself that in thus acting he was doing
God service.
4. Our fourth remark is, that such a system is diametrically opposed to the spirit and precepts of the Gospel. It says,
"Our fathers worshiped in this mountain." This is the
church in which alone is given under heaven that name
whereby we can be saved. The Lord and Master says,
The exclusive system  has ceased. "The hour is come
when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. God is a spirit, and they that
worship Him, must worship Him in spirit and in truth."
Formalism says, We who fast so often, pray so fervently,
and attend on the sacraments so punctually are God's
people. Evangelism replies, "He is not a Jew, which is
one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew which is one inwardly;
and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not
in the.letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."
The one says, "We have Abraham to our father," and are
in the line of the true apostolical succession. The other
says, "We are the circumcision," the true seed of Abraham,
"which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ
Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh." The one




270          FORMALISM; OR, THE DENIAL
says, Perform this ceremony and that, go this round of
observances and that, and ye shall be justified. The other,
in holy indignation, exclaims, "If righteousness come by
the law, then Christ is dead in vain; therefore by the
deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified." The
one says, Baptism  is regeneration; only be baptized,
come to the sacramental table, and ye shall be saved. The
other says, "Neither circumcision availeth anything nor
uncircumcision,. but a new creature."  Formalism  looks
chiefly at what a man does, irrespective of his character
and motives. It takes notice of his long and numerous
prayers, while it winks at him oppressing the poor and
devouring widows' houses. It approves of his strict observance of the decencies and rites of the Sabbath day, while
it frowns upon him healing the diseased, raising an ox out
of the pit, or performing any other works of mercy in the
same sacred period. It is heedless of the state of heart in
which a man approaches God's altar, while it is careful to
see that his hands are washed, and that his raiment is tidy.
It will furnish him with a reason for neglecting a moral
duty, and throw an air of sanctimonious pretense over the
violence done to natural affection, provided he his mindful
of the claims of the temple treasury. It teaches him to
say "Corban," it is a gift; and thus frees him from the
obligation of relieving his father and mother. There is not
less communion between light and darkness, than there is
between such a system and the spiritual Christianity taught
by Jesus and his apostles. "This people," said the Great
Teacher, "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and
honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men."  Christianity does not overlook
what a man may have done, but it looks more to what a
man is.  It gives no countenance whatever to despise




OF THE POWER OF GODLINESS.            271
sacred rites and seasons, but it says to the man who,
attaches an undue importance to them, while neglecting
the weightier matters of the law, " These things ought ye to
have done, and not to leave the others undone."
"There are two ways of destroying Christianity," remarks D'Aubigne, "one is to deny it, the other to displace
it. To put the church above Christianity, the hierarchy
above the word of God; to ask a man, not whether he has
received the Holy Ghost, but whether-he has received baptism from the hands of those who are termed successors of
the apostles and their delegates; all this may doubtless
flatter the pride of the natural man, but is fundamentally
opposed to the Bible, and aims a fatal blow at the religion
of Jesus Christ. If God had intended that Christianity
should, like the Mosaic system, be chiefly an ecclesiastical,
sacerdotal, and hierarchical system, he would have ordered
and established it in the New Testament, as He did in the
Old. But there is nothing like this in the New Testament.
All the declarations of our Lord and of his apostles tend to,
prove that the new religion given to the world, is'life and
spirit,' and not a new system of priesthood and ordinances.'The kingdom  of God,' saith Jesus,'cometh  not with
observation, neither shall they say, Lo here! or lo there!
for behold the kingdom of God is within you.''The
kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness
and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.'... Let us not,
then, esteem the bark above the sap, the body above the
soul, the form above the life, the visible church above the
invisible, the priest above the Holy Spirit. Let us hate all
sectarian, ecclesiastical, national or dissenting spirit; but
let us love Jesus Christ in all sects, whether ecclesiastical,
national, or dissenting." l "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon
the Israel of God."
1Geneva and Oxford, by D'Aubign&.




PART THE SECOND.
INFIDELITY IN ITS VARIOUS CAUSES.
GENERAL CAUSE-SPECIFIC  CAUSES-SPECULATIVE  PHILOSOPHY-  SOCIAL  DISAFFECTION —  THE  CORRUPTIONS OF
CHRISTIANITY -  RELIGIOUS  INTOLERANCE -  DISUNION
OF THE CHURCH.
CHAPTER I.
GENERAL CAUSE.
Causes of infidelity ethical rather than intellectual -The will has much to do with it
- Moral evidence not irresistible - Existence of God does not admit of demonstration - Remark of Dr. Arnold -Pantheism and Naturalism traced to aversion of heart -Sufficiency of Christian evidences -Jewish unbelief originated
in a moral cause - Speculative and practical infidelity have same origin - Bible
account of the matter.
T is evident that unbelief, generally speaking, can originate in only one of two sources; either in a deficiency
-of evidence, or in a state of mind and heart on which the
clearest and strongest evidence has no power. The causes
of infidelity, we are persuaded, are more ethical than intellectual. And this persuasion is greatly strengthened by the
perusal of some of the productions of our modern infidel
writers. "Nothing can be more contemptible," says Professor Garbett,l "than the argumentative resources of modern infidelity. It does not reason, it only postulates; it dreams
1 Modern Philosophical Infidelity, p. 5.




GENERAL CAUSE.                  273
and dogmatizes. Neither can it claim invention." This witness is true. Indeed, we venture to assert, that the general
strain of argument brought to bear against Christianity by
its modern assailants would not be tolerated for a moment
within the province of purely literary criticism. The strong
determination to withstand everything in the shape of reasonable evidence, contrasts very much with the feeble argumentation by which many of the truths of religion are set
aside. Be it atheism or pantheism, naturalism or spiritualism, indifferentism or formalism, the will has much to do
with it. Moral evidence is the appropriate proof of moral
truth. All moral evidence is cumulative, but however strong
it may be, it is never irresistible. An indocile reason can
ward it off.
The existence of God, for example, does not admit of
demonstrative, but of moral certainty. And, though supported by a vastly preponderating amount of proof, room is
left for the cavils of a strongly-prejudiced unbelief. The
argument from design is one of great power, and though it
does not of itself lead us to the High and Holy One, it
points us very clearly thither. But the ground is by no
means free from difficulties. Faith, supported by the immensely overbalancing amount of clear evidence, triumphs
over these, whereas the unbelieving heart yields to them.
Still stronger is the testimony to this primal truth given by
our own inward consciousness - a testimony that outweighs
all atheistical assumptions and arguments; but, it spite of
it, man can befool himself, and say in his heart, There is no
God. The disrelish of the truth that God is, strengthens
itself in the comparatively small residue of phenomena that
seems to conflict with it, and there repels the conviction
arising from the irrefragable proof on the other side. Dr.
Arnold, reasoning on the supposition that the intellectual
difficulties are balanced, remarks, "Here is the moral fault
I8




274                 GENERAL CAUSE.
of unbelief,- that a man can bear to make so great a moral
sacrifice, as is implied in renouncing God. He makes the
greatest moral sacrifice to obtain partial satisfaction to his
intellect: a believer insures the greatest moral perfection,
with partial satisfaction to his intellect also; entire satisfaction to the intellect, is, and can be, obtained by neither."'
The choice in such a case must be resolved into the inclination, or the wish to have it, that there is no God. But
matters are not really so balanced. The difficulties greatly
preponderate on the side of unbelief. And for a man to
accept of the proposition that God is not, with the mass of
monstrosities and difficulties that attend it, and thereby
renounce the affirmative proposition that God is, —a proposition so well substantiated, and for which there is an
intellectual necessity,- indicates very plainly the leanings
of the heart.  Lord Bacon says, "None deny there is a
God, but those for whom it maketh that there were no
God."
The personality of the Divine Being, irrespective of'its
being interwoven with the language of the Bible, and imparting to it a burning energy, is much more rational than
the pantheistic doctrine. It does not admit, however, of
strict demonstration. We may argue very conclusively in
favor of it from our own personality, and maintain that,,
since personality is a perfection, God must possess it in the
highest degree, otherwise He would be inferior to ourselves,
and not only so, but we could conceive of God as a more
glorious being than' He really is, which is an absurdity.
We may strengthen our proof by the consideration that
men in general feel, in the most solemn and affecting moments of their lives, that God is a real person. And to
this we may add that, without the idea of a personal God,
"we cannot really explain the origin or the order of the
1 Dr. Arnold's Life and Correspondence.




GENERAL CAUSE.                  275
universe; and that it is a mere assumption to assert that
personality is in its very nature finite- since it is the finiteness of man's attributes, and that alone, which gives the
finiteness to his personality."' But the heart can repel all
this proof; and bring to its aid, if not the force of argument, the language of the mystic and the principles of a
dreaming philosophy. The reluctance to think of God as
a living person, holy, just and good, and with whom we
have to do, is greater than the incapacity. It is in the
delirium of self-adoration, in the swellings of a prideintoxicated heart, that men break loose from a sense of
responsibility, ignore the existence of the Personal Creator
and Judge, and yield to the temptation-Ye shall be as
gods. No one can read the rhapsodies of such a man as
Emerson without perceiving that the state of the heart,- a
heart puffed up with the delusive notion of its own divinity,-lies at the bottom of his unbelief. And the appeal
is made, not to men's sober judgment, but to their rebellious propensities, when they are told that they have the
resources of the world in their own souls, and that all their
actions are forms of piety.
Naturalism has its root in the same soil. In so far as
argument is concerned, it has scarcely a leg to stand upon.
The evidences of a Supreme Presiding Intelligence are as
manifest as those of a Supreme Creative Power. The development hypothesis is nothing better than a wild dream,
which is fast disappearing before the light of advancing
science. Astronomical and geological researches are rapidly cutting away the ground on which any such theory is
supposed to rest, whether as applied to the heavens above
or to the earth beneath. The nebular hypothesis, which
would remove God beyond the limits of the visible universe, and account for the changes, as well as for the
I Smith's Relations of Faith and Philosophy, p. I3.




276                GENERAL CAUSE.
orderly movements in the heavens, without his presiding
agency, was merely thrown out as a conjecture at first, and
is now being falsified by the discoveries of the telescope.
And, as Professor Whewell remarks, " Science negatives the
doctrine that men grew out of apes, that language is the
necessary development of the jabbering of such creatures,
and reason the product of their conflicting appetites."'
Besides, it is doubtless more rational to suppose that God
continues to govern the world which He has made than
that He has abandoned it. "When a man," says Bacon,
"seeth the dependence of causes and the works of Providence, then, according to the allegory of the poets, he will
easily believe that the highest link of Nature's chain must
needs be tied to the foot of Jupiter's chair."  Having
interposed in a miraculous manner at the creation. of the
world, it is reasonable to believe that God would interpose
again, for an end worthy of his character, and bearing on
the highest interests of the human race.  The position
taken up by Strauss, — that miracles are impossible, — is
utterly indefensible. It may consist with his philosophy,
but not with the common-sense truth that God is in the
heavens, and that He doeth whatsoever He pleaseth. But
the doctrine of the Divine Providential Government does
not admit of demonstrative certainty.  The facts lying
without, and the voice of conscience within, speak loudly
in proof of it. The evidence is sufficient to justify our
faith, but it is not irresistible. There are other facts which
seem to conflict with the doctrine. Darkness and difficulties, which have been felt by the best men in every age,
beset us in this field of inquiry. But what is the darkness
to the light? The difficulties arise from our limited capacity and knowing but in part. Our vision is restricted to a
point of a universal system; and analogy warrants the con-' Indications of the Creator, p. 8.




GENERAL CAUSE.                 277
elusion, that, were our range of view widened, these difficulties would lessen, if not disappear. The difficulties are
much greater on the side of naturalism, besides the monstrosities that are involved in the hypothesis. And when
men choose the latter, and thereby extrude God from the
throne of his natural government, or compliment Him out of
it, there is reason to suspect that the thing is done with the
view of excluding Him from his moral dominion. We
must fall back on the state of the heart, in seeking for the
great reason why men, in the face of such preponderant
evidence for divine providence, will have it that "God
doth not know, and that the Almighty doth not consider."
Christianity is based upon evidence. The reason why
evidence is necessary is to be found in our moral constitution as rational, discriminating, accountable agents; and in
the fact that, from the existence of evil in the world, we
were otherwise liable to deception in reference to our
highest interests.  It could never be a man's duty to
bejieve in a revelation claiming to itself the authority of
heaven, unless that revelation bore, legibly on its front,
heaven's signature, or was in some way attended with
heaven's evidencing power. The evidence that attests the
truth of Christianity, vast, varied, and of great cumulative
power though it be, is not, however, irresistible. No man
is warranted to expect it to be so. Faith is a moral act,
and while resting on a strong groundwork of proof, it must
have some difficulties over which to triumph.  Origen,
speaking of the difficulties in the Bible revelation, and of
those in the revelation of nature, says: "In both we see a
self-concealing, self-revealing God, who makes Himself
known only to those who earnestly seek Him; in both are
found stimulants to faith, and occasions for unbelief."
"There is light enough," says Pascal, "for those who sincerely wish to see; and darkness enough for those of an




278                GENERAL CAUSE.
opposite description."  Mr. Newman tells us, it "supersedes the authoritative force of outward miracles entirely,"
to say that " a really overpowering miraculous proof would
have destroyed the moral character of faith." This, however, is not argument, but a foolish dogmatic assertion.
The Christian miracles are of "a convincing and stupendous character," and yet not so overpowering as the axiom
that a whole is greater than its part; and we lack sagacity
to perceive where lies the contradiction between these
statements. Evidence is obligatory on man, not because
it is overpowering or irresistible, but because it preponderates.  Indeed, on the former supposition, to talk of
obligation were an absurdity. The judge on the bench is
every day deciding important cases, not on the ground that
the evidence is absolutely perfect, but because, notwithstanding objections, the proof on the one side preponderates; and no reasonable man questions the validity of his
decision. The external and internal evidences of Christianity constitute a mass of proof fully sufficient to justify
our belief in its truths; and, as if aware of the force of it,
our modern infidels attack one part of it, and represent us
as if resting on that, to the exclusion of the rest. Difficulties there are, both in the record and in the outward evidence. But what are these difficulties compared with the
greatly preponderating amount of clear heavenly proof?
The difficulties arise out of our ignorance. Analogy warrants us to conclude that they are so only relatively, not
absolutely. And they are but as the small dust in the
balance compared with the thousand paradoxes'which a
man must be prepared to swallow who denies that Christianity is an authoritative revelation from  heaven.  The
infidel is reconciled to these paradoxes, on the alleged
ground of objections which appear as nothing compared to
them. And this furnishes a strong presumption that the




GENERAL CAUSE.                279
will has much to do with infidelity, whether it be named
deism or spiritualism. " Nor do we well know what multitudes, who neglect religion on account of the alleged uncertainty of its evidence, could reply, if God were to say to
them,'And yet on such evidence, and that far inferior in
degree, you have never hesitated to act, when your own
temporal interests were concerned. You never feared to
commit the bark of your worldly fortunes to that fluctuating
element. In many cases you believe on the testimony of
others what seemed even to contradict your own senses.
Why were you so much more scrupulous in relation to
ME?"'1
The cause of unbelief among the Jews, for example, in
the days of the Savior's flesh, could not be a want of evidence-for that evidence was numerous, varied and brilliant.
Many, in our day, affect to despise the evidence from miracles, for no better reason, we are persuaded, than that it is
against them. But the Great Teacher rested his claims on
the fact of his miracles. "If I do not the works of my
Father," said He, "believe me not. But if I do, though
ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know
and believe that the Father is in me and I in him." Their
fathers had beheld the mighty works of the Lord in the
wilderness, in the land of Ham, and at the Red Sea; but
never did they witness such a visible agency multiplying,
in quick and varied succession, its deeds of benevolent and
miraculous power, as was daily beheld by their children.
They bowed before the majesty of that evidence itself,
they paid to it a willing homage, they were fully persuaded
that Jesus was the Messiah, so long as the golden dream
of an earthly monarchy remained unbroken; and, on the
strength of that evidence, would have proceeded at once
to make Him their king. It was not till they felt his doc1 Rogers' Reason and Faith, p. 26.




280               GENERAL CAUSE.
trine thwarting their fondest wishes — not till they perceived that his kingdom had no battle for the warrior, and
was unaccompanied with confused noise and garments
rolled in blood — not till they perceived that his subjects,
were to be composed of the pure, the meek, and the poor
in spirit - that they hid, as it were, their faces from Him.
It was, therefore, a moral cause that produced Jewish unbelief- a state of mind that, relatively to itself, weakens
evidence the most powerful, and darkens evidence the most
brilliant. His religion ran counter to their moral tendencies, condemned their favorite pursuits, and frowned on
their groveling expectations.  And in this originated that
carping spirit in which they ever after listened to his discourses, that deadly enmity with which they incessantly pursued Him, even when performing among them works of
unparalleled grandeur and benevolence.  It was because
their deeds were evil, that they hated his light. When He
was in the world, the world hated Him, because He testified of it that the works thereof were evil.
The same remarks are substantially applicable to the
hostility which has been shown to the pure Gospel in every
succeeding age. If, for convenience, we divide infidelity
into the speculative and the practical, it will be found that
both these forms, however different may be the specific
process by which the mind in each case settles down in it,
may be traced to the same moral cause —the repugnance
in human nature to what is purely spiritual and divinely
authoritative. Could we, for instance, have looked into the
hidden chambers of imagery, and beheld the processes of
thought and feeling in which many talented infidels investigated the Scripture testimony, our wonder would not have
been that they landed in unbelief. The religion of Jesus,
when summoned to the bar of their understanding, has
met with such treatment as an innocent man meets with




GENERAL CAUSE.                 281
when he comes before a hostile jury. Rather, we should
say, they never suffer themselves to behold Christianity in
all its radiant glory, nor to mark its lofty towers and stable
bulwarks; for, as they advance on their way to the temple
of truth, they are ever and anon raising around them a
thick cloud of dust and darkness. In most cases, we doubt
not, Christianity and its evidences have never been examined by such men at all. In our times, it is fashionable, in
many quarters, to ignore the evidences altogether,- to pass
them over with a proud sneer as things antiquated and
effete, and to judge the Gospel according to the conceptions of the individual mind. In other words, the case is
prejudged, before the witnesses are examined, if examined
at all. And in other cases, while an inquiry into the evidences has been entered upon, it has been with a lurking
wish that the examination, after all, might prove unfavora —
ble. In such circumstances, the wish biases the judgment,
and the inevitable result is that the man can never believe
to be true what he wishes may be false.
Now this process, which ends in unbelief, has its origin
in the aversion of the mind to the high and holy principles
of the Gospel. There is a demand, made in that Gospel,
of every lofty imagination, and every high thought, being
brought into captivity to Christ, which is rep'ugnant to that
reckless independence of mind in which such a skeptic
glories. To such a mind, Christianity is too humbling; its
meek and lowly and crucified Savior appears mean and
uninteresting, and he easily turns from the thought of Him
who has no form or comeliness to the contemplation of some
stormy hero of romance. Its strict morality,- exercising a
minute inspection over every movement of the inner man,
and claiming to be a discerner of the thoughts and intents
of the heart, —is felt to be an uncomfortable restraint;
like an individual who follows us through every path and




282                GENERAL CAUSE.
winding which we take to avoid his presence. Above all,
its doctrine of the cross,- staining, as it does, all human
glory, reducing the loftiest to a level with the meanest in
the sight of God, and making all heavenly blessedness to
depend on Him who was crucified as a felon between two
thieves,- outrages that high sense of merit which would
exalt itself as the eagle and set its nest among the stars.
David Hume, somewhere in his writings, acknowledges,
as we have already noticed, that his readings in the New
Testament were but scanty. And it is not difficult to conceive how such a mind would sit down to the perusal of
some of the discourses of the Redeemer and the letters of
his apostles. Other infidels, of whom Rousseau is an example, have paid an involuntary homage to the character
of the Savior. They have admired Him going about, like
the embodied spirit of benevolence, continually doing good.
But they have shrunk back from the doctrine of the cross,
and the uncompromising requirements of Christ's laws,
just as a person with a diseased eye instinctively retires
into the shade when the frail organ is about to be exposed
to the light of the sun. Mr. Emerson professes to reverence Jesus Christ as belonging to the true race of prophets,
as " the only soul in history who has appreciated the worth
of man;" and yet he spurns the idea of receiving religion
and law from his lips, and of subordinating his nature to
the nature of Christ. Mr. Parker does not conceal his
hatred to "the popular Christianity," because it represents
man as fallen and depraved, and makes so much of the one
mediator between God and man. And when Mr. Newman
tells us that he was forced, against all his prepossessions,
to renounce everything distinctively Christian, and would
have us to believe that the will, in his case, durst " not dictate
whereto the inquiries of the understanding should lead,"'
I Phases of Faith, p. 219.




GENERAL CAUSE.                 283
we appeal to his " Phases," for a refutation of such assertions. We have, in such men, the pride without the greatness of the mighty fallen Intellect in Milton, who said,"In my choice,
To reign is worth ambition, though in hell:
Better to reign in hell than serve in' heaven!",Oh! these intolerable evidences! Better far be reconciled
to all the strange paradoxes implied in disowning Christianity, than submit ourselves to "church, book, person." 
Such is the choice of men who are laboring to undermine
the historical verity of the sacred writings; and who, baptizing an enlightened attachment to them by the ill-sounding name of "Bibliolatry," would cut the link asunder, and
leave us to wander at will after the undefined and undefinable thing called " absolute religion."
It is, in like manner, with that cold insensibility to
divine truth,- that practical form of infidelity which frequently prevails among the multitude. There is an unbelief common among many of the would-be giants of the
earth, and one that exists among the lowly walks of other
men. But as the object of their contempt or disregard is
the same, so are the specific causes to be traced to the
*same great evil principle —an inveterate love of those
practices and pursuits which the light of divine truth reproves and condemns. There are immense masses of our
population who perhaps never spent five minutes of their
lives in considering whether the Bible were a revelation
from God, or a cunningly devised fable. The Bible, as a
book, may be found beneath their roof; but its grand
truths have not been rightly apprehended and duly felt,
because the volume has seldom been opened, and, when
opened, not read with half the interest with which they
read some fairy tale. The light which it affords shineth in
1 Parker's Discourse, p. 372.




284                GENERAL CAUSE.
the darkness, but the darkness admitteth it not. These
individuals would perhaps count it impiety to wield the
weapons of the skeptic against the Gospel, were they able
for the task, and would shrink with horror from the thought
of any way traducing the Divine Savior; and yet they can
pass from day to day as little elevated by all that is magnificent and sublime, as little impressed with all that is
marvelous in condescension, as little attracted by all that
is beauteous in holiness, as if God's Son, in whom meet
preeminently all this grandeur and loveliness, had never
manifested Himself to the world. This is formalism, and,
as a species of unbelief, this is what the Gospel condemns.
The Bible comes to us as a message from the skies. In
it God utters his voice loudly and intelligibly in the ears
of men. It is a message of mercy from the throne of the:
Eternal to us the guilty and rebellious, making known a
Divine Savior, and offering, on the ground of his atoning
sacrifice, a free and a full salvation. In making such declarations, the Bible deals with men as rational and accountable agents. It has no blessings for those who are not
deterred by its threatenings, nor won by its promises. It
presents to the mind saving truth, which, in order to prove
efficacious, must be believed; and, in order to be believed,
must be carefully read and rightly understood. How, then,
are we to account for the melancholy fact, that men possessing the sacred volume, and acknowledging it to be a
revelation from God, are little, if at all, influenced by the
momentous statements which it contains? That volume
finds a place in the house, but it has no home in the heart.
It is assented to as the law and the testimony, the only
infallible directory of faith and morals. But its grand
truths are seldom, if ever, made the object of devout contemplation; its precepts are seldom taken as a light unto!
the feet and a lamp unto the path. Whence originates this




GENERAL CAUSE.                  285
insensibility to all that is majestic and merciful, this unwillingness to bring the mind into contact with the purifying
and elevating truths of Christianity,- but in a deceitful
suspicion that its groveling earthly pursuits would be disturbed, that its moral tendencies would be thwarted, that
the searching light of the Gospel would make manifest its
unholy thoughts and affections, just as a ray of the sun, let
through the chink of an old ruin, reveals the unsightly
guests that dwell within?  It were well if some of our
literary men, and philosophic religionists, who cry out
against soulless creeds and dogmatic Christianity, would
lay the blame at the right quarter, and not give a false
value to human nature, at the expense of depreciating historical truth.  He who "saw with open eye the mystery of
the soul," accounted for the rejection of feeble influence
of his Gospel, by saying, "men loved darkness rather than
light, because their deeds were evil." And all history
proves, what the Scripture affirms, that the natural man
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.
The river is traced up to its source. But, in order to
account fully for its rushing waters, we must notice the
tributary streams that it receives in its passage. And,
among the specific and subordinate causes of infidelity, we
are disposed to enumerate -Speculative Philosophy, Social
Disaffection, the Corruptions of Christianity, Religious Intolerance, and the Disunion of the Church. These we shall
briefly notice.




CHAPTER II
SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.
Speculative philosophy inevitable - Indicates a thinking and reflective age - Influences the religion of an age — Has ever been tampering with Christian truth
Gnosticism in the primitive Church —Allegorical method of interpretationSacramental theory - Platonism - Scholasticism - Connection between modern speculative philosophy and forms of modern infidelity -The sensational
philosophy - Deistical writers - Influence of sensationalism on works of science
and common literature -The old Unitarianism -French sensationalism: Condillac - School of Voltaire - Protracted influences of sensationalism - The
Ideal philosophy: Germany -The human mind made determinator of religious
truth- Contempt for evidences - Seen in Strauss - Influence of idealism in
our own country - Carlyle - Emerson - Parker - Newman - Mackay — Morell
- Importance of maintaining historical Christianity - Harmony between a true
faith and a true philosophy.
THE rise of a speculative philosophy, in any age or
country  where there are thinkers, seems inevitable.
It is the natural consequence of the mind's desire to penetrate into the mysteries of existence and to know all things.
Man himself is a mystery, the world around him  is a mystery, the great God  above him  is a mystery, and the relations between each and all of them are profoundly and
impressively mysterious. And, while the great majority of
men never attempt to lift up the veil, but are content with
the knowledge that lies on the surface of things, there are
those who must endeavor to get beyond and solve the
problems of mysterious existence. Every country that has
emerged from barbarism, and attained to any degree of
mental cultivation, is more or less characterized by philosophical speculation. This, in itself, is not to be regarded
as an evil. It indicates a thinking and reflecting age, and
marks the advancement of a community in mental culture.
The evil is, when it spurns the investigation of palpable




SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.             287
facts and indubitable evidence, treats as empirical the
honest method of induction, and incautiously passes the
bounds of all fair and legitimate inquiry. Then it becomes,
intolerant of the world of realities, is vainly puffed up, and,
intruding into those things which are not seen, would,
instead of proving a handmaid to true religion, assume the
air of an imperious mistress, and decide its shape, dress
and laws. To this charge, the greater number of the systems of philosophy that have emanated from the schools
must plead guilty.
It is very obvious that the philosophy of an age must
materially influence the religion of that age.  The great
subjects with which speculative philosophy is conversant,
are those which lie within the domain of natural and
revealed truth. It cannot touch upon the finite and the
infinite, upon man, the universe, and God, without coming
into contact with some of the great essential principles of
religion. Its speculations upon man affect his position as a
fallen being, the subject of moral government, and an heir
of immortality.  Its speculations upon the universe bear
upon the evidences of creative power, and providential
control, and the existence of good and evil. And its speculations upon God, the Absolute, as philosophy terms
Him, bear upon his personality, independent existence and
agency, and the relations in which He stands to the material universe and the human race. Views on these great
subjects, at particular periods, notwithstanding the clear
and definite statements regarding them in the sacred volume, have been very much moulded by the reigning intellectual philosophy. And that divine record itself, so firmly
established in history, and speaking in the tone of heaven's
authority, has been made to give forth its utterances according as philosophy dictated and allowed. The servant,
usurpinig the place of the master, has, as commonly hap



288            SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.
pens, stripped the master of every vestige of authority, put
words into his mouth, or given the interpretation, and that
not unfrequently a false one, of all that he said.
The history of every age, from the beginning of the
Gospel until now, too clearly shows that a speculative philosophy has ever been tampering with "the law and the
testimony," corrupting the simplicity, and weakening the
power, of Christian truth; and been a subordinate cause in
producing, or aiding, the irreligion and skepticism of cultivated minds. The Pauline epistles testify, that before the
apostles had left the world, philosophy, in some of its forms,
was seeking to exert an evil influence on the church; so
that Paul needed to protest against its intrusion, and warn
the disciples of its spirit.  Christianity, in the primitive age,
had obtained a footing in many of those cities where, on
account of their proximity to Greece, the Oriental and
Grecian philosophies prevailed. These philosophies were
rife with bold and unhallowed speculations respecting such
things as the mode of the Divine existence, and the nature
of the Divine agency. The sublime mysteries of the Gospel were just such subjects into which they wished to
intrude.  And, from  a vain philosophy —vain, because
transcending the boundaries of fair and legitimate inquiry
— the simplicity of the faith had no less to dread than from
the misapprehensions and corruptions of Judaism. Gnosticism did in the church, in primitive times, what rationalism has been doing in modern times. "In all cases," says
Neander, "the gnostics were for explaining outward things
from within —that is, from their intuitions, which were
above all doubt."' Gnosticism was the philosophic garb
in which infidelity, with great professions of reverence, laid
its hands on the Gospels, reduced to its own standard the
revealed mysteries, and disturbed the peace and purity of
1 Church History, vol. ii, p. 71 (Clarke's edition).




SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.            289
the early church. This philosophy was a fruitful source of
skepticism and irreligion, and from it seem, in a great measure, to have emanated those deadly errors respecting the
person and work of Christ which disfigured and tore in
pieces the fair form of primitive Christianity.
The corruptions of Christianity pave the way for the
denial of Christianity itself. And it has often been remarked, that there is scarcely a corruption of religibus
truth which might not be shown to have existed during the
first three centuries of the Christian age. These corruptions are, in a great measure, to be traced to the prevailing
speculative philosophies, abetted and being abetted by the
depraved tendency in man to mutilate or add to, deform
and weaken, the revelations of heaven. It is to a philosophical influence, for the most part, that we ascribe those
unsound methods of interpretation, which, in the shape of
allegory and mysticism, were carried so far by Origen and
others, and which found hidden meanings in statements
that were perfectly plain, and saw nothing incomprehensible in doctrines the most mysterious. The Alexandrian
school of divinity, headed by Origen, became famous for
its union of a spurious philosophy with Christianity. Some
of the Christian fathers employed the same allegorical
method in interpreting the inspired record that the Pagan
Platonists employed in commenting on popular mythology
and the Iliad of Homer. And this tended, very much, to
change Christianity from' the pure state in which it had
been given to the world by the Lord and his apostles.
It is to a philosophical influence, in a great degree, also,
that must be traced the sacramental theory. Baptismal
regeneration does not date its birth in modern times. It
was held by many of the primitive fathers. We find it,
where we find almost all the corruptions of Christianity, in
the first three centuries; and as a fruit of a vain philosoI9




290           SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.
phy tampering with the spirituality and simplicity of the
church. It was common to impute a mystic efficacy to
the use of certain terms, such as the repetition of the name
of Jesus, and to the practice of certain forms. This flowed
from the philosophical notions about matter. Matter was,
alleged to have certain evil tendencies, while, coexisting
with these, were some inherent powers which, being controlled by the divine will, counteracted the evil. This
control was believed to be associated with the utterance of
certain words and the performance of certain rites. Hence
the mystical and superstitious efficacy of the sacraments.'
But for the physical philosophy of the schools, and the
general belief in magic in the early ages of the church, it
may be questioned -if the sacramental theory would have
met with such a ready reception. These invested the ministers of religion with tremendous spiritual power, made
them, by virtue of their office, dispensers of the grace of
God, and originated that system of sacramental efficiency
which, overshadowing the pure Gospel, has corrupted God's
religion into man's religion, and, in thousands of cases, has
induced thinking men to reject both.
Plato and Aristotle were the chiefs of the ancient schools..
In them may be said to have centered all the speculative
philosophy of Greece. And the influence of the one in
the Eastern churches, for several centuries subsequent to
the apostles, was manifested in debasing and changing the
very substance of revealed truth; while the influence of
the other in the West, during the middle ages, was exerted
in defending and strengthening the corruptions. It is not
a question with us, what use these philosophies were in
whetting the human intellect, or how far they proved to be
" the best gymnastic of the mind," but what bearings had
they upon that truth which, coming from above, is the
I See Vaughan's Corruptions of Christianity, p. 293, etc.




SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.                291
divinest and truest philosophy. And history warrants the
assertion that they spoiled it, corrupted its purity, innovated into its very essence, and were fruitful sources of
formalism and infidelity.
It.has been well remarked, by Dr. Hampden, that of
the two philosophies, in their bearing on religious opinion,
" Platonism has been more arrogant in its pretensions: it
has aspired, not to modify, but to supersede Christian truth.
Christianity had to struggle in its infancy against the theology of the school of Alexandria, which regarded the
Christian system as an intrusion on the philosophical
ascendancy which it had hitherto  enjoyed.  The New
Platonists disputed the originality of the Christian doctrine, asserting that the sayings of our Lord were all
derived from the doctrines of their master.' Nor was the
mischief from the Alexandrian school neutralized, when,
its open hostility being found ineffectual, disciples of that
school merged themselves into the Christian name. The
accommodation which then took place between the theories of their philosophy and the doctrines of the faith
proved a snare to members of the church.  Hence, upon
the whole, resulted, even in the beginnings of the Gospel,
an ambiguity respecting the peculiar rights of the antagonist systems. And this ambiguity affected the question of
the self-originated divine character of the Christian truth.2
It deserves notice that Neander represents Platonism as
having had a double influence in relation to Christianity.
He, speaking from his own experience, regards it as having
been, in many cases, a transition point to the Gospel. But
the question is, What was its influence when carried into
Christianity itself? The illustrious church historian himself shall answer: "The New Platonism could not bring
I Infidelity performs a cycle. Mr. Emerson says —a thing easier said than
proved-" Christianity is in Plato's Phaedo."
2 Hampden's Bampton Lecture, p. Io.




292             SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.
itself to acquiesce, particularly, in that humility of knowledge, and that renunciation of scef, which Christianity required. It could not be induced to sacrifice its philosophical, aristocratic notions, to a religion which would
make the higher life a common possession for all mankind.
The religious eclecticism of this direction of the spirit
could do no otherwise than resist the exclusive and sole
supremacy of the religion that suffered no other at its side,
but would subject all to itself."' Accordingly, as he shows,
it was from this school that the most numerous as well as
the most formidable antagonists of Christianity proceeded.
While the Platonism of Alexandria was: thus gaining an
ascendancy in the early church, recommending itself to
the imagination of the contemplative as the revealer of
mysteries, and thus transmuting the pure gold of Christianity into an impure mixture, the philosophy of Aristotle
was, for the most part, regarded with aversion, as the
armor-bearer of heretics and of the assailants of the faith.
But, during the middle ages, the scholastic philosophy had
its throne in the very heart of the Christian church; and
its supremacy is still visible in the Romish system — the
most corrupt form of Christianity that has been given to
the world. From the seventh century, and onward, the
philosophy of the Stagyrite began to be exclusively
studied; and was resorted to for weapons, not so much
in defense of scriptural truth, as for the purpose of
strengthening and perpetuating the corruptions and superstitions with  which the church was overrun.  "The
question of the influence of Aristotle's philosophy is more
important on this very account, that it has been more subtile, more silently insinuated into, and spread over, the
whole system of Christian doctrine. Being employed as
an instrument of disputation, it has not been confined, like
1 Neander's Church History, vol. i, pp. 46, 2I8 (Clarke's edition).




SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.              293
Platonism, to certain leading points of Christianity, as, for
instance, to the doctrines of the Trinity and the immortality of the soul, but has been applied to the systematic
development of the sacred truth in all its parts."
It is the metaphysics of the schools which form the
texture of the Roman theology, and by which that system
is maintained. In the destitution of Scripture facts for
the support of the theological structure, the method of
subtile distinctions and reasonings has been found of admirable efficacy. It eludes the opponent, who, not being
trained to this dialectical warfare, is not aware that all
such argumentation is a tacit assumption of the point
in controversy; or is perplexed and confounded by the
elaborate subtilties of the apologist.... The resistance
which the Roman church has shown against improvements
in natural philosophy, is no inconsiderable evidence of
the connection of the ecclesiastical system with the ancient
logical philosophy of the schools. There has been a constant fear lest, if that philosophy should be exploded, some
important doctrines could not be maintained." 1
This contentious philosophy, existing in the bosom of
the church for many centuries, "clothed in the purple
of spiritual supremacy, and giving the law of faith to the
subject-consciences of men," was a fruitful source of
skepticism and infidelity. Not a few distinguished names,
including scholars of eminence and several of the popes,
have been mentioned as instances in which doubt and
disputation, taking the place of the love of truth, engendered a cold or profligate disbelief.  Mr. Hallam, speaking
of the unbounded admiration which the schoolmen had for
the writings of Aristotle, says, "With all their apparent
conformity to the received creed, there was. as might be
expected from the circumstances, a great deal of real
1 Hampden's Bampton Lecture, pp. 12, 385.




294            SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.
deviation from  orthodoxy, and even of infidelity.  The
scholastic mode of dispute, admitting of no termination,
and producing no conviction, was the sure cause of skepticism; and the system of Aristotle, especially with the
commentaries of Averroes, bore an aspect very unfavorable to natural religion.  The Aristotelian  philosophy,
even in the hands of the master, was like a barren tree,
that conceals its want of fruit by profusion of leaves. But
the scholastic ontology was much worse."' Men, in order
to display their ingenuity, involved in perplexity the most important truths, fostered a spirit the very reverse of that with
which it becomes us to approach the Sacred Oracles, made
the worse not unfrequently appear the better reason, and,
in some instances, went so far as to take up the false and
destructive position that opinions which were philosophically true might be theologically false. What Milton says
of the fallen angels and their speculations is strikingly
descriptive of the schoolmen and the dialectical abuses
in which they passionately indulged: —
"They found no end, in wandering mazes lost.
Vain wisdom all, and false philosophy."
And just because the philosophy was false, and the wisdom
vain, the Christian faith encountered in it a dangerous
enemy under the disguise of a professed friend.
It is, however, of the connection subsisting between
the modern speculative philosophy and the forms of
modern infidelity, that we wish more especially to speak.
Two philosophies, distinguished from each other by very
broad characteristics, though, in so far as religion is concerned, often tending substantially to the same result, have
played very prominent parts in modern times. We allude
to what have been aptly designated sensationalism and ideal1 Hallam's Europe during the Middle Ages, vol. iii, p. 536.




SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.            295
jsm. The influence of these philosophies, when pushed to
their extremes, has been productive of a vast amount of
the infidelity which, during the last and the present century,
has prevailed in the departments of scriptural exegesis,
literature and science.
The sensational philosophy has had a wide-spread influence, in many quarters, in destroying the very fundamental principles of natural and revealed religion. It was,
in fact, in one period, the creed of nearly the whole of
philosophical Europe. Hobbes is the precursor of modern
sensationalism. He, by resolving every operation of the
mind into transformed sensations, based his theory upon
avowed materialism, struck at the root of all religion, precluded us from having any real conception of a Supreme
Being, and shut us out from all other existences but matter
and a material world. His Psychology is expressed in the
maxim: nihil est in intel/ectz quod non prius fuerit in sensu.
Nothing, according to him, is in the intellect, but what was
previously in the sense. It is chiefly owing, however, to
the circumstance of his name having become so much
associated with that of Locke, that the philosopher of
Malmesbury has exerted such an influence in the spread
of sensationalism. The system of the " Leviathan," and
-that of the " Essay on the Human Understanding," have
been confounded. And a corruption, or an exaggerated
development, of Locke's principles, has been imputed to
him, as if he were its veritable author. But the difference
between them  is fundamental.  The sensationalism  of
Locke has no necessary tendency to materialism, whereas
materialism is not only the landing-place, but the foundation of the theory of Hobbes.  "They differ," says Sir
James Mackintosh, "not only in all their premises, and
many of their conclusions, but in their manner of philosophizing itself. Locke had no prejudice which could lead




296           SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.
him to imbibe doctrines from the enemy of liberty and of
religion." The province which Locke assigns to reflection,
and his maintaining that the senses do not furnish the intellect with the whole of its ideas, clear him of the charge
of a tendency to materialism. How, then, has his name
become allied with the pernicious dogmas of the materialist school that flourished in the eighteenth century; and
how comes M. Cousin to say that, " Since the metaphysics
of Locke crossed the channel, on the light and brilliant
wings of Voltaire's imagination, sensualism has reigned in
France without contradiction, and with an authority of
which there is no parallel in the whole history of philosophy?" The explanation is to be found in what Sir W.
Hamilton calls "the two partial principles" of Locke,
which the French school, represented by Condillac and
Cabanis, much exaggerated. The sensuous origin of our
knowledge, though not to the exclusion of reflection, has a
very prominent place assigned to it in the " Essay on the
Human Undeikstanding;" and it is this part of his system
that the sensational school has drawn out, and founded
thereon a scheme of materialism destructive of all the
principles of morality and religion.
It has been said, "that Locke distinctly enough foresaw
the idealistic and skeptical arguments which might be
drawn from his principles. He did not draw them, because he thought them frivolous."  But others did.  In
our own country Berkeley derived from them his arguments
against the existence of matter and a material world; and
David Hume, taking a bold step in advance, involved both
mind and matter in doubt and darkness. Berkeley laid
hold on Locke's principle, that our knowledge of external
things is not immediate but through the intervention of
ideas, and maintained that matter is not a reality but an
inference; that "all the choir of heaven and furniture of




SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.            297'
earth - all those bodies which compose the mighty frame
of the world -have not any subsistence without a mind."'
Hume, too acute not to see the inference, and too skeptical
not to draw it, showed that the existence of mind as well as
matter was a mere inference, and that nothing real was left
us but a succession of impressions and ideas. These speculations were, in the last degree, adverse to the interests of
religion.
Philosophical skepticism, within certain limits, does not.
necessarily imply religious skepticism. But in the case of
Hume it was universal- involving in inextricable doubt
and confusion the whole region of morals and religion.
And its effect on multitudes who had neither the inclina —
tion, nor ability, to follow the philosopher through all his
subtile windings, was seen in a contemptuous disregard of
everything lying beyond the senses as wrapped up in the
most perplexing doubt and mystery. It is indisputable
that the stupid deistical school of writers which flourished
during the last century, a school into which Locke never
would have entered, fortified themselves with many of the
conclusions that were drawn from exaggerating the somewhat partial principles of his philosophy. It was on these
conclusions that they endeavored to ground their doctrines
of invincible necessity and stern materialism, thereby tending to confound moral distinctions, and to make God and
nature synonymous.  And it is just as indisputable that
through them descended to the educated classes in general,
the disposition to look with indifference on everything
supernatural, so fearfully characteristic of the period re —
ferred to. The Israelites heard conflicting accounts of the
land of Canaan, and being disposed to believe the evil
report which suited their indolence and carnality, they said,
"Let us make a captain, and let us return into Egypt."
And multitudes who are more prone to cleave to earth than




298             SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.
rise to heaven, seeing in the progress of philosophic speculation the tendency to materialize everything, or to wrap in:perplexity the supersensual, are disposed to leave religion
-to priests, and virtually say, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
In many of our works of science, and in much of our
common literature, the evil influence of an extreme sensationalism  has been  manifested.  Secondary causes are
rested in, while an intelligent First Cause is seldom  or
never adverted to. Providence is either denied, thrust
away into a general superintendence, or habitually passed
over as a worn-out fiction.  And nature is brought into
control and account for everything, as if, independent of
nature, there were no God.  Priestley has been instanced
as an example of the influence of a sensational philosophy
on religious opinions.  He was an avowed materialist;
and, though he did not carry his materialism so far as to
overturn the principles of natural religion, his theology was
unstable as water, having little or nothing in it peculiarly
Christian, and being powerless for the promotion of spiritual life. This influence has been felt, and acknowledged,
on the unitarianism which, since his time, has existed on
both sides of the Atlantic; for it is undeniable that it has
been losing whatever spiritually it possessed, and been
gravitating more and more toward simple deism.  There
exist an " Old School " and a " New School," as they are
called; and while the latter is, in a great measure, the
effect of German idealism, the former represents the influence of the old sensationalism.  "It is connected," says
Mr. Theodore Parker, "with a philosophy poor and sensual, the same in its basis with that which gave birth to the:selfish system of Paley, the skepticism of Hume, the materialism of Hobbes, the denial of the French deists."' This,
1 Parker's Discou.-se, p. 355



SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.             299
though the testimony of one who has passed over to the
"School of Progress," is true. In short, the influence of a
developed sensational philosophy, when brought to bear on
religion, has ever been to denude it of its mysteries, quench
its spirit, reduce it to a system of material formalism, if not
to deny it both in substance and name. Mr. Morell thus
briefly marks the progressive stages: " The first effect is to
weaken our perception of the Divine personality; this, in
the second place, makes itself apparent by overturning the
doctrine of a particular providence; next, in order to remove the divine working further away from the world,
secondary causes are adduced to explain, not only all the
phenomena of nature, but also the direction of human life;
and then, lastly, the process advancing one step farther, it
begins to be an object of speculation and of doubt whether
there be a distinct personality in the Deity or not; until, at
length, the conception of God is entirely blended with that
of the order and unity of nature."'
It is to the Continent, however, and especially to France,
that we must look for the full and broad effects of an
extreme sensational philosophy. Condillac was the great
apostle of the sensual philosophy of the Continent. He
flourished about the same time as Hume, but his influence
was much greater. A professed disciple of Locke, whose
essay on the "Human Understanding" was warmly received in France, he, in the course of his speculations,
departed widely from  him.  The English  philosopher,
while laying great stress on the sensuous origin of our
knowledge, recognized two sources- sense and reflection.
The French metaphysician obliterated the distinction, and
resolved reflection and all our mental processes into sensation. As a philosophy of sensationalism, that of Condillac
was complete; and it would have roused the indignation
1 Morell's History of Philosophy, vol. ii, p. 584.




300            SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.
of the illustrious Englishman, could he have heard his
name associated with it, as has often been done on the
Continent. " In truth," as Mr. Lewes remarks, " when you
see Locke's name mentioned by the French writers of the
eighteenth century, you may generally read Hobbes; for
they had retrograded to Hobbes, imagining they had developed Locke."  The results which followed, in reference to religion, were fearful. The amiable' philosopher,
spending his time noiselessly in his study, was sending forth
speculations, involving germs which afterward ripened into
absolute atheism and social convulsions. A host of popular writers arose, who pushing his philosophy to the utmost extreme, founded upon it an ethical system of the
most undisguised selfishness, and which substituted physical, educational and political improvement for the duties,
and sanctions of religion.  France, at this period, was
renowned for her brilliant writers, her literary society,
and men of scientific research.  But within these circles
everything spiritual was paralyzed under the reigning influence of sensationalism; and an infidelity, sensual, flippant, and daringly impious, ran riot and prevailed. Scientific research was sternly restricted to the material
objects and mechanical forces of nature; and, if the philosopher looked beyond these, it was up to a vacant heaven
in which he complacently said, There is no God. The
moralist viewed man as a being wholly material, all whose
mental powers and processes were but manifested sensations, whose Inoral law was self-interest, and to whom the
doctrines of responsibility, a future life, and a living Personal God, were the dreams, pleasing or perplexing, of an
unphilosophic age. The school of Voltaire, which completed its cycle of impieties by ridding men's minds of the
idea of God — uttering as its watchword, in reference to
1 Lewes' Biographical History of Philosophy, vol. iv, p. 59.




SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.              301
the Savior of the world, " Crush the wretch;" proclaiming
death to be an eternal sleep, and the present scene the
whole of man- was just an embodiment of the irreligious
influences of the reigning philosophy. Diderot and others
of the Encyclopoedists were pupils and admirers of Condillac. And the famous atheistical book, "Systeme de la Nature," a work of which Lord Brougham says, " That words
skillfully substituted for ideas, and assumptions for proofs,
are made to pass current, not only for arguments against
existing beliefs, but for a new system planted in their
stead;"' was the matured fruit of the French sensational
philosophy. And what was the influence of that philosophy on the people at large? They might never have sat
at the feet of Condillac, or of any of the chiefs of the metaphysical schools, but, as has been remarked, "They had
no difficulty in laying hold of what we may term the formulas of that philosophy —formulas which came before
them in very intelligible propositions, declarative of complete materialism. together with an implied denial both of
the doctrine of man's immortality, and the existence of a
God."2 The inmost spirit of that philosophy was atheistical, and it was expressed in that bold course of anarchy
and impiety which has been too well designated the Reign
of Terror.
The extreme skepticism of Hume, and the old French
atheistical philosophy, may receive little or no countenance
in this age of reviving earnestness, but we have inherited
something of their spirit. Reid in Scotland, and Kant on
the Continent, may have been instrumental in rolling back
the tide, but the destructive effects of it are yet visible on
the land. That positive hostility to a pure spiritual religion, or that contemptuous disregard of it, so wofully char1 Brougham's Introductory Discourse, p. I72.
2 Morell's History of Philosophy, vol. i, p. 22.




302           SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.
acteristic of some modern works of science; that strict
care to guard metaphysical speculations and physical researches from the idea of a superintending providence;
that exclusive attention to mere secondary causes, to the
extrusion of the Great First Cause; that cold, formal air of
respect shown by much of our literature to religious truth
and the manifest tendency to look with indifference on all
religions as very much alike; —the materialism, indifferentism and formalism of the age, are the protracted influences of a waning sensationalism acting on the minds of
men that are prone to live without God in the world.
The influence of an extreme Ideal Philosophy, in producing religious skepticism, has been not less powerful
than an extreme sensationalism; the former having a tendency to run into pantheism, as the latter to run into materialism and atheism. We look to France, at the end of
the last century, for the full development of the one; and
to Germany, in more recent times, for the full development
of the other. The speculative philosophy of Germany differs widely from that of our own country; and, as the mind
of a nation is very much reflected in its philosophy, this
difference arises out of the different mental habitudes of
the two peoples. The English mind is eminently practical, and deals with palpable facts; it respects moral evidence, experience and testimony; and from these makes
its way to the higher regions of abstract truth. Hence the
clear common sense of our philosophy, and the absence of
a vague transcendentalism in our theology. The German
mind, on the other hand, is imaginative and fond of speculation, intolerant of the evidence of palpable realities, and,
from abstract conceptions, argues its way to a system of
science. Hence the extreme idealism of its philosophy,
and the vague subtile speculations which, with much that




SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.             30O
is precious, float in its theology.  Our philosophy aims
chiefly at analyzing the powers and faculties of the human
mind, and thus reaches man's moral and intellectual nature; and there finds, as in the phenomena of the material
universe, evidences of the existence, providence and character of God. The German philosophy, on the contrary,
busies itself with those great problems of existence which
were discussed again and again in the ancient schools, and
attempts to solve the questions relating to the being and
nature of God, the universe and the moral agency of man.
Philosophy, in our country, is not such an engrossing and
exclusive object of pursuit, and consequently does not exert such an influence on our religious beliefs. There might
be a false philosophy in our colleges, and yet a true theology might retain a strong hold on the hearts of our people. But, in Germany, philosophy occupies a large place,
and sways powerfully the minds of the learned, and so close
in hand does it go with theology, that the two have almost
become identified. The idealism which characterizes its
metaphysical disquisitions, characterizes also its religious
speculations.
The German Ideal Philosophy dates from the time of
Leibnitz. He was an opponent of Locke, and an independent, not a slavish, disciple of Descartes.  "The comprehensive and original genius of Leibnitz," remarks Sir
W. Hamilton, "itself the ideal abstract of the Teutonic
character, had reacted powerfully on the minds of his
countrymen; and Rationalism, (more properly Intellectualism), has from his time, always remained the favorite philosophy of the Germans. On the principle of this doctrine,
it is in Reason alone that truth and reality are to be
found."' Leibnitz placed himself in antagonism to Locke,
by maintaining the Platonic dogma that the soul originally
1 Discussions on Philosophy and Literature, p. 4.




304            SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.
contains the principles of several notions and doctrines
which experience affords only the occasions of awakening.
And it is in this view of the mind possessing innate ideas,
independent of experience, and by its necessary laws
arriving at necessary truths, that we have the germs of
that philosophical rationalism which, when fully developed,
bore such bitter fruits in theology; just as in the sensationalist principle of founding all our knowledge on experience, we have the seed that ripened into the complete
skepticism of Hume, and furnished food to the atheistical
school of France. The one, attaching an exclusive importance to everything within man, led the -way to the
finding of all knowledge and life in the depths of the
mind; as the other, attaching itself to what lay without,
was the occasion of sinking the spiritual in the material.
The philosophic thoughts of Leibnitz floated loosely and
beautifully on the stream; Wolf, one of his professed disciples, gathered them up and formed them into a rigid system. With him may be said to have begun the modern
method of carrying philosophy into the domain of religion,
of applying methods of proof to the Christian doctrines
which are applicable only to objects of human science, and
of arraigning before a stern logic divine revelation and
historical testimony. In the wake of this school of philos-,ophy, arose the great chief, Immanuel Kant, who greatly
modified it. He was a man of strong subjective tendencies.
It is a primary principle of his philosophy that the element
of our knowledge coming from without, is merely phenomenal,-having no reality or shape till it is subjected
to the laws of the understanding. The metaphysicians of
this school, says Dr. Chalmers, will tell us, "that no evidence for a God is to be found in the experimental argument afforded by external and visible nature, not at least
till the glorious spectacle- of nature, teeming to common




SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.           305
eyes with all the indices of design and order, shall somehow have been transformed and sublimated into their own
speculations." Kant led his followers to a dizzy height far
up in the regions of air, but there they did not stop. The
climax was reached by Hegel, in whom idealism has become absolute, and from him have been obtained those
weapons which, in the department of theology, have been
wielded on the side of a complete rationalism.
Now, one thing is especially observable, amid all the
bewildering and shifting speculations of the modern German school —namely, that the human mind is made the
determinator of religious truth, and that no weight is given
to the external facts and evidences of revelation except in
so far as they harmonize with the inward sentiments and
conceptions. The religious creed of our idealists is not
historical, a matter derived from the past, a light coming
from without; but it is metaphysical and personal, wrought
out of the human consciousness, and altogether independent
of outward testimony. It is a peculiarity of the extreme
transcendental philosophy, to begin with the general and
abstract notion of being; and, by a dialectic process, to
construct a universe, a God, and a religion. Accordingly,
the transcendentalist treats alike contemptuously our writers
on the evidences of natural and revealed religion, and our
experimental philosophers —a Bacon, a Newton and a
Herschel. The whole objective element of Christianity, as
a religion of historical facts, has no place in Hegelianism.
Its place is usurped by thea  priori conceptions of the
human mind. Hegel, as we have seen, has a Christology,
but it is the creation of his own philosophy. He deduces,
by a process of logical argumentation, a God and the
essential doctrines of evangelism; but, with him, God has
no personality, except in the human consciousness; and
20




306            SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.
the evangelic doctrines are not historical, inspired facts, but
are included in the sweep of a philosophical rationalism.
The matured influence of this philosophy, in the department of theology, is seen in the writings of Strauss. He is
an avowed representative of the extreme Hegelian party,
and the "Leben Jesu " is the fruit of absolute idealism. His
attack on the genuineness of the Gospels, his denial of an
historical truth to the New Testament, and his attempt to
resolve all its wondrous and well-authenticated facts into
mythological representations of great spiritual ideas, have
proceeded from his philosophical principles. The fundamental idea of the school is, that religious truth is the
development of men's thoughts and intuitions, and not a
revelation from without, having a firm footing in wellattested history. Accordingly, the doctrines of the fall, the
Trinity, the incarnation, and the atonement, are held not to
be historically true, but to have been framed by a developing process of the mind.  The Christ of the Gospels,
Strauss declares, is not an individual, but an idea. It is in
vain that you point such a man to that vast and clear
amount of evidence for Christianity as a religion of facts
and a revelation from heaven, derived from unquestionable
historic testimony, from a keen, searching criticism, from a
wide experience, and from the character of Christ, —a
character unrivaled in the annals of the world for the perfect harmony of its intellectual and moral elements. He
tells you that the question, with him and his school, is one,
not of Biblical interpretation or historical testimony, but
of philosophical possibility. "First principles," he says,
"must be settled on philosophical and dogmatic grounds,
before the interpretation of the Scriptures can take effect."
A first principle, with him, is the i.mpossibility of miracles;
and that arises naturally out of his philosophical creed.
1 See Strauss, Hegel, and their Opinions. By Dr. Beard.




SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.             307
His philosophy allows not the interposal of a living personal God in the government of the world, or in effecting
the redemption of men. The chain of endless causation,
it says, can never be broken. All things, both in the physical and moral worlds, fall under the same law of necessary development; and, in harmony with this principle,
Christianity must be explained.
Isaac Taylor has somewhere said that every particle of
the German infidelity disappears, when once it is proved
that Jesus rose from the dead. But the idealist, entrenched
behind his speculative philosophy, is proof against this evidence. He does what the French infidels did in another
way, supersedes the question of historical testimony, by
raising abstract questions. We may speak of the folly of
this principle, and show how, if applied to history in general, it would nullify its facts, and reduce its marvels to mere
mental conceptions. But the rationalist, armed with his
Hegelian weapons, replies, Such is my philosophy, and my
philosophy is my theology. And that theology, as Germany
too plainly testifies, has left the world without a personal
God, and man without moral freedom and immortality.
"A life beyond the grave," says Strauss, "is the last enemy
which speculative criticism has to oppose, and, if possible,
to vanquish."  "Ask.he extreme idealists of the present
day," remarks Mr. Morell, "and they will tell you that God
is one with the universe itself. The glorious conception of
the great Jehovah, which we derive from the display of his
wisdom, power and love in the creation without, the constitution of our minds within, and the intuition of our rational
and moral nature, soon sinks down into a vague personification of the human consciousness.  The final result of
such a theology is, that the divine is dragged down to a
level with the human, instead of the human being raised up
(as it is by Christianity) to the divine. Thus, then, the




308            SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.
extremes of sensationalism and idealism at length meet.
The one says that God is the universe, the other that the
universe is God.  Diderot and Strauss can here shake
hands, and alike rejoice in the impious purpose of sinking
the personality of the Deity into an abstraction, which the
holy cannot love, and which the wicked need not fear.
Such is the extreme of idealism in its influence upon Christian theology —an extreme which contravenes and destroys
all the good which at first it promised to effect." 
The influence of these idealistic speculations is telling,
in some quarters, on the religious literature of our own
country. Amid much really valuable in the department of
theology, which we have imported from Germany, has come
the evil genius of its philosophic spirit. The writings of
Coleridge, Carlyle, and others, who have drunk deep at the
German originals, have done much to diffuse among us the
German philosophy. And though idealism in its extreme
manifestations has made but little impression on the sturdy
and sound English intellect, yet we have not wholly escaped
the infection; and, judging from some recent productions
of the press, are not likely to get rid of it very soon. A
want of real vitality and earnestness in our religious community (to the ungrateful overlooking, we think, of the vast
amount of living godliness among us) has been felt, and
proclaimed to be the great want of the age. This has been
ascribed, in a great degree, by some, to the want of a spiritual philosophy in our schools.  And, in order to supply
this want, and infuse new life into our cold orthodoxy, certain of our writers would bring a portion of German idealism to breathe upon our prostrate lifeless creeds, shake
them, make them stand up and live. Accordingly, a religious philosophy, or a philosophical religion, has, for some
time back, been quietly making its way among us; and we
1 Morell's History of Philosophy, vol. ii, p. 6ii.




SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.             309
are only now becoming awake to the mischievous influence
it is likely to have on an historical Christianity.
Carlyle and the men of his -school seem to have a
greater love for earnestness than for plain Gospel truths.
They are disposed to follow the philosophers of Germany
in making religion a creation from within, — not a matter
received from without; and to be in danger of including
among the shams they cry out against, the experimental
and historical evidences of Christianity.  Emerson, after
the German fashion, and doubtless owing to German influence, finds everything within man, and makes religion
merely an effect of mental action. "We run," says he, "all
our vessels into one mould. Our colossal theologies of
Judaism, Christism, Buddhism, Mahometism, are the necessary and structural action of the human mind." 1 Of course,
as man has the fountain of all good in himself, his mind is
the determinator of what is true in everything that comes
to him from without. Theodore Parker, who has been so
well taught by Strauss and De Wette, would have men to
use the Bible as they use a well-filled table, — take what
suits their palate. Francis William Newman, who has sat
at the feet of the same teachers, has come to look upon
the study of the Bible and its evidences "as the greatest
religious evil of England;"2 and he "deliberately, before
God and man, protests against the attempt to make it a
law to men's understanding, conscience, or soul."3 Mr.
Mackay, in his recent contribution to our rationalistic theology,-" The Progress of the Intellect,"-has taken, from
the German metaphysical speculations, the development
theory; and, with little regard to scriptural statements, and
with an unfair use of historical testimony, has applied it so
as to account for the religion of the Bible, without leaving
1 Emerson's Representative Men, p. 2.    2 Phases of Faith, p. 205.
3 The Soul; her Sorrows and Aspirations, p. I99.




310             SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.
any authority to the Bible itself. It is with much reluctance, we add, that Mr. Morell, who, in his first valuable
work, pointed out and denounced the influences of an extreme idealism, has, notwithstanding the friendly warning
of Dr. Chalmers, since shown a strong tendency to construct, somewhat after the German mode, a religion from
within, and to attach comparatively little importance to
that which comes independently from without. It is but
justice to say, as we have formerly said, that there is a
wide difference between the spirit of Mr. Morell and some
of the rationalistic writers adverted to. He is by no means
eager, we are persuaded, however his principles may tend
in that direction, to subvert the great Christian truths.
Nevertheless, his " Philosophy of Religion " is the product
of the German religious philosophy. And, in contending
"most earnestly for this position — that the simplicity of
the gospel of Christ is to be looked for, not in our logical
systems of doctrine, but in the clear elimination from all
systems, or rather from the religious intuitions of all good
men, of the vital and essential elements of Christian faith
and love, hope and joy,"'-he shows his strong subjectivity, and a tendency to number among logical forms what
the Christian world has ever regarded as the essence of
Christian doctrine.
Christianity, as we simple folks have imagined, is a fixed
and not a floating thing-having an objective and authoritative standard in the Scriptures, being supported by a
powerful force of external and internal evidence; the
truths of which enter into the understanding and descend
into the heart, quicken and purify all its sensibilities, and
manifest their lovely fruits in the conversation and life.
But, according to our idealist writers, revelation is spontaneous and intuitional, a process of the mind gazing intui1 Morell's Philosophy of Religion, Preface, p. xxii.




SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.              311
tively upon eternal verities, a thing altogether subjective;
and no other authority is left to the Scriptures than in so
far as they harmonize with the mind's intuitions. " No
one," says an able reviewer, " can have read books of this
class- from  those of Mr. Carlyle downwards —without
marking the special aversion of this whole school of authors to what are called the'Evidences.' By this term
they mean the external and critical evidence which determines the historical truthfulness and the just interpretation
of the sacred writings. There is no end to the repugnance
evinced by them toward this department of investigation."'
In all this, we see the influence of the modern transcendental philosophy, a philosophy subtile, daring, proud,
- intolerant of the world of realities lying without, and
which assumes to weave, by its own dialectics, all truth
from the mind within. Let us hail, from whatever quarter
it may come, any goodly element of vitality that would
quicken the good things which remain and are ready to
die. But let us be jealous of every system, whatever be its
pretensions, that would transmute a Christianity founded in
facts, into a matter of the mind's own fashioning; and that
would dismantle the towers and bulwarks of an historical
faith as if they were only fit for a bygone age. "Christianity comes to our times as the survivor of all systems; and
after confronting, in turn, every imaginable form of error,
each of which has gone to its almost forgotten place in
history- itself alone lives,"2- lives, not as a creature of
the mind's development,-a thing of mere sentiment or
intuition, but lives with its firm footing in history, and its
powerful hold of men's hearts.
Faith and philosophy are not enemies by nature. They
are both children of the light and of the day, and were designed to walk hand in hand through the world.  But, "in
I British Quarterly, No. XIX, p. I67.  2 Taylor's Spiritual Christianity, p. 6.




312            SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.
pride, in reasoning pride, our error lies." Men have often
put asunder what God hath joined together. Speculation'has been arrayed against the power of fact. Man's mind,
vainly puffed up, has risen against God's mind. Philosophy, having either become sensual or vaguely transcendental, has been changed into that which is devilish and
spurious, and has then fought against the truth of God.
But "truth is strong next to the Almighty," and will prevail. Meanwhile, we note that speculative philosophy,
whether in the form of an extreme sensationalism, or of an
extreme idealism, has, as a subordinate cause, been productive of no small amount of infidelity. Paul's exhortation is still needed, —" Beware lest any man make plunder
of you, through philosophy and vain deceit." "Which
words," says Thomas Fuller, " seriously considered, neither
express nor imply any prohibition of true philosophy, but
rather tacitly commend it. Thus, when our Savior saith,'Beware of false prophets,' by way of opposition, he inviteth
them to believe and respect such as are true ones."'
1 Fuller's History of the University of Cambridge.




CHAPTER III.
SOCIAL DISAFFECTION.
Social agitation not always to be deprecated - It is often a mark of right progress -
Deep social discontent has, nevertheless, often proved favorable to infidelity -
Great French Revolution - Social disabilities of the working classes - Existing
social discontent the stronghold of infidel socialism - Desirableness of severing
the socialist question from irreligious elements-Injurious influence of the
prevalent theories: they make a religion of political liberty -Attempt to identify them with Christianity itself-Their pantheistic tendency -Admiration of
political principles of infidels seductive in times of social agitation - Infidelity
employed as an organ of political convulsion.
SSOCIAL  agitation  is inevitable in a community that is
suffered to develop its energies, and is, to some extent,
salutary and beneficial. It often marks the progress of a
state from barbarism to civilization, from despotism to civil
and religious liberty. The grumbling and the upheaving
are not unfrequently symptoms of advancement from a
wrong to a right position. There are many things we like
not the less because they are subject now and then to a
shaking, and give forth  a growl.   Protestantism, with its
conflicting sects and healthy rivalries, is infinitely preferable to Romanism with its leaden uniformity. Britain, with
its free constitution, its limited monarchy, and right of public discussion, is a happier and safer government than Russia, under the iron hand of absolutism. The storm that
rends the heavens and shakes the foundations of the earth,
may be attended with many disasters; but if it be instrumental in purging the atmosphere, and rendering it salubrious, it is much more desirable than the dead noxious calm
in which animal and vegetable life become oppressed.
Our sympathies are more with the principles of a Sidney
and a Hampden, than with those of a Filmer and his mod



314              SOCIAL DISAFFECTION.
ern disciple, who declared that the people have nothing to
do with the laws but to obey them. We would not, then,
that the political world were lulled asleep, and that peoples'
minds were drawn off from discussing the affairs of government. For, whatever injurious influence may affect religion
amid the social heavings, it is assuredly not under the pall'
of despotism that it flourishes in its loveliness and vigor.
Political science and religious truths are not points of
repulsion, and a moderate attachment to the former is not
necessarily counteractive of the influence of the latter.
There is no necessary connection between the principles
of political freedom and infidel opinions. It has often been
remarked that the chief advocates of civil liberty in the
reigns of the Charleses were the Puritans- men of whom
the world was not worthy, some of whom were republicans,
and others of them the firm adherents of a limited monarchy. Amid the storms of that period the cradle of
British freedom was rocked, and rocked too by the saints,
the excellent'ones of the earth.
It may, however, be safely maintained, that political
agitation, when running very high, has often for a time
proved detrimental to spiritual Christianity, and advantageous to infidelity. It is not for us to balance the good and
bad effects of the great French Revolution, which, in its
results, marked a new era in the nations of Europe. But
there can be no doubt, that the deep discontent engendered
at the heart of French society, by social wrongs and abuses,
rendered the soil receptive of the infidel principles of the
philosophers, and that, in the terrible upheavings that followed, these principles were carried forth triumphantly like
a flood. They were at once partly the cause and partly
the effect of the social disorder.  They set fire to the materials that had long lain ready to be kindled, and in the
blaze they yelled, sported and exulted like fiends. The




SOCIAL DISAFFECTION.               315
enormous abuses both in the civil and ecclesiastical institutions of the country —the church richly endowed, and
yet leaving the mass of ignorance and vice around her to
grow and strengthen; the venality and corruption which
characterized the administration of justice, the unequal and
oppressive taxation imposed upon the lower and middling
classes, the mental degradation to which they were subjected in consequence of long-standing feudal distinctions,
the luxury and frivolity of the court and many of the
nobles, — these and such like abuses, which had separated
one part of French society by a great gulf from the other,
were the elements which infidelity quickened into a convulsion and in whose excesses it reigned.' An ill-taught
and oppressed populace, overborne by a corrupt church
and a despotic government, lies open to infidel teaching
when allied with liberal politics, and in the agitation or
revolt thereby produced, infidelity finds its element. Political and social harangues strongly interest the prejudices
and passions of mankind, and tend, even when containing
no infidel mixture, to draw the mind off from religious
objects, unless they meet with a strong faith in eternal
verities to counteract the evil. But when such discussions
are associated with irreligious principles, and are brought
to bear on minds socially disaffected and at the same time
indifferent or hostile to vital Christianity, the influence on
behalf of infidelity becomes powerful indeed. The poison,
mingled with the water, flows on as fast as the water itself,
and infects all who drink it.  "The Rights of Man " renders palatable to many minds "The Age of Reason."
This is very much the case with many of the political
and social theories afloat in our day, more especially on the
Continent. The great problem in modern politics, is the
elevation of the industrial mind so as to secure the greatI See Brougham on French Revolution (" Statesmen of the time of George III ").




316             SOCIAL DISAFFECTION.
est good to society in general. Comparatively few persons
will maintain that the arrangements of society are as they
should and might be. The spread of intelligence among
the working classes has made them sensible of the social
disabilities under which, in many parts of Europe, they
have been long lying. The rebound is fully proportionate
to the pressure. And the industrial interests rising up from
the one extreme of depression, would ascend to the other
extreme of elevation. The servant brooding over years of
neglect and harsh treatment, would now avenge himself by
becoming lord. The truth is, governments, by foolishly
continuing those restraints on the popular mind in an enlightened age, which were suited to a past and different
state of society, not unfrequently suffer a penalty somewhat
similar to that which a landed proprietor suffers in damming up a stream. Arbitrarily checked in its course, it
swells and chafes against the barrier; at length it sweeps
all before it, and carries wasting and desolation, where it
otherwise would have contributed to the fertility and picturesqueness of the country. Even in our own England,
which is the home of freedom in Europe, and which, in the
language of one of our old poets,
— " was sure designed
To be the sacred refuge of mankind,"the consequences of past neglect are too manifest. There
are large classes among us who, from regarding almost
everything established with blind reverence, have come to
look upon almost everything really sacred with growing
aversion. "In many cases," says Dr. Arnold, "the real
origin of a man's irreligion is, I believe, political. He dislikes the actual state of society, hates the church as connected with it, and, in his notions, supporting its abuses,
and then hates Christianity because it is taught by the
church."




SOCIAL DISAFFECTION.              317
The problem to which we have adverted is that which
the several socialist schools, with their widely-conflicting
theories, propose to solve. The possibility of a great and
sudden amelioration in the condition of the working
classes, is the common faith of them all. Politically and
socially they vary, and frown upon each other, from St.
Simonianism, with its somewhat hierarchical arrangement
of classes, to the humanist theory, the latest form of socialism, with its intolerance of any vestige of inequality. But
*tested by a religious standard, they all bear the mark of
Cain, are vagabonds on the earth, and the last of them is
worse than the first. Owenism, though it never had a
strong hold on any large portion of the English people,
and for some years has been losing the hold that it had, is
steeped in atheism. It sees omnipotence nowhere but in
external circumstances. And through this wretched system
appealing to existing social disaffection, not a few are to be
found here and there in our workshops and factories, who
have been led over to the ranks of infidelity. In France,
Germany, and other parts of the Continent, socialism has
leavened the masses, and is still rapidly diffusing itself;
and —what we wish especially to mark —the poison of
infidelity is almost everywhere mixed up with it. It would,
seem that the socialist theories of the Continent can no
more keep neutral in reference to religion, than the continental speculative philosophies.  Indeed, these theories
have, in some measure, been the fruit, or formed a parcel.
of the philosophies.  Fuerbach and Griin, who are of the
extreme left Hegelian party, are the great teachers of humanism-a system which finds everything in man, which
ignores all motive power but the human will, and which
is as intolerant of the existence of religion as of private
property.




318             SOCIAL DISAFFECTION.
There are good men, in our own country and elsewhere,
who, being persuaded that socialism is no temporary ebullition of social discontent, but, as Mr. John Stuart Mill
remarks, " Has now become irrevocably one of the leading
elements in European politics," would seek to deal with
the questions involved in it in a Christian manner. This
we deem praiseworthy. The working classes have been
left too much to the will of infidel socialist teachers, who
exaggerate their grievances, lay upon evangelical religion
the blame that belongs only to its corruptions, and hold
out to them false hopes of amelioration. They have grievances which must be dealt with. And, convinced as we
are that existing social arrangements admit of much improvement, that the relation between the capitalist and the
workman, the governors and the governed, might be more
satisfactory, we would have Christian men both in the
Church and in the State to step in and deal fairly with the
socialist question. We see no necessary connection between it and infidelity. And, without giving any opinion
here as to the truth or justice involved in its essential principles, we would have it dissociated from the irreligious
elements which have been hitherto so much mixed up with
it, and let it stand forth simply as a question of political
economy. But, be it the system of Owen or Fourier, of
Louis Blanc or Fuerbach, all, notwithstanding the religious
sentimentalism that may be found in some of them, have
been of an irreligious tendency, and influential in making
democracies at once fierce and ungodly.
The first thing, in the way of injurious influence that
presents itself, on examining these theories, is the hope of
happiness which they hold out, from entirely remodeling
the framework of society. Differing as they do on important points of polity, the prophet of this school ridiculing
the prophets of all other schools as fanatics and impostors,




SOCIAL DISAFFECTION.              319
they agree in making a religion of political liberty, and
looking for Paradise restored to a new arrangement of
property and industrial interests. The real devil of the
world, in their estimation, is private property. The depravity and wretchedness existing among men are ascribed
to the factitious arrangements of society, and the regeneration of the race is to be expected from thorough-going
social changes. It is in vain that history tells of speculations and schemes of a similar character having been tried
in the past, having aggravated instead of having mitigated
the miseries which they proposed to cure, and having been
numbered long ago among the follies whereby visionary
projectors thought to make a new world. So long as these
speculations were not theirs, there is room, they imagine,
for the trial of their own. The world must have its golden
age, and these prophets of a social regeneration are to be
instrumental in exalting every valley, making low every
mountain and hill, making the crooked straight and the
rough places plain. It were really amusing to sit, as in a
panorama, and see how one plan of the world's reformation has absorbed men's attention for awhile, passed away
as a vain show, and then given place to another destined
to share the same fate, were the thought not to arise that
these visionary projects have not only left society a prey to
numerous vices and miseries, but have in a great measure
diverted men's minds from " heaven's easy unencumbered
plan,"-a plan which has survived all others, and which
experience, as well as the voice of God, assures us is the
only one fitted to make all things new. It is with this evil
influence that all the socialist theories which have lately
played such a prominent part are fraught. It were well
enough did their abettors insist on social reforms as necessary to the physical and moral well-being of man. But to
bid men look to these reforms as the panacea of all ills,




320              SOCIAL DISAFFECTION.
the means of regenerating the race, and bringing about a
heaven on earth, is as ungodly as it is visionary, as antagonistic to the gospel of Christ as it is deluding and
destructive to men. Once persuade an individual or any
body of individuals that all their miseries originate in
political and social causes —that the source of the evil
lies chiefly or exclusively without, and is to be removed by
the prevalence of certain modes of education and civil
government, and you leave no room whatever for the influence of that truth which coming from above is above
all. And yet this is the teaching to which myriads of men
in our own country, and more especially on the Continent,
have eagerly listened at the feet of the apostles of social
regeneration.
It has been well said by a respectable London journal,'
that "the socialist principles are inevitable in any thinking
country which has shaken off religious belief.  If the
Christian dispensation does not rise as the great and allexplaining truth before man's eyes, the philosopher cannot
be contented with the inequality of human conditions, or
avoid devising material plans for its removal. The more
unformed intellect of the poor will eagerly follow in this
path. And happiness being considered a compound of
comforts, he will infallibly ask by what right he is excluded
from his share of what the earth and industry produce,
when his creed cannot enjoin the duty of patience or point
to any present or future compensation." The truth is, that
in all the socialist theories, as in the great expectations
cherished from philosophical illumination in a preceding
age, three very palpable facts are forgotten or denied. The
first is, that a personal change of heart, and not a mere
social or political amelioration, is the indispensable condition of all real and lasting improvement. National can
1 The " Daily News."




SOCIAL DISAFFECTION.              321
only be the effect of individual regeneration. It is out of
the heart, as the Great Teacher taught, that proceed the
things which defile a man. And were the external arrangements of society ever so perfect, yet, without a radical
change in men individually, these arrangements would be
ever liable to corruption and attended with much misery.
The second is, that inequalities and sufferings, in some
form or another, are inseparable from man's lot upon earth.
It is a principle in God's moral government that where
there is no sin there is no suffering. Sin, however mysterious the fact, has entered this world, and suffering as a
penal consequence has followed it. And that suffering is
disciplinary as well as penal. The prophets of social regeneration, however, lay out their perfected world in the
present state, and by the overthrow of the existing arrangements of society, would at once usher in the new heavens
and new earth. The third thing of which they are oblivious or disbelieving is, that the gospel of Jesus Christ,
not a mere political gospel whose favorite theme is equality
and fraternity, but a gospel bringing glad tidings of a free
and full salvation, containing ample provision for expiating
human guilt and subduing human depravity, and giving
the hope of life and immortality beyond the grave, is alone
capable of realizing all the good for which pants the soul
o)f humanity. These are facts confirmed by experience,
and by none more than what is learned from the recent
shakings among several of the European nations. The
rise of a new and better order of things among mankind is
no mere dream of projectors.  The revelations of heaven
warrant us to anticipate it. But we must look for its realization chiefly to the influence of nobler principles than
political and social theories. Grapes are not to be gathered
from thorns, nor figs from thistles. And to hold out, as all
socialist projects that have been recently in agitation do,
2I




322              SOCIAL DISAFFECTION.
the hope of happiness from new social arrangements, is to
delude men and abet the cause of infidelity. A religion
of political liberty is thus substituted for the gospel of the
grace of God.
The second thing in the way of injurious influence,
noticeable in many of these theories, is the endeavor to.
identify them with Christianity itself. The existence of
Christianity is an influential fact, the sanction of which
other systems, however visionary and destructive of its.
spirit, are anxious to obtain. This they can do only by
misrepresenting and virtually falsifying it. In the first great
French revolution, there was no compromise. It was a
war of open extermination against everything that bore the
Christian name. The infidel leaders proclaimed the Christian system and the institutions connected with it to be the
great hindrances in the progress of humanity, and they
avowed their purpose to crush and extirpate the whole..
But infidels now-a-days are covetous of the Christian name%
and each one would have his respective system accounted
the gospel which is designed to regenerate mankind.
Many of the leaders of socialism have claimed to be regarded as the faithful expositors of Christianity. The
reformation preached by Christ and his apostles is declared to have been a social regeneration. The Savior of
the world is hailed as the prince of the communists. The
substance of the Gospel is to be found in those texts which
inculcate mutual love and affection; and the kingdom  of
God on earth, is the reign of equality and fraternity.
Hegel, as we have seen, recognized Christianity, and the
leading doctrines of the Trinity, incarnation and atonement;
but it was only to bring them within the sweep of his law
of necessary development, and to destroy them as facts on
which men rest their faith and hope. In like manner,
Fourier and his disciples, and even Pierre Leroux the




SOCIAL DISAFFECTION.               323
pantheist, who has been acknowledged by the French to be
the metaphysician of socialism, have sought to graft their
speculations into Christianity, and have represented the one
as naturally rising out of the other. In short, socialism lays
hold of a peculiar characteristic of Christianity, which it
severs from other and yet more prominent characteristics,
and then preaching it up, as if it were the whole, does all
the mischief which infidelity could wish. The religion of
paganism and of a corrupt Christianity have had much of
the arrogance and assumptions of caste about them. They
have endavored to distribute men into classes, and have
had their esoteric and exoteric doctrines. But the characteristic of Christianity to which we refer is, that it spreads
a feast before all people, that it makes little account of
natural or artificial distinctions, that it propounds and offers
truth without reserve to the mass of mankind. This want
of monopoly in Christianity, which, after all, is but its
external aspect - the big-hearted and benignant attitude
which it assumes toward the nations - is held up as if it
were its essence. Socialism loves the generous and compassionate look of the Gospel, but it hates its holy humbling
requirements. It would substitute Christianity as a mere
liberal social economy, for Christianity as a system of pure
spiritual truth. However visionary and absurd this may
appear, yet its influence in promoting infidelity among the
masses must have been great. It would be congenial, in the
highest degree, to the social disaffection that existed; and,
though utterly destructive of spiritual Christianity, would in
multitudes of cases be the more welcome that it came under
the pretended sanction of Him whose " name is ploughed
into the history of the world." The faith of the French
people, in the nineteenth century, is a political faith. It
has no reference to man as guilty before God and radically depraved; it does not lay hold of the Gospel as in




324              SOCIAL DISAFFECTION.
the highest sense a restorative economy, and seeking to
make men free by delivering them from the state of the
condemned, and forming them to a high and holy character.
It is not a new thing in the world's history for infidelity to
have propagated itself under the Christian name, and with
a show of respect to Christianity's Great Founder.
We are led to remark, thirdly, the strong tendency of
many of the recent socialist theories toward pantheism.
Humanity is everything with them. The highest being is
man. The perfectibility of the race is asserted. And in
a paradise of social interests here, the idea of a happy
world beyond is excluded. This is more especially the
case with the humanists, who, in their rejection of an historical and spiritual Christianity, are in advance of other
schools of socialism.  In fact, pantheism  has become the
orthodox creed of the system. The extremes of idealism
and socialism meet, in declaring that religion comes not
from without but from within, that it has no objective reality, but is purely a matter of the mind's own creation. We
say that the sum and substance of religion is to be found
in the Bible, a well-attested revelation from heaven, and
that it only becomes the religion of man individually when
it is received by faith, and thus incorporated with all his
springs of thought and feeling. But the humanist says,
Not so. In man himself, or in humanity, is to be found all
that constitutes religious truth.  It is not a thing without,
lying in the world of facts, as the fortress on the hill and
the river that runs at its base, but it is part of man himself,
having neither origin nor objective reality independent of
himself. Ask the apostles of this system, Where is your
God? They at once reply, God is man. He is incarnate
in humanity, and dwells in every member of the human
race.  Man as an individual dies, but humanity is indestructible, in the continual reproduction of the race he




SOCIAL DISAFFECTION.               325
lives; and this is the life and immortality brought to light
by the gospel of socialism.  This system  is just as intolerant of religion as an historical fact, as it is of private
property as a thing existing in law, and it would proclaim
the jubilee of humanity by abolishing both. Socialism, in
its advanced form, has thus been influenced by the extreme ideal philosophy; and, in return, lends its helping
hand to annihilate an historical Christianity. If it passed
from  France to Germany, and was originated by Rousseau
and the infidel philosophy of the last century, it has been
thrown into the German mould, and has come out in the
shape of undisguised pantheism.  And vast multitudes
who have neither the capacity nor the inclination to follow
the transcendentalist philosopher in his lofty and bewildering flight, sit at the feet of the socialist teacher, and
through him imbibe all the infidelity with which that
philosophy is pregnant. Masses of men who are socially
disaffected, and in whom exists little or nothing of vital
religion, and whose disaffection, it may be, is turned
toward some corrupt form of Christianity among them,
are readily carried captive by a pantheistic socialism.
Our last remark here is, that admiration for the political principles of infidels often leads men to think lightly
of religion, and ultimately to cast it off. This is especially
the case in times of social agitation. There is no necessary connection between politics, be they conservative or
liberal, and infidel opinions.  Pious as well as irreligious
men are to be found in the ranks of all political parties.
Principles of civil polity are nothing the worse because
infidels have held and advocated  them.  The famous
Declaration of American Independence was not the less
illustrious because Thomas Jefferson, who prepared it, unhappily did not believe in the great truths of the Gospel.
It is true, however, that those who think favorably of the




326              SOCIAL DISAFFECTION.
political principles of infidels, are apt to be drawn away, so
as to look with no unfriendly eye on the infidel principles
themselves. This, owing to the original depraved bias of
the mind, is likely to be much more frequently the case,
than that love for the political principles of a Christian
should lead men to embrace his Christianity. It has been
not unreasonably supposed that admiration of Hume as a
metaphysician and frequent intercourse with him, had no
small influence with Smith in inducing him to expunge
from his "Theory of Moral Sentiments," the well-known
and remarkable passage in which he recognizes the doctrines of the Christian revelation as harmonizing with the
original anticipations of nature. And it is not unreasonable to believe that multitudes have been prejudiced
against Christianity, being kept from embracing it, or being
induced gradually to renounce it, from a regard to the
political principles of the men at whose feet they have sat.
This will have been the case especially when the waters at
the base of the social edifice have been running high, and
men's minds have been agitated under real or imaginary
social wrongs. If it has been so with political and social
theories, containing no irreligious elements in themselves,
but dangerous only when advocated by influential infidels,
much more must it have been the case with many of the
recent speculations of socialism, in which the liberal political creed and the infidel sentiments have been so blended
together that, in imbibing the one, men could scarcely
avoid imbibing the other.
Infidelity has come before the industrial classes in our
day in an alluring shape. It does not stand forth in its
own proper character. It has appeared in the garb of a
liberal system of politics, professing to redress their grievances, and holding out to them the hopes of social elevation. The liberal polity, from its very connection, has




SOCIAL DISAFFECTION.            327
recommended the infidel opinions, and, as the former has
progressed, so have the latter. Robert Hall remarks, "The
efforts of infidels to diffuse their principles among the common people is peculiar to the present time. Hume, Bolingbroke, and Gibbon, addressed themselves to the more
polished classes. While infidelity was rare, it was employed
as the instrument of literary vanity. Its wide diffusion
having disqualified it for answering that purpose, it is now
adopted as the organ of political convulsion."  He is
speaking of the time of the great French Revolution, but
the remark is no less applicable to our own age. Since the
close of last century political knowledge has made great
progress among the people. It was no longer with fiercely
ignorant democracies that many European Governments
have to deal. The schoolmaster, in many shapes, has been
abroad. The knowledge imparted by him has often served
to awaken men to a sense of the social evils by which they
are surrounded, without any salutary counteractives following the discovery. Social disaffection, the inevitable
consequence of letting light in upon darkness, has been
engendered. Hot-beds of infidel socialism have thus been
prepared. While governments have been making too much
ado about the people's duties and too little about their
rights, the socialist teachers, with no small measure of success, have been incessantly calling the attention of the
masses to their rights, and saying nothing or next to
nothing about their duties. Out of the social discontent,
occasioned by oppression or neglect, has come forth an
evil spirit, uttering at once threatenings against the kings
of the earth, and blasphemies against the God of heaven.




CHAPTER IV.
THE CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.
Not wonderful that Christianity has been corrupted —It has been so with truths
of science - No promise that Christianity should be exempted - Corruptions in
apostolic churches —Paul foretold them —Christianity not to be confounded
with them or made responsible for them — Evil in judging of one by the other —
Two evils flourish in the bosom of corrupted Christianity: superstition and
unbelief —Reciprocal influence of these - Remark of Plutarch - A corrupted
Christianity, and Romanism in particular, ministers to infidelity in three ways:
It often produces aversion in cultivated minds to Christianity itself-The
middle ages - France and other Catholic countries in last century - Remark of'
Macaulay - Italy, Spain, France, at present time - Tendency of Oxford Tractism -- Remarks of Rogers and Whately - It leaves the mass of the people, in
times of excitement, to be captured by infidel leaders —Instanced in France —
It furnishes weapons for attacking'Christianity itself —Parallel between corruptions of Christianity and the base citizens of a great nation.
T HE  best of things in this world  are  liable  to  be  perverted and abused.  Good is often made to assume the
shape of evil, and then to be evil spoken of. Christianity
is the very last system that could be anticipated to escape
corruptions.   Its doctrinal truths are so elevating in their
character, and humbling to the pride of the human intellect,
that men would be sure to distort their simple grandeur,
and bring them down to the level of their own enfeebled
perceptions. Its morality is so strict and pure,-being a
discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, and
admitting of no compromise with aught that is unholy,- as
to induce those who are unwilling to follow its dictates, and
yet anxious to have its sanction, to bend it to their own
prevailing  inclinations.   Its  rites  are  so  few, simple, and
destitute of attractions to the carnal mind, as to make it no
matter of surprise that men who seek righteousness in
mere outward observances, should add to their number,




THE CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.         329,
and render them meet for the lust of the eye. Christianity
has been frequently so much corrupted in its doctrines,
morals, and institutions, as to have rendered it somewhat
difficult to trace any resemblance between the blotched
copy and the fair original.
Every system of truth has been more or less corrupted
under human influence. The sublime science of astronomy has appeared in the somewhat ridiculous shape of
astrology. The simple science of chemistry, in the hands
of the alchemists, was a science of sheer extravagancies.
Natural philosophy was once represented by magic. Jurisprudence, rightly understood and applied, protects the
helpless, shields the innocent, and promotes'the liberty and
prosperity of a state; but it has often been systematized
into an engine of lawless oppression.  If these earthly
things, which are by no means uncongenial to human
nature, or at variance with its predominating tendencies,
have been corrupted in the hands of men, it is not wonderful that heavenly things, in coming down to the earth,
should have been subjected to a similar influence.  It
might rather have been anticipated, that, in proportion as
the revelation from above was purer and loftier than the
principles of human conduct, would men endeavor to distort and corrupt it.
It is divinely promised that Christianity shall never be
destroyed, but there is no promise that it shall, in every
case, be kept free from corruptions. So far from this, that,.
even under the watchful presidency of inspired men, there
were false teachers who crept into the church and endeavored to pervert the gospel of Christ.  Yea, Paul, in his
farewell address to the elders at Miletus, not only spake of
the "grievous wolves " that should enter into the church
after his departure, but he warned them that, even from'
the midst of their own selves, should men arise, teaching a




330       THE CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.
corrupted gospel, to draw away the disciples after them.
And the most influential and extensively spread form of a
corrupt Christianity that ever existed was clearly foretold
in the apostolical writings. They speak of damnable heresies, of a falling away, of the man of sin being revealed,
and of the working of the mystery of iniquity.
Christianity is not, however, to be confounded with its
corruptions, or made responsible for them.  The solar
light is pure and resplendent in itself, though often much
bedimmed in the dense medium through which it passes.
The fountain may be clear as crystal, and cast up no mire
and dirt, while the streams are much polluted. The sacred
text is to be distinguished from the false interpretations
that have been given of it. The doctrines, precepts, and
rights of Christianity, are to be judged of, not as they
appear in the pages of the fathers, or as they are exhibited
in Romanism, but as they are made known in the pages
of the apostles, and were originally held forth in the
churches which they planted. Astronomy, chemistry, and
jurisprudence, are true sciences; but we would form very
unfavorable opinions of them, did we estimate them by the
frauds of the astrologer, the dreaming extravagancies of
the alchemist, and the pleadings and practices of the corrupt lawyer.  "In the view of an intelligent and honest
mind, the religion of Christ stands as clear of all connection with the corruption of men, and churches, and ages,
as when it was first revealed.  It retains its purity like
Moses in Egypt, or Daniel in Babylon, or the Savior of the
world Himself while He mingled with scribes and pharisees, or publicans and sinners."'
The evil is, that multitudes persist in judging of the
grand original from the gross caricature; which is just as
if we were to form our estimate of the Savior's character
1 Foster's Essays, p. I95.




THE CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.         331'from the representations given by the chief priests and
rulers, instead of beholding Him, who, in the midst of his
enemies, could challenge the most fierce and watchful of
them to convince him of sin. And it is a still greater evil,
that, in consequence of taking away the key of knowledge,'
suppressing religious inquiry, and prohibiting the perusal
of the Scriptures, men have had often no other standard by
which to estimate Christianity as a revelation from heaven
than the corrupt form. It might indeed be said, that the
very corruption of the doctrines, precepts and rites of
Christianity, originating as it does in a tendency to assimilate the divine to the human, would have made it more
accordant with the tastes of depraved human nature, and
thereby secured it a wider and firmer reception. Such has
been the case. Christianity in its debased forms has had a
much more extensive sway, and numbered vastly more adherents, than Christianity as it came from God, holy, benignant and undefiled. But this has only been detrimental to
the truth as it is in Jesus.  Christianity in its undefiled
form is the great antagonistic influence to the power of
Satan on earth. He, the father of lies and the'seducer
from the beginning, has polluted the streams in order to
divert men from the fountain. And the Divine Author of
Christianity, whose prerogative it is to bring good out of.evil, has permitted the adversary, in a considerable extent,
to succeed.
It deserves notice that in the bosom of a corrupted
Christianity two evils flourish - superstition and unbelief- and that the former is, in some measure, the cause
of the latter.  It was so with the religions of the old Pagan
world, all of which were gross corruptions of the religion.of nature; as Romanism and some other Christianized
forms are gross corruptions of the religion of revelation.'The ignorant and debased, in the presence of the corrupt




332       THE CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.
system, generally sink into the arms of an unbounded superstition; while men of cultivated and philosophic minds,
conforming, it may be, from policy, to the outward ceremonies, run off to a cold and hardened unbelief. It is,
an historical fact that, in the Augustan age, when the
larger proportion of the Roman people were swelling the
number of false gods, and yielding themselves up to the
most degrading superstitions (in which they were countenanced by the emperor and the nobles), the Epicureans
were outstripping all other philosophic sects in the propa —
gation of their infidel principles. The priest laughed in
his sleeves at the delusions of the people whom he himself was deluding; the orator, in the senate, avowed his
disbelief of a future life, and repudiated the fabulous legends respecting the gods and the infernal world; and
the historian, in quoting the popular religious traditions,
intimated that he did not believe them. The infection
spread from the higher and more intelligent classes to
the illiterate multitude, and many, in renouncing the gross
fables of Paganism, shook off all belief in invisible power
and immortality.
Plutarch, whom Tholuck has characterized as the individual among the ancients who has spoken of belief,
unbelief and superstition with the greatest wisdom and
the'deepest knowledge of mankind, has said, "Unbelief
never gives occasion for superstition, while the latter does
not unfrequently occasion the former; for when we teach
perverted views in reference to divine things, we hold
out occasion for total skepticism." The first of these
statements is by no means to be assented to. The extreme of unbelief has often led to the extreme of superstition.  Men from believing almost nothing, have come
to believe almost everything.  Into the void created by
infidelity, superstitions have rushed and been eagerly re



THE CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.                   333
ceived; just as the prodigal son, in the parable, would
have welcomed the husks, when he began to be in want.'
But what Plutarch says of superstition as the cause of
unbelief is accurate and profound. And not less worthy
of his wisdom  is his admonition, in  respect to the prevailing tendency of his age, "Let every man be well on
his guard that, in order to escape robbers, he do not
plunge into an impassable chasm; that while escaping
from superstition, he do not fall into the power of unbelief by leaping over that which lies between them -
viz., true piety." 
Superstition and unbelief, in the ancient world, generally increased as the corruptions of religion developed
themselves. And multitudes, knowing no other alternative than the robbers or the chasm, escaped from the
former and  plunged  into  the latter.  So  has it been in
the presence  of a corrupted  Christianity.   The  religion
of nature was in nowise responsible for the corruptions
in which heathenism enveloped it. The heavens declared
the glory of God and the firmament showed forth his
handiwork, notwithstanding the unbounded superstition
and unbelief that prevailed.   The  religion  of revelation
stands clear of all the distortions into which men have
wrought it, and of all the abominations with which they
have associated it. It brings glory to God in the high-'est, peace on earth, and good will toward men. But the
fine gold has been changed; and in tossing away the
I Neander states very truly the mutual connection between superstition and
unbelief: " These two distempered conditions of the spiritual life are but opposite
symptoms of the same fundamental evil, of which the one passes easily into the
-other. When once the inner life is become thoroughly worldly, it either suppresses
all religious feeling and abandons itself to infidelity, or, blending itself with that
feeling, gives to it an interpretation of its own. and thus turns it to superstition.
The desperation of unbelief surrenders the troubled conscience a prey to superstition; and the irrationality of superstition makes religion suspected by the
thoughtful mind."-Church Hist. vol. i, p. i8. (Bohn's edition.)
2 Tholuck on the Moral Influence of Heathenism, p. 74.




334       THE CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.
counterfeit, men have often lost sight of the heavenly
reality. The counterfeit, however, must bear a portion
of the guilt in the dishonor done to the pure original;
and to a corrupted Christianity, as a subordinate cause,
must be assigned no small amount of influence in occasioning the rejection of Christianity itself.  Dr. Arnold
believed the great cause of hindrance to the triumph of
Christianity to lie in the corruption, not of the religion
of'Christ, but of the Church of Christ.  The distinction
serves only to mark off more broadly the divine revelation from the human corruptions, while it leaves the latter to bear much of the blame of the rejection of the
former. "Christianity," says he, "being intended to remedy the intensity of the fall by its religion, and the universality of the evil by its church, has succeeded in the
first, because its religion has been retained as God gave
it; but has failed in the second, because its church has
been greatly corrupted."
Romanism is not the only form of a corrupted Christianity. There is the Greek church, in which are to be
found many of the same corruptions as are found in the
Romish. There, in the very bosom of Protestantism, are
the Tractarians; "those factors for Rome," as Archbishop
Whately calls them, who "remind one of Charon, in the old
mythology, that'grim ferryman whom poets write of,' continually ferrying over multitudes across the'melancholy
flood,' to a gloomy shore, from which he regularly returned
himself alone, to take in a fresh cargo."  And, under the
same category of a corrupted Christianity, must come much
of the nominal Protestantism of the Continent, out of which
has arisen a cold, deadening rationalism. But Romanism
occupies the bad pre-eminence.  Most of the other distorted shapes have been but mole-hills; this is the great
1 Cautions for the Times, p. 302.




THE CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.         335
and hideous mountain. That salvation is attainable in theRomish church, we no more doubt than we question the
exalted piety of such men as Borromeo, Fenelon and Pascal. But, consistent with this admission, history bears us
out in affirming, that it is the most corrupt form of Christianity that has prevailed to any considerable extent; and
that, in proportion as it gains ground, the pure spiritual
Christianity of the New Testament is supplanted or impeded, and superstition and unbelief appear. It has no
more been able wholly to extinguish the flame of vital
piety, than the Egyptian bondage was to crush the Israelitish spirit. Even when a thick darkness that might be felt
has overspread the land, the children of Israel have had
light in their dwellings.  But how large a space does it
occupy in the history of the church and the world; how
very numerous are the points of contrast which it presents,
to the simple truth as it is in Jesus; and, itself the offspring of darkness, how great the darkness in which it has
shrouded, for ages, a large portion of humanity!
It is of the system as a whole that we speak. We know
that within its pale exist men of every grade, from the
spiritually-minded down to the grossly superstitious and
idolatrous. And, as a system, it is doubtless the most corrupt that ever bore the Christian name, and has proved
more prejudicial to the pure gospel of Christ than any orall of the corrupt systems which have not professedly
waged war against it. It may claim a venerable antiquity,
but Christianity, as it came down from heaven, clothed in
fine linen clean and white, dates beyond it. And the centuries that it reckons up in its age, only remind us how very
soon the mystery of iniquity began to work, and the finegold became dim. If that be not the most corrupt form of
Christianity, which, under the penalty of anathemas, forbids.
the common people to read the Scriptures, denies that they




336      THE CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.
are a complete rule of faith and practice, and exalts vain
traditions as of equal authority; if that be not the most
corrupt which enjoins the worship of saints, images and
relics, virtually denies the perfection of the Christian
atonement by offering up the sacrifice of the mass, multiplies the number of the sacraments, and loads the simple
divine institutes with a gorgeous host of ceremonies; if
that be not the most corrupt which enslaves the mind and
keeps it in ignorance, and which, in making darkness its
pavilion, is ever jealous of the light; we know not where a
corrupted Christianity is to be found.  It preserves the
name of Christianity, and, nominally, at least, retains its
doctrines; but, under an enormous mass of corruptions,
entombs its spirit.
It is not as now existing in Protestant countries, surrounded and in a great measure influenced by the light of
the Reformation, that we are to form our estimate of it, but
as it appears in Italy and Spain, where it develops itself
according to the authorized canons of the church; and
even there it is somewhat unfder the check of the advancing mind of the nineteenth century. It had its origin in
the attempt to reconcile the adherents of the worn-out
pagan worship, who were scattered in considerable numbers
throughout the empire, to the Christian faith which had
silenced the oracles and overthrown the altars of polytheism. It was a kind of compromise between the old worship
and the new. The church hierarchy, so early as the days
of Constantine, evinced a tendency (so often shown since
by Romish missionaries) to give Christian baptism to individuals while yet in the bosom of heathenism, and to make
old superstitious practices fit into the Christian worship.
The striking resemblance between the superstitions of Papal
Rome and Pagan Rome has often been pointed out. Romanism, by its perversions of great Christian doctrines, and




T'HE CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.       337
by the meretricious ornaments with which it has loaded
simple Christian rites, has earned the title of a baptized
paganism. No enlightened mind, looking at Christianity
as it is taught in the New Testament, and exemplified by
the apostles and early churches, and comparing it with the
Papal system as enunciated in the decrees of councils, embodied in its existing institutions, and manifested in the
moral condition of those lands where it predominates, can
help concluding that Popery is the most decrepit and corrupt form of Christianity.
"In the stagnant marshes of corrupted Christianity,"
remarks Robert Hall, "infidelity has been bred." Romanism has nourished the grossest superstitions, and given rise
to the most dissolute skepticism. By locking up the treasures of divine knowledge, and substituting penances, indulgences, and pompous ceremonies, for an enlightened and
operative faith, she has kept the great mass of her people
as ignorant and slavishly superstitious as Hindoos; while
she has disgusted the more intelligent, and driven them
into secret or open infidelity.
It will be found, then, that there are three ways in which
a corrupted Christianity, and more especially the Papacy,
the masterpiece of corruptions, ministers to infidelity.
i. In the first place, it often produces aversion in culti-vated and reflecting minds to Christianity itself. Men have
often known Christianity only by Popery -its most corrupt form. The Romish Church and the Christian Church,
the Catholic doctrines and the Gospel doctrines, they have
been taught to consider as identical. All the good effected
by Christianity in the world, is claimed for the Papacy.
M. de Falloux, one of the most staunch Romanists among
the French statesmen, strikingly confounded Christianity
with Romanism, when, in a recent speech in the French
Assembly, he went on to say the Papacy has done this good
22




338      THE CORRUPTIONS'OF CHRISTIANITY.
and that good. All the corruptions of Popery, on the other
hand, are laid by multitudes at the door of Christianity. If
they read history, so large a space does Romanism occupy,.
that (overlooking the little uncorrupted church of Christ
which has ever been as a green islet in a troubled sea or as.
a light shining in a dark place), the history of the Papacy
is with them the history of Christianity. And that history
is dark, foul and loathsome. It is a series of dire oppressions and hideous corruptions; the record of a system
which, professing to free and elevate man, has debased and
enslaved him; a system loving the darkness and hating the
light, full of pious frauds and outrageous crimes. They
look around the land in which they dwell, and Romanism,
unchangeable in its mummeries and corruptions, in its enslaving and benighting influences, rises up before them as
the all-explaining fact of the Christian Dispensation. Such
men, on becoming enlightened, and emerging out of the
superstition in which the masses are sunk, inwardly, if not
avowedly, loathe the gross doctrines, cumbersome rites and
absurd practices of the church. And if they know not a
purer faith, or, by the very loathing which they have contracted, are averse to inquire after it, the consequence will
be either that, retaining, from policy, an outward connection with Rome, they secretly cherish infidelity; or, adopting an honester though still a fatal course, they pass openly
over to the ranks of those who denounce Christianity as a
cunningly-devised fable.
This is no mere supposition. The history of the past
and the experience of the present corroborate it. During
the dark ages, Christianity, in the hands of Romanism, sunk
into the grossest superstition; and that superstition was the
occasion of a vast amount of the then existing infidelity.
A pure gospel was then, as always, in the world, but it was
wandering in deserts, and in mountains and in dens and




THE CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.         339
caves of the earth, being destitute, afflicted, tormented. It
was a sadly depraved Christianity, more like a demon of
darkness than an angel of light, that stood before men;
and no wonder that multitudes mistook the demon for the
angel, and in rejecting the one, rejected the other also. In
the fifteenth century, when monkish superstition overspread
the world — a thick darkness that preceded the break of
day-men of learning and classical attainments in the
church, such as Leo the Tenth, Bembo, and many others,
were infidels; and their infidelity, even amid the aboulnding degeneracy, they could scarcely conceal. Under the
shadow of the church were at once nourished a gross superstition and a profligate skepticism.
It was even so in the latter half of last century. Protestantism had, in many quarters, sunk into a deep apathy.
A dry and sapless orthodoxy, followed by a carnal life, had
supplanted the life-giving gospel in the churches. Romanism, on the other hand, had increased greatly in insolence
and corruptions. The pure form of Christianity, except in
a few places, had lost its vigor; and the corrupt form had
become proportionably more corrupt.  The consequence
was an inexpressible disgust in the minds of enlightened
men at the doctrines and practices of the Romish Church,
followed afterward by an outburst of infidelity and impiety.
The church of France, before the Revolution of I789, had
left the great mass of the people in the most extreme ignorance, and had disguised religion in a tissue of frauds and
impostures. Its intestine quarrels, its grievous oppressions,
its benighting influences, its absurd pagan mummeries, had
rendered it an object of disgust and contempt to the more
intelligent portion of the nation. The spirit of infidelity
waxed mightily. Romanism, being the only form of Christianity that came prominently under men's notice, was confounded or identified with Christianity itself. And men, in




340      THE CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.
making a rebound from a gross and oppressive superstition,
overlooked the little true piety that lay between, and fell
into the abyss of unbelief. The growing corruptions of
the system opened men's eyes, and convinced them of its
falsehood; and some being unwilling, and others unable,
to make a distinction between Christianity as a revelation
from heaven, and Christianity as distorted and deformed
by Popery, the former had to bear the crimes of the latter,
and, in the fierce onset, the destruction of Romanism was
hailed as the abolition of Christianity itself. The Archbishop of Paris and others, in publicly renouncing Popery,
proclaimed their disbelief in Christianity.
Such was the case, to a considerable extent, in all the
other Catholic countries of Europe, during last century.
The Church of Rome was fast losing its hold on men's
minds. Infidelity, in many places, gained the ascendant.
Multitudes, in escaping from superstition, rushed into unbelief. Mr. Macaulay remarks, that "at the time of the
Reformation, whole nations renounced  Popery without
ceasing to believe in a First Cause, in a future life, or in
the divine mission of Jesus. In the last century, on the
other hand, when a Catholic renounced his belief in the
real presence, it was a thousand to one, that he renounced
his belief in the Gospel too."' The reason of the difference is obvious. The Reformation was a voice calling
aloud, like a trumpet, on the slumbering nations to awake.
It was liberty, in all the vigor of youth, undoing the heavy
burdens, breaking every yoke, and bidding the oppressed
go free. It was the gospel of the grace of God, as fresh
and mighty as when preached by Paul, proclaiming the
acceptable year of the Lord, and bringing the good news
of a free and full salvation to distressed and wearied souls.
The men who called upon others to escape from the rob1 Review of Ranke's History of the Popes.




THE CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.         341
bers, pointed them to the city of refuge, and thus the
nations escaped the chasm. But the Protestantism of the
Continent, during the eighteenth century, had, to a fearful extent, lost the life which the Reformation originally
breathed into it. It was slumbering on the lap of rationalism. The trumpet had fallen from its lips. It had substituted mere abstractions, or negations, for the life-giving
word. And when multitudes were rushing, like prisoners
let loose, from an oppressive superstition, Protestantism,
shorn of its locks, wanted the power to arrest them at an
intermediate point, and prevent them from falling into the
abyss of infidelity.
Again, if we look to those parts of the Continent where
a corrupted Christianity is dominant in our own day, we
find abundant illustrations of the position which we are
endeavoring to establish. These two excrescences of religious life, as Tholuck calls them, superstition and unbelief,
appear very prominently. One portion of the people, generally the more ignorant, are sunk in superstition, and
blindly devoted to gross ceremonies. The other, and more
enlightened portion (saving those who have embraced the
genuine Gospel), having confounded the pure and the corrupt, have lapsed into secret or open unbelief.  In the
bosom of Romanism men have been taught to regard every
species of Protestantism as an upstart faith, and lying without the pale of the true church. And multitudes, in abandoning the one for its corruptions, have not been divested
of their prejudices in reference to the other so as to seek in
it a religious home. It has been deemed no libel to affirm
that many intelligent Romanists on the Continent, who are
too clear-sighted to be befooled by the mummeries of the
Papacy, and too politic openly to proclaim their hostility,
have no faith in the Christian revelation. In Italy, in
Spain and France, Romanism, in the eyes of the nation, is




342      THE CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.
Christianity, and Christianity is Romanism.  Men still
judge of the pure gold by the base counterfeit, they decide
on the merits of the heavenly original by the earthly caricature. Indeed, in many cases, the distorted form is still
the only shape in which Christianity comes under observation, so that, in losing their hold of the one, men give up
all the Christianity that ever they knew. And in other
cases, the rebound from Romanism, in cultivated minds, is
proportioned to the former pressure, so that, to repeat Plutarch's saying, " Men in escaping from the robbers, plunge
into the chasm."
"Italy," says Dr. Achilli, "pants to shake off Popery.
But, with few exceptions, men who have seen Popery and
Christianity so intimately connected with one another, have
not spiritual discernment to separate the one from the
other, and with the falsehoods of Rome they reject the
sublimest truths of Christianity..... Italy is full of men
who, ceasing to believe in the Romish dogmas, have ceased
to believe in the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.  One
main cause of this is their ignorance of Holy Scripture.
Pantheism and deism are, accordingly, occupying much of
the ground in the Italian peninsula which has been prepared, though lost, by Romish superstition.  Dr. James
Thomson, whose acquaintance with the moral and religious
condition of Spain is so extensive, tells us, that "many of
the middling classes are free-thinkers or atheists. They
could not be easily brought to read the Bible, for being
disgusted with priestcraft and its impositions, they believe
nothing and will hear of nothing." The corruptions of
Christianity in that once proud land are fearfully glaring,
and infidelity, as the consequence, is ravaging the country.
Romish pretensions in France, since the revolution of I848,
have revived. But France has no faith in them. They
may be made to play a part in the shifting scenes of the




THE CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.         343
political drama. But discerning men predict that they will
revive the spirit of Voltaire, and extend the dominion of
infidelity. "For the great masses of our French population," says M. Roussel, "Christianity is Romanism, and
Romanism is the mass, confession, ceremonies, fasts, and a
thousand ridiculous superstitions; and here we have a distinct reason why infidelity prevails in France."
And, to come home, what have we in the "Oxford
School" but a source of corruption, one stream of which
is continually running to Rome, and another going off to
skepticism. Mr. Henry Rogers affirmed in I843, in an
article in the "Edinburgh Review," that "the desperate
assertion that the'evidence  for Christianity' was no.stronger than that for'church principles,' must, by reaction, lead on to an outbreak of infidelity." And he
-can now say, " that prophecy has been to the letter accomplished."  Newman, Foxton, Froude and others, who are
waging war against Christianity, are the result.
The present Archbishop of Dublin devotes several numbers of his "Cautions for the Times," to show that the
Tractite party, in deprecating the investigation of Christian evidence, and insisting on an implicit faith in what is
taught; in putting the Scripture miracles on a level with
the absurd miracles of later times; in covertly and by
implication discouraging the study of the Scriptures, and
exalting the authority of "traditionary revelation;" in
earnestly deprecating the exercise of private judgment
in religious matters; and in making Christianity assume
the form of a religion of mere outward rites and observances;- are doing "more to shake the authority of Scripture than all the attacks made by infidels directly upon it
ever have done, or ever can do. For Scripture is, in itself,
invulnerable; and they who attack it, do but dash them1 Reason and Faith.




344       THE CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.
selves to pieces against a rock. But it may be easily shown
that " the fathers of the church " are mere human teachers,
who often deliver false, and sometimes even absurd things,
as true doctrine.  To encumber Christianity, therefore,
with the defense of their errors and absurdities, and make
that essential to the safety of our religion -is voluntarily
to exchange an impregnable fortress for a position which
cannot be maintained against the enemy."' Once persuade
men, as the Oxford Tractarians endeavor to do, that there
is no alternative betlen their church principles and infidelity, and many, seeing the sorry foundation on which
the former rest, will be led to pass over to the latter. " One
might almost thank you," said a thoughtful young man, on
leaving the Church of St. Mary's, Oxford, where one of
the most determined of the Tractarian preachers had been
holding forth in this strain, — " one might almost thank
you for infidelity as an antagonist to this God-dishonoring
and man-debasing system."' Thus it is that superstition,
baptized with the Christian name, leads on, by reaction, to
unbelief.
2. Another way in which a corrupted Christianity, and
more especially the Papacy, ministers to infidelity, is - that
it leaves the mass of the people, among whom it prevails, to be'
captured by infidel leaders in times of national excitement.
The times of the great French revolution furnished abundant and fearful illustrations of the truth of this remark.
The only religion which the great body of the French
people, at the period referred to, was familiar with, was a
bastard Christianity. And that bastard had hoodwinked,
pilfered and enslaved them. It had interdicted religious
inquiry, it had jealously withheld from them the pure word
of life, and, in the room of the glad tidings of great joy, it
had presented them with a system of impostures and false1 Cautions for the Times, p. 243.  2 "; Christian Times " (Nov. I850).




THE CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.       345
hoods. The atheistical philosophers, men who knew of
the existence of a purer religion, but who wished to bring
every form of religion into the same condemnation, found
the people in this condition, and determined to turn it to
their own destructive aims. It was easy to point out to the
people the trash, which, in the name of religion, had been
gathering during ages of darkness and ignorance around
them; easy it was to expose and hold up to ridicule the
absurd doctrines, puerile ceremonies, extravagant pretensions, and oppressive exactions of the church of which
they were children; and easy too it was, amid the darkness, to confound Popery with Christianity, and make
ignorant and enslaved men believe that the religion of
Christ was opposed to the rights of man, that it was the
wretch, the oppressor. The lamp of Christian truth, as a
light shining in a dark place, was in the land, but it was
well-nigh overpowered by the surrounding obscurity. And
men, having been trained to regard Romanism as the only
true Christianity, were now easily persuaded by their infidel leaders, in abjuring Romanism, to reject Christianity
itself.
Had the church of France, previous to the Revolution,
instructed the people in the gospel truth, put into their
hands the pure word of God, and preached the doctrines
of the cross from her pulpits; had she stood forth before
the eyes of the nation identified with all that is pure and
lovely and of good report in Christianity; then, though a
revolution had been necessary, and infidel leaders might
not have been wanting, the body of the people would have
been kept from those dreadfully impious excesses with
which the Revolution was stained. As it was, however, the
fair form of religion wore a repulsive disguise, lay upon the
neck of the nation like a yoke, had kept it in a worse than
Egyptian bondage; and, the people being thus left a prey




346       THE CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.
to pretending philosophers, were taught to avenge themselves by throwing off the heavy burden, and trampling,everything bearing the name of Christianity in the dust.
A corrupt church left the people to be seduced by an.atheistical philosophy; and the protracted effect is seen.at the present day, for, amid the illumination of the nineteenth century, the French nation is nominally Roman
Catholic, but at heart without faith in the Christian revelation. This, then, is one of the chief ways in which a corrupted Christianity ministers to infidelity.  It plunges the
people into superstition, and out of that superstition, at the
-call of the ungodly leaders, rises the demon of unbelief.
That demon is now stalking abroad in many lands.
3. The corruptions of Christianity form also an armory.out of which infidels take weapons to attack Christianity itself.
Their own infidelity may be accounted for in another way;
but their hands are strengthened by the impostures, absurdities, and oppressions, which, bearing the Christian name,
have converted that which is a blessing into a curse. A
good cause when depraved and made hideous by professed
friends, becomes auxiliary to its avowed enemies. It is
rarely that such men attack Christianity as it is developed
in the sacred volume, and exemplified in the lives of real
Christians, but as it has been misrepresented by themselves,
or as it exists imbedded in a mass of corruptions. They
are wont to appeal to the ignorance and superstition, the
priestcraft and crime, existing under a grossly perverted
Christianity —of which unhappily the greater part of
church history is too full, and nations nominally Christian
present too abundant illustrations —and, with a dishonesty
wofully glaring but often effectual, represents the evils as
if they were the fruits of Christianity itself. These were
the weapons which were brandished by Paine and his:school; Holywell Street bristled with them; and they are




THE CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.        347
not unfrequently taken up by a class of adversaries who
would repudiate all sympathy with Paine in his coarse
blasphemy and vulgar impudence. The grossest darkness
and superstition have existed and been retained under the
shadow of the church, the direst oppressions and the most
outrageous crimes have been perpetrated in the Christian
name; and these, the effects of a sadly distorted Christianity, are, with little ingenuity and less modesty, thrown in
the face of undefiled Christianity itself. Men can distinguish between astrology and astronomy, between chemistry
and alchemy, between natural philosophy and magic, and
they never think of employing the one to fight against the
other. But they have other interests than those of truth
to serve, in being unwilling to distinguish the heavenly
from the earthly —the religion of God from the religion,of man.
Upon the whole, then, we may say, that it has often
-fared with Christianity, on account of its corruptions, as it
has sometimes done with the character of a great nation,
because of the degeneracy of those who were considered
to represent it. The inhabitants of a distant land, who
never saw any better specimens of the English character
than the drunken ship's crew that time after time visited
their shores, and perpetrated fraud, robbery and oppression, have no faith in the virtue of the English nation.'They identify it with intemperance, deceit and cruelty;
and look with jealousy and detestation on every white man
that sets his foot on their soil, even though he comes to
bless them. The English in India, during the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries, by their rapine, impiety and
licentiousness, led the natives to regard them as little better
than fiends let loose from hell *to ravage their coasts.
Other peoples again, who know full well that the depraved
class, which now and then come under their observation,




348       THE CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.
are but spurious specimens of the true Britons, choose, out
of ill-will or some unworthy motive, to hold them up as
types of England's character. There is a true national
character which gives the lie to the libel, and there is a
pure benignant Christianity which disowns the corrupt as
its representative.  Nevertheless, the base citizens, in the
eyes of foreigners, produce and strengthen skepticism in
regard to the national honor; and, in like manner, the
corrupt form of Christianity gives occasion for rejecting
the true.




CHAPTER V.
RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.
Much intolerance without the Church -Christianity itself stands clear of all within
it —Its Founder the most tolerant of beings-Precepts and doctrines of the
New Testament, and the lives of the best Christians, acquit the Gospel of the
charge -Accidental association of intolerance with the religion of Christ has
often been injurious to it —Three manifestations of intolerance noticed: ist.
Jealousy in reference to science —Nature and revelation in harmony —Astronomy and the Bible once set at variance — Galileo — A right principle of
Scriptural interpretation harmonizes Bible language with the true system of the
universe - Geology - Great antiquity of the globe a result, not an assumption
- Perfect harmony between this and the Mosaic record —Injurious influence
of refusing the harmonizing principle - 2nd. Jealousy in reference to any
departure from the common mode of pulpit teaching -Want of Paul's principle
of accommodation in consistency with great prominence to doctrines of the
cross - Necessity of a wider and more diversified range - Chalmers' Astronomical Discourses - 3rd. Intolerance of different forms and observances - Much
handled by infidels —Causes disaffection to Christianity in many intelligent
and liberal minds -Such a spirit rebuked by Christ.
T   should  never be  forgotten  that a  great deal of the
intolerance  in  the  world  lies without the  pale  of the
church, and that from all the intolerance found within it,
Christianity itself is entirely free. One would imagine, to
hear some objectors, that the thing had no existence except
among the adherents of the Christian system, and that it
was the native fruit of the system itself. Some men see
corruptions, divisions and intolerances nowhere except
within the province of revealed religion; and they cannot,
or will not, distinguish between that religion and the abuses
that have crept around it, or the evils done in its name.
It is necessary, accordingly, to remind such individuals that
intolerance has had a place in the schools, and in the senate, as well as in the church; that philosophy, literature,
and politics, have keenly manifested it, as well as systems




350            RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.
of religion; and that while the evil could often be shown
to have been the natural effects of the human system, it
could as easily be shown to be foreign to the divine.
The character of Christianity is to be judged of by the
spirit of its Founder, by its precepts and doctrines as contained in the New Testament, and by the conduct of those
who have been acknowledged to be most under its influence. The man Christ Jesus —the holy, harmless, and
undefiled One —was the most tolerant of beings. In him
were harmoniously blended two great principles: an uncompromising attachment to the truth, and great forbearance toward those who were weak in faith, or as yet
strangers to its power. He declared before Pilate, "To
this end was I born, and for this cause came I'into the
world, that I should bear witness unto the truth." And so
ardent was his zeal for the truth, and so faithful his attachment to it, that men who take a one-sided view of things,
and confound an enlightened regard to truth with intolerance, might indeed bring the charge against the Savior
Himself. Had some persons, who are ever raising this cry
against Christianity, seen Him, in holy indignation, expelling the buyers and sellers from the temple; or heard Him
utter such uncompromising language as this, —" He that is
not with me is against me - If any man will be my disciple, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow
me,"- they would, in all probability, have ascribed it to
an intolerant spirit.  How libelous would have been the
charge! For we have only to behold the faithful and true
witness, while firmly grasping the truth, exemplifying its
kindly spirit, and discountenancing in his followers any
manifestations of temper inconsistent with it. He rebuked
the various kinds of intolerance that were manifested in
his day. There was the intolerance of the synagogue, or
of church exclusiveness, which expresses itself in the cry,




RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.             351
"The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, are we."
And He said to it, "I tell you of a truth, many widows
were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was
shut up three years and six months, when great famine was
throughout all the land; but unto none of them was Elias.
sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that
was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time
of Eliseus the prophet: and none of them was cleansed,
saving Naaman the Syrian."  There was the intolerance
of a monopolizing caste, the germs of which appeared in
his own partially enlightened disciples, who would forbid
the man casting out demons, because he did not form one
of their company. And Jesus said, " Forbid him not: for
he that is not against us is for us." There was the intolerance of misplaced zeal, as manifested by James and John,
who, in the times of their ignorance, would have commanded fire to come down from heaven and consume the
Samaritans, because they did not receive the Master. But
he turned, and said unto them, "Ye know not what manner
of spirit ye are of." Intolerance in Him was reserved for
a base and sanctimonious hypocrisy, and then it became a
virtue to manifest it. But the bruised reed he did not
break, and the smoking flax he did not quench. And,
with an enlarged heart, he recognized in every one whodid the will of God, his mother, his brother, and his sister.
Let the charge of intolerance be made against whatever
religious systems and teachers men will; but let the life
and doctrine of Him who taught his followers to love their
enemies, and who on the cross prayed for his murderers,
stand clear of it.
The same two great principles to which we have adverted, are exemplified also in the character and writings
of the apostles.  It is not to the time when they were
beset with Jewish prejudices that we refer, but when they




~352           RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.
were in the very height of their noble career as Christians
-and ambassadors, and most of all under the influence of
the truth. Look at John, — Boanerges, the son of thunder,
— him who would have brought down fire on the Samaritans. He has lost none of his zeal for the truth. "If
there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine,
receive him not into your house, neither bid him God:speed." But how deeply is he imbued with the kindly
and tolerant spirit of that truth. "We know that we have
passed from death to life, because we love the brethren."
Look at Paul, once a persecutor and injurious. In him
were combined uncompromising attachment to great truth,
and forbearance to all who held it, though differing on
other matters. He who withstood Peter to the face, be-,cause the truth was likely to suffer through his dissimulation, became all things to all men in order that he might
win some. It would be a difficult task for any man to find
a single precept or doctrine in the apostolical epistles, or.anything in the conduct of the apostles themselves after
they had been enlightened, on which to fasten the charge
of intolerance, unl ss he confound with it an enlightened
attachment to the truth itself. And there are thousands
of Christians, in every age, whose temper and conduct,
being under the influence of the truth as it is in Jesus,
give the lie to the insinuation that Christianity fosters
narrow-mindedness and intolerance.  It is a petty, unmanly, dishonest way of attacking the Gospel, to father
upon it all the weaknesses and vices of its professors;
when in the character of its Author, and both in its letter.and spirit, it rebukes intolerance of every shape. Happy
is it that, amid the false imputations thrown on Christianity
by its enemies, and the unfavorable representation often
given of it by being associated with the imperfections and
errors of its professed friends, we can contemplate its




REIIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.            353
native undiminished grandeur in the sacred page, and see
its holy benignant influence manifested in so many of its
true disciples, as warrant us to say that the Gospel has as
much communion with intolerance as light has with darkness.
But, although the religion of Christ disowns all connection with the narrowness and bigotry of its avowed disciples, it cannot be doubted that, in consequence of such
associations, it has presented a repulsive aspect to many
minds. We mean, therefore, to notice some of the forms
of religious intolerance, which have thrown a stumblingblock in the way of a pure and benignant Christianity.
I. The first to which we advert is,-the jealousy with
which some rezigious men regard the advancement of science.
The Book of Nature and the Book of Revelation have the
same Author, and, when rightly interpreted, both declare
the glory of God, and show forth his handiwork. There
may be apparent discrepancies between them, but there can
be no real contradictions; and, in proportion as scientific
research is prosecuted in the right spirit, and true principles
of interpretation are applied to the scriptural page, will the
harmony be manifested. The one, however, has often been
arrayed against the other, to the injury of the truth of God.
We refer not so much to the vaunts of infidels that the age
of philosophical illumination and scientific discovery would
eclipse and falsify the scriptural revelation, or to the fact that
some philosophers have, unhappily, been unbelievers in the
sacred record - circumstances which have had considerable
influence in prejudicing some good, though not great men,
against such pursuits -as to the fact that Christians themselves, in many cases, have countenanced the notion that
there is real enmity between them.
It was once a dogma both of philosophy and of the
church, that the earth is the greatest body in the universe,
23




354            RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.
placed immovable in its center, and that all the heavenly
bodies were created solely for its use. The influence of
Aristotle riveted the notion of the earth's immobility on
men's minds for ages, and the whole body of the faithful
received it as the very doctrine of the Bible. At length
when the Aristotelian dogmas respecting motion were
overturned by the discoveries of Copernicus, Kepler, and
Galileo, — and the motion of the earth round the sun, as
the center of the planetary system, was, on demonstrable
evidence, asserted, — science and religion were set against
each other, and what is now universally regarded as a true
astronomy was denounced as inconsistent with the Christian faith. It is well known that the Vatican thundered its
anathemas against those who held the Copernican doctrine,
and that the famous Galileo was sent to the dungeons of
the Inquisition for thinking, as Milton says, in astronomy
otherwise than the Franciscan and Dominican licensers
thought. And even men of learning and piety were to be
found some time afterward in the Reformed Church, who
maintained it to be antiscriptural to believe otherwise than
that earth is at rest, and that the sun performs a daily revolution around it. David, the man inspired of God, was
boldly set against the philosopher Galileo; and because the
former sung, "God hath established the earth upon its
foundations; it shall not be moved for ever and ever. The
going forth of the sun is from the end of the heaven and
his circuit unto the ends of it," and the latter could not but
maintain, on the ground of sure evidence, that the earth
moved,-philosophy was placed under the ban, and stigmatized as heretical and infidel.
The famous rule of interpretation, so fully adopted by
expositors in modern times, that the sacred writers speak
of natural objects according to the popular mode of comprehending them, " ex veritate optica non physica," as Rosen



RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.             355
mUller says,- a rule which Galileo himself, who held both
by the truth of the Scriptures and the truth of the new philosophy, seems clearly to have understood - was little
thought of, or generally repudiated by divines as an example of wresting the Scriptures from their plain and obvious
meaning.  The persecuted philosopher could have told
them that, as the sacred writers, in accommodating their
language to the wants and capacities of men, speak of God
Himself under the semblance of human properties; so do
they, in speaking of his works, adopt those popular forms
of speech which could readily be comprehended.' But the
church, intellectually, as well as in other respects, was intolerant. The philosophy of nature, however clearly established on fact, must bend to men's narrow interpretation of
Scripture. It refused to do so. The philosopher, after his
humiliating recantation, rose from his knees, stamped his
foot on the ground, and exclaimed, "It moves after all!"
A perpetual imprisonment was the penalty; and that very
astronomy which gives us such enlarged conceptions of the
God of nature and of grace, and which we regard as in
perfect harmony with scriptural truth, had, for years after
the time of Galileo, to bear the brand of heresy. That
many of the philosophical minds of that age were strengthened in their secret opposition to Christianity, by such a
course of intolerance, we may well believe, when we consider how much it is appealed'to by the enemies of revelation, and how a similar, though less fierce, mode of intolerance affects some minds in our own day.
The once apparent inconsistency between astronomy
and revelation has vanished; the globularity and mobility
of the earth are no longer viewed by the enlightened friends
of Scripture as in conflict with its statements; and they
can view the march of that sublime science, not only withI Dr. Smith's Scripture and Geology, p. 192 (4th edition).




356            RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.
out jealousy of any injury accruing thereby to Christianity,
but with the satisfaction of seeing it contribute to enlarge
our conceptions of Him who is the Savior of the world and
the Upholder of all things.  The application of a right
principle of scriptural interpretation harmonizes the language of the Bible with the true system of the universe;
just as the discoveries of the microscope, evincing as they
do the care of the Almighty for the little as well as the
great, ward off the objections which infidelity has drawn
from the discoveries of the telescope, on the ground that
the magnitude of the creation is opposed to the belief that
our little earth has had concentrated upon it so much of
the divine regards as is implied in the scheme of redemption. But if the elder science of astronomy has been
cleared of the stigma of being opposed to religion, the
younger science of geology has incurred the reproach, and
still labors, in some measure, under it.
Geology has secured its place among the inductive
sciences; and, "in the magnitude and sublimity of the
objects of which it treats, undoubtedly ranks, in the scale
of the sciences, next to astronomy."2 It is a fixed principle of this science - which extended observations are
constantly strengthening, and in reference to which great
unanimity prevails among geologists — that the materials
of which this globe is composed are of a very high antiquity, and date far beyond the six thousand years which
are the commonly assigned age of the earth. This is no
mere hypothesis. Physical phenomena, which lie patent to
the eye of every observer, prove that our planet has'passed
through several different states, separated from each other
by immense intervals of time, long before man, or any of
the other creatures now existing, had been created. Several miles of strata upon strata have been carefully exam* Herschel's Discourse on Natural Philosophy, p. 287.




RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.             357
ined by scientific men of the first eminence, and they are
agreed, upon irresistible evidence, in affirming, that the
formation even of those stratified beds which are nearest
the surface, must have taken periods of time which carry
us immeasurably beyond the commonly received date of
the creation. The facts that no remains of the human
species have been found in any of the regular geological
deposits, that these deposits bear indubitable marks of
having occupied vast ages in their formation, and that the
temperature of the globe during the processes must have
been such as that man could not then have existed, prove
the antiquity of the globe to be so great that, in comparison, man's stay upon it dwindles into an insignificant point
of time. This is one of the grand conclusions of geology,
carefully and legitimately drawn from the records contained
in the bosom of the earth, and a conclusion which nothing
whatever can falsify. "No geologist worthy of the name,"
says Mr. Hugh Miller, "began with the belief of the antiquity of the earth, and then set himself to square geological
phenomena with its requirements.  It is a deduction, a
result; not the startling assumption, or given sum, in a
process of calculation, but its ultimate finding or answer."'
Men of skeptical principles have arrayed this conclusion
against Scripture on the one hand, and some men of piety
have arrayed Scripture against it on the other. It is with
the latter that we have at present to do.
That there is an apparent discrepancy between the
teachings of geology and the teachings of the Bible in this
case, must be admitted; and that something like alarm
should at first have been produced thereby in serious
minds, is not to be wondered at. No truth appears all at
once full-orbed and complete. Some of the noblest ideas
of science and philosophy, that are now as the sun shining
1 Footprints, p. 265.




358            RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.
in its strength, seemed, at their early dawning, to conflict
with Christianity, because opposed to some of the popular
but mistaken interpretations of the sacred record. Cowper
had something like an excuse in his day, which he would
not have had now, in saying"Some drill and bore
The solid earth, and from the strata there
Extract a register, by which we learn
That He who made it, and revealed its date
To Moses, was mistaken in its age."
It is unfortunate, however, that such jealousy should
exist; for believing, as such men must do, that the records
of nature and the records of revelation have the same
Author, they might be assured that the true interpretation
of the one could never really be at variance with the true
interpretation of the other. Had Moses, the man of God,
anywhere asserted that the materials of which this globe is
composed were called into being a few thousand years ago,
had the inspired historian identified the original act of
forming the world out of nothing with the six days of the
Adamic creation, science and revelation would then have
been at open war, and the consequences would have been
serious. Geologists can no more renounce their belief in
the great antiquity of the earth, than the followers of
Copernicus can give up the creed that the- earth moves,
and that the sun is in the center of the planetary system.
The convictions in the one case, as well as in the other, are
consequents- not antecedents.  Moses nowhere asserts
that the chronology is different. The variance between his
record and the geological evidence is only apparent, not
real; it vanishes before a sound principle of scriptural
interpretation. What we complain of, however, is, that
some good men disown the harmonizing principle, and, to
the injury of Christianity, cling doggedly to their narrow




RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.              359
principle of interpretation, and denounce as heretical and
infidel one of the most legitimate conclusions of science.
Let it once be admitted that the first sentence in the Book
of Genesis stands as a distinct and independent proposition, that it refers to an undefined antiquity when the
Almighty created the materials of the universe out of nothing, and then, as Dr. Chalmers remarks, "we can allow
geology the amplest time for its various revolutions without
infringing even on the literalities of the Mosaic record."'
This principle of interpretation is no novelty, no mere
bending of the sense of Scripture so as to meet the claims
of a young science. It is to be found in many of the
ancient Christian writers, it was supported by some of the
most learned and pious men in more modern times, but
who lived before geology had obtained a place among the
inductive sciences, and it is becoming more and more generally acceptable among judicious and devout expositors of
Scripture in our own day. But the outcry has been heard,
here and there, from the pulpit and the religious press, that
the geological doctrines are antiscriptural. The Mosaical
and Mineral geologies have been compared and contrasted,
as if they were actually conflicting; and the most sweeping
charges of atheism and the like have been made against a
science that appeals to palpable evidence in support of its
conclusion, that the earth is greatly older than the date
commonly assigned to it.2 It is but lately that a correspondent, in a respectable public journal, said, "I hold by
my antiquated tenets, that our world, nay, the whole material universe, was created about six or seven thousand years
ago, and that in a state of physical excellence of which we
have in our present fallen world only the'vestiges of creation."' The holders of such an opinion, we hope, in all
charity, are rapidly diminishing.
1 Daily Scripture Readings, vol. in p. i.
2 See Dr. Smith's Scripture and Geology, p. I30, etc.




360            RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.
But who can estimate the amount of injury thus unintentionally done to the interests of Christianity, and the
advantage afforded to the ranks of infidelity. It unfortunately happens that not a few scientific men have, independently altogether of such representations, no favorable
prepossessions for the Christian religion, and are criminally
strangers to the strength of its evidences and the grandeur
of its truths. And surely the intolerance of which we are
speaking is calculated to strengthen their indifference or
hostility, and to induce them to rest in the conclusion that
the Gospel is either a cunningly devised fable, or a system
inimical to enlightened and philosophical inquiry. It betrays, indeed, no small degree of intolerance on the part of
some philosophers themselves, and evinces a little-mindedness altogether unworthy of them, that they can coolly
dismiss Christianity and refuse to examine its claims, because it has occasionally come before them associated with
the weaknesses and prejudices of some of its professors.
They are guilty of acting the same way toward religion that
the Christian professors, of whom they complain, act toward
science; and the charge of intolerance, which they bring
against others, might justly be retaliated upon themselves.
But this does in nowise weaken the fact that the attempt,
on the part of some, to limit the Mosaic account of the
creation to the date of six thousand years, in opposition
to geological conclusions carefully drawn and now firmly
established; and the attempt, on the part of others, to put
the mark of Cain on the science —have operated injuriously on some minds in fostering a secret or open contempt
for Christianity.  There is a natural indifference in the
human mind to the things which are revealed of God, and
it is unfortunate when men can lay hold of some of the
repulsive associations of Christianity as a pretext for disregarding Christianity itself. Revelation cannot be made to




RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.              361
conflict with reason, Christianity cannot be arrayed against
science, without provoking enmity on the other side, and
giving an immense advantage to infidelity.
Mr. Babbage says, "It is a fact, not to be disputed, that
some of the most enlightened minds of the day have nurtured a secret opposition to the doctrines of Christianity,
owing to the intellectual intolerance of its abettors." And
while it may be that some men of philosophical pursuits
are claiming much more for reason than its due, or than it
would be consistent with the paramount claims of Christianity to concede, and that intolerance may thus be indiscriminately applied to old prejudices and an enlightened
zeal for great truth; yet it must be admitted that any
attempt to interdict a science whose conclusions are based
not upon airy speculations, but upon palpable evidence,
under the mistaken notion that such conclusions are hostile
to the Word of God, must tend to make some men infidels,
and furnish with additional weapons those who are so.
Let no tolerance be shown to the opinion, prevalent in our
day, that religion is a web of the mind's own weaving, that
it has no fixed and immutable standard in history, but that
it fluctuates with the fluctuation of ages; for that were to
act the part of Judas and betray the very truth. But let
the simple assurance that the Author of the material and
mental constitutions is also the Author of Christianity, for
ever stifle all jealousy, and silence all outcry against the
steady march of physical and mental science.  Natural
religion and revealed become the more friendly the better
they get acquainted, and the present as well as past times
can furnish names alike illustrious for philosophical acquirements and Christian excellence. One of these recently
said, amid an illustrious circle of his scientific compeers:
"If the God of love is most appropriately worshiped in
the Christian temple, the God of nature may be equally




362             RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.
honored in the temple of science. Even from its lofty
minarets, the philosopher may summon the faithful to
prayer; and the priest and the sage may exchange altars
without the compromise of faith or of knowledge."'
2. The second form of religious intolerance, which we
would notice as having an unfavorable bearing on Christianity, is — the jealousy with which any departure from  the
comnzon mode of address, and any attempt to accommodate
re/lg-ious discussions to the taste, literature and philosophy of
the times, are not unfrequently viewed by some of its professed
friends. It is by no means desirable to make any material
change in our usually-adopted style of pulpit preaching.
To the poor the Gospel is preached. They form by far the
larger portion of almost every religious audience, and to
their intelligence and capacities should the teaching of the
Church be adapted. In order to secure plainness of speech,
however, it is no more necessary to descend to vulgarity
than to resort to raving in order to be impressive. Lord
Brougham, in his "Dissertation on the Eloquence of the
Ancients," says:  "The best speakers of all times have
never failed to find that they could not speak too well or
too carefully to a popular assembly; that if they spoke
their best -the best they could address to the most learned
and critical assembly-they were sure to succeed." Some
of the most popular and useful preachers on both sides of
the Tweed are those whose style is level to the comprehension of the feeblest of the flock, while it is characterized by an elegance and strength which render it acceptable
to the more refined and intellectual. What is wanting is a
greater prevalency of what, in some quarters, extensively
prevails,- the style which blends the expository and the
sermonizing, the doctrinal and the practical, the stiffness of
1 Sir D. Brewster's Address at the Meeting of the British Association at Edinburgh, 1850.




RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.              363
the lecture having imparted to it something of the graceful
looseness of the sermon, and the declamation of the sermon receiving some of the massiveness of the lecture.
If it be not desirable to lay aside the common mode of
address, far less would it be to strip the Gospel of its peculiarities, or to throw them into the shade, in order to remove
the offense of the cross. The great preacher who acted,
within legitimate bounds, on the principle of becoming all
things to all men, acted always, too, on his noble determination to know nothing among men save Jesus Christ and
Him crucified. The field of divine truth is extensive in
itself, and richly diversified in its objects, but Christ is the
sun which clothes the whole with light as with a garment,
and the cross is the seat whence He sheds abroad the
brightness of his glory. Over this wide field it behoves
the Christian teacher to conduct his disciples, and to make
them acquainted with every flower and tree that grows on
its surface; but all his lessons should be given from under
the shadow of the cross, and, on whatever subject he
touches, there should be a constant reference to this, as the
tree of life, whose leaves are for the healing of the nations.
But it is of the want of Paul's principle of accommodation, acted on in consistency with due prominence being
given to the doctrines of the cross, that we complain. He
accommodated himself to the prejudices of the synagogue
and of the market-place. He closed with the philosophers
in the Areopagus, and with the more unlearned among the
people. He pursued one train of thought, and adopted
one style, while reasoning with the Jews; and another and
different one when addressing the Gentiles. And yet, while
thus becoming all things to all men, he made it manifest
that he counted all things but loss for the excellency of
the knowledge of Christ. It is the greater prevalency of
branching off from the cardinal doctrine of the Gospel




364            RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.
while holding fast by it; and of throwing the sanctity of
religion over philosophical researches on the one hand, and
of making science minister to the illustrations of religious
truth on the other, that we desiderate in much of our
religious teaching. The pulpit, being designed for the
instruction of men in every age in the things of God,
should be prepared to meet the various forms of error
which are ever and anon thrown up from the heart of
society, to dissipate the illusions which have been thrown
around them, and to show how nature, when interpreted
aright, yields an unbiased and spontaneous testimony to
revelation. Far be it that the lessons of the pulpit should
ever be turned into philosophical discussions, into learned
disquisitions, or into a mere baptized lifeless morality. Of
the former there has been more than enough in past ages,
and of the latter there may be in some quarters too much
still. But let it not be forgotten that nature teaches many
useful and pious lessons, and that the Bible appeals to
them; that in the same record we are admonished to behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the
world, and to consider the lilies of the field, how they
grow; that the inspired canon contains the Proverbs of
Solomon as well as the Psalms of David, the philosophical
epistle of James as well as the doctrinal epistles of Paul.
Let not God's Book of Nature be treated as if its inscriptions had grown dim and effete before the clearer light of
revelation, and, while irreligious men would make the stars
in their courses fight against the prophets and apostles, and
adduce the great "stone book" as a witness against the
Word of' Life; let those who are set to teach in the church
show that the records of the material creation, of the
heavens above and of the earth beneath, are in perfect harmony with the statements of the scriptural page. There
is the leaven of a secularist infidelity diffusing itself among




RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.             365
the masses, and of a philosophical unbelief making its way
among the educated classes, to the existence and influence of which many who wait upon the ministrations of
the sanctuary are not entire strangers; and this surely
warrants an occasional departure from the usual mode of
address, in order to strip false systems of their pretensions,
and to exhibit by contrast the glory of the true. Paul, if
we mistake not, would have acted thus, had he lived in an
age like ours, so widely different in many points from his
own; and in doing so, would have manifested the harmony
of his two grand principles -determining to know nothing
among men save Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and becoming all things to all men in order that he might win
some.
Now, it is in the jealousy with which some devoted
teachers of religion view any such accommodation to the
tastes and prejudices of the times, and in the, perhaps, still
stronger jealousy with which such an occasional departure
from the old course would be received by multitudes of
simple-minded hearers, that we discover an influence really
injurious to Christianity. We are not, let it be remembered,
advocating a trimming mode of'preaching, the substitution
of a sort of religious philosophy for the Gospel itself, or
mere displays of literary tastes, in order to captivate literary men. No.  This, besides proving, as it ever has
done, a wretched failure, would be an abandonment or an
unworthy compromise of the one great principle of Paul
to which we have adverted. But it is the greater prevalency of the system which has been partially adopted by
some distinguished teachers, of making occasional excursions to other topics, while habitually expounding, and
enforcing the great doctrines of the cross, and of linking
even these other topics with the truth of the Gospel for
which we plead. It is undeniable that Christianity in the




366            RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.
teaching of by far the greater number of its devoted ministers, wears a more contracted and exclusive aspect than
really belongs to it; and that the stern refusal to adapt the
pulpit to the age, has led some intelligent minds to cherish
unfavorable opinions of the great truths of the Gospel.
The jealous exclusion of almost every topic from the
sacred teaching which is not directly included within the
system of evangelical doctrine, or the intolerance shown
when an occasional excursion is made beyond the prescribed boundary, has induced many to associate the grand
themes of the pulpit with a narrow and illiberal exclusiveness to which in themselves these themes are strangers.
" If the priesthood of the sanctuary," remarks Dr. Vaughan,'
"is to be a match for the priesthood of letters, the path of
its labor must become wider and more diversified every
day. Men who see this must give little heed to those who
see it not."
Dr. Chalmers, in the introduction to his celebrated
Astronomical Discourses, which we consider a good exemplification of the two principles of Paul formerly adverted
to, makes a remark in some measure still applicable. He
is speaking of " those narrow and intolerant professors who
take an alarm at the very sound and semblance of philosophy; and feel as if there was an utter irreconcilable
antipathy between its lessons on the one hand and the
soundness and piety of the Bible on the other," and adds,
"it were well, I conceive, for our cause that such persons
could become a little more indulgent on the subject; that
they give up a portion of those ancient and hereditary prepossessions which go so far to cramp and enthrall them;
that they would suffer theology to take that wide range of
argument and of illustration which belongs to her; and
that, less sensitively jealous of any desecration being
1 Letter and Spirit, p. 78.




RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.              367
brought upon the Sabbath or the pulpit, they would suffer
her freely to announce all those truths which either serve
to protect Christianity from the contempt of science.; or
to protect the teachers of Christianity from those invasions
which are practiced both on the sacredness of the office
and on the solitude of its devotional and intellectual
labors."
It is unfortunate that theology, the grandest of all the
sciences, should have been kept so much aloof from the
others, as it is unfortunate that the others have been kept
so much aloof from theology; unfortunate it is that theology has often been made to look strangely and jealously
on natural science, as it is that natural science has often
looked strangely and jealously on theology. The two real
friends have been made to cherish silent or open contempt
for each other; and while the contempt of science has
often occasioned the contempt of theology, the contempt
of theology has often occasioned the contempt of science.
3. The most common species of religious intolerance,
and one that has given to Christianity a more repulsive
aspect than any other, remains to be noticed - the intolerance of different forms, rites and ceremonies. The form of
godliness, in the present state, is necessary to the manifestation and maintenance of its power. But men in every
age have been prone to attach that importance to the
external shape which only belongs to the inner life. And
in proportion to the exclusiveness of attachment to any
particular form has been the intolerance shown to those
who differ from it. Christianity is the ministration of the
spirit. Its Divine Founder frowned upon the formalism
and consequent intolerance of his day. The New Testament, while giving no countenance to the neglect of the
outward institutions of religion, places them in complete
subordination to piety itself; and, by the utter absence of




368            RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.
minute regulations as to external ceremonies, indicates not
only that they are of inferior importance compared with
the weightier matters of the law, but that professing Christians should show much indulgence toward one another in
reference to them. The several sections of the church
have often acted as if the New Testament had its book
of Levitic.us, and their individual interpretation could not
possibly be otherwise than the right one; and as if they
had been commanded to punish or stand aloof from those
who denied there was any such book in the New Testament, or who ventured to adopt another interpretation of
its meaning. From the beginning until now, some men,
pent up within their own sacred inclosure, and being unable to see any good beyond, have been crying, "the
temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are we."
Their own Zion has filled up so largely the sphere of their
vision as to be looked upon as exclusively the church, and
they say, with an implied disparagement of all other hills,
"our fathers worshiped in this mountain."  The line of
genealogy — the chain of succession - has become so exclusively sacred in their estimation as the channel of grace,
as to have blinded their eyes to an illustrious ancestral
piety elsewhere, and to lead them to say with ineffable
complacency, "we have Abraham to our father." And
while intolerance has been manifesting itself in this way,
under a pretended zeal for the honor of Christianity itself,
that very Christianity, in the life of its great Author, and
in the pages of inspiration, has been rebuking the foul and
wicked spirit, and calling upon it to come out of the church.
Men who have no inclination to examine the evidences
of Christianity, and to contemplate its native grandeur disconnected from the weakness and intolerance of its professed friends, confound the one with the other. Or they
are something like individuals prevented from  entering




RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.              369
into a magnificent castle, and surveying its beautiful
grounds, by the surly looks of the porters that stand at
the gate. This intolerance, like an evil genius, has so
often accompanied Christianity in its descent down the:stream of ages, and in its progress through the world,
leading to the formation of conventicle acts, and acts of
uniformity, unchurching, anathematizing, imprisoning and
burning those who were of a different way, that it would
not be wonderful were thousands to rise up in judgment,
and say to the demon of intolerance, "You made us infidels." Vast multitudes, in every age, will, in spite of all
remonstrance, estimate Christianity by the spirit and conduct of its professed followers. And, while they see much
in the past, and not a little in the present, of that temper
which, under the plea of religion, would bring down fire
from heaven and consume the Samaritans; or which manifests itself in a conceited piety, saying, "Stand by yourself, come not near to me, for I am holier than you;"
their prejudices against Christianity will strengthen, and
they will be apt to confound the darkness and the light.
No one, at all acquainted with the writings of infidels,
more especially with those which have been popularized
and diffused through the masses, but must know that this
species of religious intolerance is handled and held up as
if it were the natural fruit of religion itself. And how
often, in the walks of social intercourse, do we meet with
intelligent and liberal-minded men who cannot conceal
their disaffection to Christianity on account of what may
be called the church intolerance of many of its professors.
Coleridge has said, "I will be tolerant of everything
else but every other man's intolerance."  Religious intolerance is the most odious and insufferable of all. The spirit
of humanity, if it be not enslaved, rises up against it; and
on many minds who have not learned to distinguish be24




370           RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.
tween the gentleness of Christ and the bitterness of some
professing Christians, such is its influence as to involve in
one feeling of disgust everything in the shape and name of
Christianity. What an inconceivably paltry, troublesome,
intolerant thing must Christianity be in the eyes of some
men, who form their notions of it from some portions of
church history, or from those who stickle for caste, vestments and ceremonies, as if the life of genuine religion
was bound up in them. And so much fiery zeal has been
manifested by large bodies of professing Christians in
every age for the mere wood, hay and stubble, that it is
not to be wondered at if those who were indisposed to
appeal to the Bible should have come to the conclusion
that there was nothing else in religion worth contending
for. The church in every age has had its Hamans who
could not bear to see Mordecai sitting at the gate. There
have been multitudes of great and petty Lauds who would
rather have had the plague in their parishes than religious
dissent, and who would sooner have tolerated drunkenness
and uncleanness than the unpardonable sin of Puritanism
and Nonconformity. The imprisonment of a John Bunyan
and thousands of men of less note, because they would
pray without a common prayer-book; the outrage of refusing Christian burial to men who had not been baptized
within the pale of a particular communion; the denial of
the validity of any ordination but this particular one or
that particular one; the jealousy sometimes shown toward
lay preaching, not lest error should be propagated, but lest
the priest's office should be invaded; and the many ways
in which the old proposition is openly expressed, or half
concealed, "out of our church no salvation;" these, which
are but the intolerancies of erring, deluded, or proud men,
have done incalculable injuries to that benignant work
which is of God. "The prevalence of so intolerant a




RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.               371
theory," says Isaac Taylor, when speaking of Tractarianism, "and the bold avowal of it by those who are regarded
as the best-informed expounders of Christianity, silently
but extensively operates to drive cultured and ingenuous
minds into deism or atheism. What is this Christianity,
say such, which, while professing to be a religion, not of
bondage and forms, but of truth and love, nevertheless
impels its adherents to violate all charity on the precarious
ground of an elaborate hypothesis! "'
The disciples may forbid a man to cast out demons in
the name of Jesus, because he follows not with them. But
the Lord, instead of sanctioning their conduct, rebukes
them. It is enough for Him that the man is doing his
work, and doing it in his name. "Such a church, or such
a community," says Vinet, "believes that to follow Jesus
Christ, it is necessary to be with it, form a part of its
organization, join the society of which it is composed,
espouse its interests, and hang out its banner."2 The
Lord rebukes such a spirit. He looks over all the hedgework of forms and ceremonies within which his professed
followers have too often inclosed themselves, and says,
"he that is not against us is for us." Let not Christianity,
then, be made responsible for what it repudiates; but let
it not be denied that an intolerance of different external
forms and rites, on the part of churches, has been prejudicial to the Gospel and strengthening to infidelity.
1 Spiritual Christianity, p. 99.    2 Vinet's Vital Christianity, p. 223.




CHAPTER VI.
DISUNION OF THE CHURCH.
Christ's Church really one- Scriptural illustrations of this —A truth often lost
sight of- Disjointed state of the Church a Common refuge of infidelity —An
argument easily applied - Its influence on a man whose religious knowledge is
merely superficial, and who has but a very lingering attachment to Christianity
- The sophism repelled by a man of an opposite character-The refuge, however, remains - Deistical writers used it - A source of perplexity to the weak
and inquiring, and an auxiliary to the hostile - Remark of Robert Hall - Unity
not to be confounded with uniformity - Romish unity a huge fiction - Remark
of Whately —Scriptural unity consistent with minor differences —Remark of
Sir James Stephen - Mr. Ruskin's " Notes "- Difference between moral and
mathematical certainty - Voltaire - Macaulay's remarks on Gladstone - Visible unanimity to be aimed at - Savior's Prayer- Twofold influence of Christian unity- The exhibition of unity would tell mightily as a proof of the
divinity of Christianity — Instanced in the early Church - The consequent
unity of action would tell powerfully on successful propagation of Christianity
-Primitive Church had unity of action so long as it had unity of exhibition -
Noble things done since by combined Christian effort -God, in the signs of the
times, is calling upon Christians to manifest their unity.
and conflicting interests, is really one.  What Cyprian,
one of the most illustrious of the Fathers, said, with  a too
partial, if not an exclusive reference to the existing church,
is true of the great company of the faithful, composed of
men in all ages and lands, who hold the Head, even
Christ: "The church is one, which, by reason of its
fecundity, is extended into a multitude, in the same manner
as the rays of the sun, however numerous, constitute but
one light; and the branches of a tree, however many, are
attached to one trunk, which is supported by its tenacious
root; and when various rivers flow from the same fountain,
though number is diffused by the redundant supply of
waters, unity is preserved in their origin."' This essential
I Hall's Terms of Communion.




DISUNION OF THE CHURCH.            373
characteristic of the Christian community is illustrated by
several comparisons in Scripture. The church is represented as a building of which the Lord Jesus is the
foundation, and believers in every place and age are living
stones united to Him and to each other, and built up a
spiritual house.' It is spoken of as one fold under the care
of the one Shepherd, as a whole family or brotherhood
named after the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and, not
to multiply illustrations, it is described as one body, all
genuine believers holding the same Head, and every one
members one of another. Yet the church, in many of its
branches, has often lost sight of this delightful truth, and
acted a part directly contrary to its influence. The harmony has been broken, brethren have set brethren at
nought, schisms have been made in the body, and member
has been saying unto member, "I have no need of thee."
The faithful have been ranging themselves under different
leaders, some saying we are of Paul, others, we are of
Apollos, others, we are of Cephas; while their common
Lord and Savior has been saying unto them, ",One is your
Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren."
The disjointed and disorderly state of the church has
been notoriously one of the most common refuges of infidelity. At the beginning, the lovely manifestation of its
inward unity often drew the unwilling homage from the
world, "Behold how these Christians love one another! "
And we may easily conceive how influential must have
been the exhibition of Christian unity in disarming the
prejudices and overcoming the hostility of those without.
To see vast multitudes of individuals, men of every kindred and tongue, and nation, and people, separated from
each other by country and language, by a diversity of station and interests, all glorying in the same cross, bound by
the bands of love into one Christian brotherhood, and




374          DISUNION OF THE CHURCH.
harmoniously engaged in doing the greatest good to the
world, must, in many cases, have been instrumental in producing the conviction that Christianity is of God. " It was
this, indeed," remarks Neander, "which, in a cold and
selfish age, struck the pagans with wonder." But the picture has been reversed.  Modern Christendom  has too
often presented the unseemly spectacle of the several companies of the Prince of Peace contending against each
other, instead of uniting their strength and advancing
against the common foe. The unbelieving world has meanwhile looked on, and said with a more deeply-rooted prejudice, "See how these Christians are divided, how they
hate and oppose each other. This is your boasted Christianity, and these are the followers of Him whom they call
meek and lowly of heart!"
The argument against the Gospel, derived from the
divisions and discords of the Christian community, is a
very popular one. It lies upon the surface of things,
requiring no great grasp of comprehension either on the
part of him who takes it up and applies it, or on the part
of him who receives it. There are multitudes, whose natural aversion to Christianity would fail to manifest itself
openly under the pressure of abstract reasoning, who will
be drawn out to an avowed unbelief, by the use of popular
sophisms, and an appeal to those palpable facts which are
unhappily furnished by the divided state of the Christian
world. Disunion among the adherents of any system is a
weapon put into the hands of opponents, which they readily point against the system itself. And the weapon flies
the swifter toward the mark, according as the pretensions
of the system and the conduct of its professors are at variance. With what a degree of self-elation, then, must many
an infidel, who had neither the honesty nor the inclination
to examine Christianity, have looked upon the sectarianism




DISUNION OF THE CHURCH.            375
and contention of the church. And how impregnable must
he have felt his position, when encountering a man somewhat like-minded with himself, only retaining the shadow
of a hereditary reverence for Christianity, but as little disposed to imitate the noble Bereans in searching the Scriptures to see whether or not these things are so. He would
have at hand a number of texts in which the character and
pretensions of the Gospel are expressed or implied, and,
with a view of falsifying these, he would appeal to the
temper and conduct of the adherents of the Gospel, place
the one in conflict with the other; and, as if it were indisputable that the temper was the genuine influence of
Christianity, endeavor to fix upon the system the brand
of imposture.  He would need only to lay hold of the
song, so descriptive of the Gospel, which was sung by the
angels over the plains of Bethlehem, and then making his
appeal to the history of the church, and to the actual state
of some portions of the Christian world, complacently ask,
"' Where is glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace,
good will toward men?" The appeal would not be without
its influence on the mind of a man who had no experimental knowledge of the peaceful tendency of the Gospel,
whose acquaintance with the state of the Christian world
was of the most superficial character, and whose lingering
attachment to Christianity was like the last sear leaf on a
tree, ready to be carried off by the next wind that blew.
An individual whose acquaintance with Christian truth
was enlightened, deep and experimental, and whose knowledge of the Christian community extended to other facts
than external divisions and imperfections, could withstand
the appeal and repel the sophism. He could say to the
infidel pleader, These are not all the facts of the case.
Your argument is a one-sided one. You have gone to the
bleak and wintry side of the hill, and have come away with




376           DISUNION OF THE CHURCH.
the notion that all around is gloomy and sterile, whereas
the other slope is clothed to the top with verdure, and on
it the sun is brightly shining. You have raked up the
divisions and contentions of the church, but you have not
told us of the times of her unity and valiant contendings.
for the truth. And not only so, but you have confounded
the corruptions of Christianity with Christianity itself, the
accidental with the essential, the work of man with the
work of God. The divisions, of which you make so much,
are to be deplored, but they are not unforeseen obstacles
thwarting the march of Christianity; on the contrary, the
Christian record foretold them, Christianity itself overcomes them, and eventually makes them swell the train of
her triumph. The church, amid all outward diversities, is
verily one; and when the storms have been hushed, and
the dark clouds have passed away, the world will see the
true vine, and, clustering on either side of it —united by a
common bond, pervaded by a common principle of lifer
and bearing the same manner of fruits-a goodly array
of living branches.
But this mode of stating the case, however just and
true, and whatever might be its weight on the mind of an
anxious inquirer, would not prevail with the man whose
tendencies were in an opposite direction. There is the
palpable fact of a disjointed and divided church standing
before him, there are schisms in the kingdom that is declared to be one, there is the sound of discordant voices
and conflicting interests among the followers of the Prince
of Peace. And so long as these excrescences of the religious life are manifested, and men are to be found who will
persist in forming their notions of Christianity, not from
the New Testament, but from the imperfections and inconsistencies of its followers, so long will indifference and
infidelity have a refuge in the sectarianism and contentions




DISUNION OF THE CHURCH.             372
of the Christian world. We may get behind the'refuge
and endeavor to push the man from it, we may tell him
that he has mistaken a mud shed for a strong tower, we
may cry out against his unfairness and little-mindedness in
confounding what is accidental with what is essential, and
in suffering himself to be prejudiced against a revelation
from heaven because of the contendings of its professed
friends. We may carry the point farther, and charge his
hostility, as the Savior himself has done, on a deep-rooted
aversion of mind and heart to the high and holy principles,
the strict and uncompromising requirements of the Gospel
itself. But, after having done all this, the refuge, such as
it is, remains; and the man still resorts to it in the way of
justifying and confirming his aversion to the Gospel truth.
We might be almost sure, too, that, in the case of many,
were this refuge taken away, others would be resorted to,
and their prejudices against Christianity be not a whit lessened. But this does not affect the fact, that the visible
disunion of the Christian church has been a stumblingblock to the world, and has strengthened the hands of the
infidel.
The deistical writers, from Lord Herbert downwards,
have availed themselves, with much disingenuousness indeed, of this weapon against the Christian cause; and have
fallaciously, yet with some plausibility, argued, that a system which admitted of such conflicting opinions among its
adherents, could possess nothing like certainty; and that
a church professedly one and yet split into a number of
isolated or opposing sects, must be a contradiction. Herbert, Bolingbroke, and other writers of a lower grade in
the same school, may have become unbelievers, independent altogether of the subordinate cause which we are now
considering, and might have retained their unbelief had
that cause been removed out of the way; but it was among




378           DISUNION OF THE CHURCH.
the auxiliaries that strengthened their prejudices against
Christianity, furnished them with weapons of attack, and
gave their infidel sentiments a readier access into the minds
of other men. The world has, in these conflicting sects
and divisions, a hold which it had not in the primitive age
of Christianity; and, without assigning to the unity of the
church that efficiency as a cause which some (with a view
of precluding a higher agency) have done,' we cannot
doubt that its visible unity, short though its continuance
was, had a strong subordinate influence in recommending
the Christian cause, any more than we can doubt that the
return of peace and unity will be powerfully instrumental
in the conversions of the latter day. "Nothing," says Lord
Bacon, "doth so much keep men out of the church, and
drive men out of the church, as breach of unity." And, as
Isaac Taylor remarks, " If we could only bring to view the
-secret causes of that infidelity which, it is to be feared,
prevails among the educated classes, this now named-the
scandal arising from religious dissensions —would probably
appear to be one of the most frequent and determinative."2
The most powerful arguments in favor of Christianity
have been repelled and thrown upon its advocates by the
infidel sarcasm, "Agree among yourselves first; and then,
manifesting yourselves, what you profess to be, the disciples of one Master, come and ask us to join you." And, it
has been felt, when advocating the Christian cause before
those who are indifferent or opposed to it, that however
shallow the sophisms by which they endeavor to defend
their hostility, and however much that hostility is to be
traced to an ulterior and more powerful cause, a stumblingblock, an occasion of offense, would be destroyed, were
the breaches in Zion healed; and the church would then
look forth " as the morning," on a world destined to be her
1 Gibbon.     2 Spiritual Christianity, p. I49



DISUNION OF THE CHURCH.             379
inheritance, "fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners." The divisions and conflicting opinions of the Christian world have been a source of
painful perplexity to the weak and inquiring on the one
hand, and have operated as a flattering unction to the
indifferent, and an auxiliary force to the decidedly hostile
on the other. Some of the former, with great want of
manliness, have sought refuge from the embarrassment in
the infallibility and uniformity of Rome; thus renouncing
the right of private judgment, after having exercised it in
choosing their new mother, and rolling their responsibility
ever afterwards upon the back of a self-styled infallibility;
while the latter, seeing division to be the weakness of the
church, have, with much unfairness, ascribed it to the
weakness of Christianity itself. Robert Hall, in allusion to
-the controversies and factions which distracted the church:subsequent to the Reformation, arising out of the abuse of
the right of private judgment then nobly vindicated, says,' In this disjointed and disordered state of the Christian
church, they who never looked into the interior of Christianity were apt to suspect, that to a subject so fruitful in
particular disputes must attach a general uncertainty; and
that a religion founded on revelation could never have
occasioned such discordancy of principle and practice
among its disciples. Thus infidelity is the joint offspring
of an irreligious temper and unholy speculation, employed,
not in examining the evidences of Christianity, but in
*detecting the vices and imperfections of professing Christians."'
Unity is not to be confounded with uniformity. The
distinction between the two, however, has often been lost
sight -of, both by the enemies and friends of Christianity.
The church has had many an extensive scheme of uni1 Modern Infidelity.




380           DISUNION OF THE CHURCH.
formity, while within it there has been anything but unity.
Popery glories in'her undivided empire, but it is only the
oneness of an external ceremonial, which shelters men of
no opinions about religion, and men of almost every diversity of opinion. It is the unity of millions yielding an
external homage to one man, and scrupulously observing
the same outward ceremonies, while between multitudes of
them there are few or no other points of contact. It is a.
huge fiction to maintain that Rome is, in the proper sense
of the expression, a united church, while within the uniform
pale are all kinds of doctrines, from supralapsarianism to
atheism. "It is not true," remarks Archbishop Whately,
"that the church of Rome is, even in their own sense of
the word, exempt from divisions and dissensions. The
great means of unity, according to most of them, is the
authority of the Pope; yet they are not agreed among
themselves about the extent of the Pope's authority; some
thinking the Pope infallible, others denying that he is;
some making him superior to a general council, others
inferior, etc. Nay, learned men have reckoned up at least
twenty-four fierce schisms and dissensions (some of them
very bloody) about who was Pope; when several rivals,,
each claimed to be the true Pope, and condemned all
others as impostors. Again, they are divided among themselves about many of the same things as Protestants are
divided about. — as free will, predestination, etc.; besides
many disputes which have no place among us." 
Protestantism, too, in aping the imposing system of
Rome, has had its schemes of uniformity, but these schemes
have failed of exhibiting Christian unity. The unity for
which the Savior prayed was a oneness of heart and soul
among his people -manifested in loving each other, in
seeking the salvation of men, and in promoting the exten1 Cautions for the Times, p. 28.




DISUNION OF THE CHURCH.                           381
sion of his kingdom. The unity is perfectly consistent with
minor differences. It is not necessary to its exhibition, and
in order to secure its good results, that all be bound up in
one and the same system of ecclesiastical organization.'
This we regard as altogether utopian. On such points, for
example, as church government and the subjects of baptism, Scripture  is not so  full and  explicit as to  preclude
diversity of sentiment among sincerely good men. And
the grand reason, we doubt not, is, that the disciples of
Christ may be taught to forbear one another in love.
Uniformity is never enjoined in Scripture, but unity, times
and ways without number, is. It is according as Christians
have already attained, that they are to walk by the same
rule and to mind the same thing. Besides, who does not
see that the unanimity of the church would be more
strikingly manifested, and present a more persuasive spectacle to the world, did it exist along with minor diversities,
than  under a smoothly-shaven  system  of uniformity?   In
the latter case, there might be a danger of ecclesiastical
despotism, which would excite the jealousy of the world;
1 Mr. Ruskin, in concluding his "Notes on the Construction of Sheepfolds,"
thus speaks: " But how to unite the two great sects of paralyzed Protestants? By
keeping simply to Scripture. The members of the Scottish church have not a
shadow of excuse for refusing episcopacy; it has indeed been abused among them;
grievously abused; but it is in the Bible; and that is all they have a right to ask.
They have also no shadow of excuse for refusing to employ a written form of prayer.
It may not be to their taste - it may not be the way in which they like to pray;
but it is no question, at present, of likes or dislikes, but of duties " (p. 49.). Suppose
another author, in his "Notes on the Construction of Sheepfolds," were to say:
" The members of the episcopal church have not a shadow of excuse for refusing
presbyterianism; it has indeed been abused among them; but it is in the Bible;
*and that is all they have a right to ask;" would not the one statement, even in the
estimation of many episcopalians -not to speak of thousands of Christian men who
are neither episcopalians nor presbyterians - be as good as the other? In truth, no
section of the Christian church, in making proposals for union, is entitled to speak
in this strain to any other section. It is an aping of Romish airs; it is a setting at
defiance Christian men's conscientious convictions, and it throws a stumbling-block
not only in the way of incorporation but of co-operation. " Christ has ordered us
to be at peace one with another." But these are not the terms.




382            DISUNION OF THE CHURCH.
in the former case, there would,be the working of a power —
ful common principle, making it manifest that the religion
which produced such benignant harmony amid such di —
versity must be not of man but of God. " There is," says
Sir James Stephen, "an essential unity in that'Kingdom
which is not of this world.' But within the provinces of
that mighty state there is room for endless varieties of
administration, and for local laws and customs widely dif —
fering from each other. The unity consists in the one
object of worship — the one object of affiance —the one
source of virtue - the one cementing principle of mutual
love, which pervade and animate the whole. The diversities are, and must be, as numerous and intractable as are
the essential distinctions which nature, habit and circumstances'have created among men. Uniformity of creeds,
of discipline, of ritual, and of ceremonies, in such a world
as ours! — a world where no two men are not as distinguishable in their mental as in their physical aspect; where
every petty community has its separate system of civil
government; where all that meets the eye, and all that
arrests the ear, has a stamp of boundless and infinite
variety!"'
If many of the professed friends of Christianity have
erred in their zeal for uniformity of religious opinions and
ceremonies, its avowed enemies have unfairly argued as if
the absence of uniformity indicated the want of certitude.
In " Voltaire's Dictionary," under the article " Sect," it is
said, " There is no sect in geometry, mathematics, or experimental philosophy. When truth is evident, it is impossible
to divide people into parties and factions. Nobody disputes that it is broad day at noon." In this way it is
attempted to preclude all inquiry into the evidences of
Christianity, and to lead men to conclude that religion has
I Essays in Ecclesiastical Biography, vol. i, p. 518.




DISUNION OF THE CHURCH.              383"
no fixed data, because there have been so many conflicting
opinions and divisions within its province. It is surely a
miserable ungenerous charge against the Christian religion,
that it has not the evidence of the mathematical sciences
- an evidence that arises out of their very nature, but.
which is altogether foreign to a system of moral truth. The
argument amounts to this, that because the Gospel cannot
be shown to be as demonstrably true as that the three
angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, therefore
it cannot be proved to be true at all. In other words, no
evidence is to be relied on but that which belongs to what
are called the accurate sciences. By such a course of reasoning as this, political economy, for example, might be
denounced as a baseless science, because the greatest
politicians have embraced the most conflicting theories in
legislation; and all philosophical investigations that are not
of a strictly mathematical character, might be interdicted
as useless, because they have given rise to much opposing
speculations. Moral subjects can admit of no evidence
that is incompatible with human responsibility. So that to
object that Christianity has no certainty because it has not
mathematical certainty, is the same thing as saying that it.
cannot be true because it wants the evidence which would
deprive men of the liberty of rejecting it. Besides, there
are no inducements for a sane man to deny that two and two,
make four, or that it is broad day at noon; but there are
strong mental tendencies which lead multitudes to darken
the luster of Christianity, and to deny that it is true. As a
system of pule moral truth, it thwarts depraved human
propensities; and that accounts for its being corrupted or
rejected by men, though its evidences stand before them as
clear and majestic as the sun.
But it is too much to grant that there are no sects in
experimental philosophy. Astronomy and geology belong




4384           DISUNION OF THE CHURCH.
to the inductive sciences, and very opposite theories in both
have been held by the most eminent philosophers.  But
who would conclude, on the ground of these conflicting
theories, that there is not a true system of astronomy or
geology? And where is the fairness of denouncing Christianity as the most uncertain of all things, because its
adherents, on some points, have held very different opinions? The objection we are noticing, is not unlike that
which is urged against the Gospel on account of the mysterious nature of its truths. The sciences which admit of
demonstration, pursued to a certain length, land the mind
in a region of mysteries, as well as do the truths of revela-tion. So that, if the attribute of mysteriousness is sufficient to  falsify a system, it would  falsify the higher
branches of mathematical science.  And if the circumstance of a diversity of opinion having scope within a
system be an argument against the system itself, it must
sweep away from the region of the true many other commonly received systems of truth besides the religion of
Christ.
Mr. Gladstone, in his zeal for high-church principles,
has asserted that the state of the exact sciences proves,
that, as respects religion, "the association of these two
ideas, activity of inquiry and variety of conclusion, is a
fallacious one." His brilliant reviewer, Mr. Macaulay, says,
in reply, "Our way of ascertaining the tendency of free
inquiry is simply to open our eyes and look at the world in
which we live; and there we see that free inquiry on mathematical subjects produces unity, and that free inquiry on
moral subjects produces discrepancy..... Discrepancy
there will be among the most diligent and candid, as long
as the constitution of the human mind, and the nature of
moral evidence, continue unchanged. That we have not
freedom and unity together is a very sad thing; and so it




DISUNION OF THE CHURCH.              385
is that we have not wings. But we are just as likely to see
the one defect removed as the other. It is not only in religion that this discrepancy is found. It is the same with
all matters which depend on moral evidence, with judicial
questions, for example, and with political questions. All
the judges will work a sum  in the rule-of-three on the
same principle, and bring out the same conclusion. But it
does not follow that, however honest and laborious they
may be, they will all be of one mind on the Douglas case."'
But if it is vain to think of securing union in the
church by a visible uniformity, or by amalgamating all
denominations into one, it is not vain to seek after visible
unanimity among the several sections of the church holding those fundamental doctrines which we mentioned, in
the beginning of this essay, as emphatically constituting
THE truth of God. We may, and will, continue to have
-diversities of forms, but let these be seen to be animated
by an all-pervading unity of spirit. It is obviously implied
in the Savior's intercessory prayer, that the world must be
confirmed in its infidelity by the visible disunion of the
Christian community; and that the world's conversion
depends, in a great measure, on the palpable unanimity of
his professed followers. He prayed for their union, in order
that the world might believe that the Father had -sent Him.
This consummation, so devoutly to be wished, would have
a favorable bearing on mankind in two ways at least, just
as the divided state of the church has an unfavorable influence in two opposite ways.
In the first place, the exhibition of unity would tell
mightily as a demonstration of the divinity of Christianity.
"Our thoughts," remarks the author of the Essay on the
Port-Royalists, "are steeped in imagery; and where the
palpable form is not, the impalpable spirit escapes the
I Review of Gladstone on Church and State. (Edinburgh Review, April, x839.)
25




38;6          DISUNION OF THE CHURCH.
notice of the unreflecting multitude. In common hands,.
analysis stops at the species or the genus, and cannot riseto the order or the class. To distinguish birds from fishes,.
beasts from insects, limits the efforts of the vulgar observer
of the face of animated nature. But Cuvier could trace the
sublime unity, the universal type, the fontal Idea, existing:
in the creative intelligence, which connects as one the^
mammoth and the snail. So, common observers can distinguish from each other the different varieties of religious.
society, and can rise no higher. Where one assembly worships with harmonies of music, fumes of incense, ancient
liturgies, and a gorgeous ceremonial, and another listens to,
the unaided voice of a single pastor, they can perceive andrecord the differences; but the hidden ties which unite
them both escape such observation. All appears as con —
trast, and all ministers to antipathy and discord."' The
sublime unity of the church of Christ, the hidden ties
which link one member with another, and all with theHead, escape the notice of the world. They are spiritually
discerned. Hence the necessity of a visible outward expression of the real hidden unity. The prayer of the Godman Mediator demands palpable unanimity. Mere unanimity among the adherents of any system does not of itself
prove the truth of that system. Men have often combined'
for the propagation of error. But the unity may be of such,
a kind, displaying such purity, disinterestedness and benev —
olence, as to carry along with it a convincing evidence thatit is of God. It may be seen to be such an effect as no,
known motive power among men could produce, and which
must be ascribed to a divine interposition.
Such was the visible union manifested by the primitive
Christians which was attended with such remarkable tri —
umphs.  It was such a union of heart and hand for bring —
I Sir James Stephen's Essays in Ecc.es. Biog. vol. i, pp. 519, 520.




DISUNION OF THE CHURCH.             387
ing the greatest glory to God, and effecting the greatest
good among men, as the world never saw. It was a lovely,
persuasive spectacle, as free from selfish elements on the
one hand as from  fanaticism on the other.  The world
beheld men of every diversity of character, separated naturally from each other by different habits and stations, and
by the most conflicting interests, coming under the transforming influence of the Christian faith, losing thereby their
mutual repulsions and enmities, moving in the same element of love, bound sweetly and strongly to a common,crucified Lord and to each other, and looking on that world
with something of the benevolent yearnings of Him who
-came to seek and to save that which was lost. It was not
a union of men who had agreed to merge their differing
tastes and sentiments in a common impulse, and to combine
for the purpose of furthering a cause which would get them
a name on the earth, or secure some worldly interests. In
such a case, the heterogeneous elements might have been
driven asunder, mutual jealousies and rivalries would have
arisen, and the bonds of union would have been broken
amid the tumult of passions and conflicting gains. Such
were the disastrous results of the introduction of worldly
elements afterwards into the church. But it was a union
of materials, which, though originally discordant, underwent a radical change; and while each reflected the image
of their common Lord, all were bound in love to one
another, and in the most disinterested effort to regenerate
and bless the world. Multitudes beheld the astonishing
spectacle. It was a new and lovely creation, which could
not be accounted for on natural principles. The purity,
love, and benevolence of the Gospel were impressively
exhibited in the community of its professed followers;
and, in that exhibition, the world saw and felt an evidence




388          DISUNION OF THE CHURCH.
that Christianity is divine, and that the Father had sent
the Son.
So -will it be again. The evidence derived from the
palpable unanimity of the Christian church is emerging
forth anew. To this result the leagued assaults of infidelity
and superstition are contributing. The Redeemer, with his
fan in his hand, is purging his floor, making more manifest
the broad distinction between his friends and his foes.
And when the faithful of every name have ceased to make
matters, confessedly subordinate, rallying points for a party;
and are made willing to acknowledge, and co-operate with,
all those who hold by the Head; when those jealousies
and discords are banished from the kingdom of God which,
however natural in the empires of earth, are uncongenial to
the kingdom of heaven; and when the church looks forth
again as one united force on the world, at war with nothing
but all the powers of evil, and manifestly the greatest instrument of good; all, but the willfully blinded and irrecoverably depraved, will be constrained to acknowledge
the hand of the Invisible, and to receive Christianity as of
God. "Fain would I," says Calvin, "that all the churches
of Christ were so united, that the angels might look down
from heaven, and add to our glory with their harmony.'"
He might have added, as no doubt he felt, that the unreasonableness of unbelief might be driven from one of its
refuges of lies.
We are led to remark secondly, that the unity of action,,
consequent on the unity of exhibition, would tell powerfully on the successful propagation of Christianity. Sectarianism has been the bane of the church. Multiplied
divisions have weakened her energies. A vast amount of
zeal and power, which should have been brought to bear
on the conversion of the world, has been expended in
assailing and defending the several points on which the




DISUNION OF THE CHURCH.            389
Christian community has been split into fragments. Christendom has often resembled a battle-field, in which the
several detachments of the same army, instead of combining in one aggressive movement against the common foe,
have raised the shout of war against each other. The
enemy, meanwhile, has exulted at the sight, and not only
been fortified in the belief that Christianity is a profession
under which men drive low and selfish designs, but has
strengthened his position in defying the armies of the living
God. The storms of controversy may have been overruled
for purifying the atmosphere of the church, and preserving
in vigor the faith once delivered to the saints; but although
good has come out of the evil, the evil has been manifested
in the consumption of so much intellectual energy and
effort on internal disputes, which might have been bestowed
on the infinitely nobler object of converting the world to
God.
There have been great questions of principle involved
in many of the divisions of the church; and better is it to
have divisions, than that important principles should be
sacrificed; but the rent has not unfrequently been made
on the most unjustifiable pretexts; and even when the
denominational distinctions have been called for, the zeal
in aiding the common object of evangelizing the world has
been wofully disproportionate to that bestowed on lengthening the coids and strengthening the stakes of party interests. The primitive church, so long as it had the unity of
exhibition, had the unity of action also. It not only presented one undivided front to the world, but it brought the
full tide of its heavenly energy to bear on the point of
the world's conversion. In the palpable unanimity of the
Christian community was not only exhibited a lovely persuasive spectacle; but, out of that unanimity, arose a might
of benevolence which, like a noble river, enriched by a




390           DISUNION OF THE CHURCH.
thousand streamlets, fertilized and gladdened every region
through which it flowed. The force which was afterwards
spent on internal strifes and party interests, was exerted in
executing the Lord's commission to go into all the world,
and preach the Gospel to every creature: and it ran
speedily, and vast multitudes everywhere became obedient
to the faith. The church stood out from the world, one in
its interests and aims, and the world felt the power of its
instrumentality, and acknowledged that it was of God. If
ever there was a period when Christianity seemed on the
eve of making the world all her own, it was within the
century after the effusion of Pentecost, when, under an
united impulse, and endued with power from on high, she
traveled onward in the greatness of her strength.  The
victories of Imperial Rome were eclipsed by the bloodless
conquests of the " kingdom not of this world." The standard of the cross was planted beyond the bounds where
stood the standard of Caesar. And the angel, having the
everlasting Gospel, flew farther than the Roman eagles. A
united church, in the face of the most powerful obstacles,
spread itself, within a century after the ascension of Christ,
more rapidly and extensively than it has done in any single
century since. And, as already hinted, without assigning
this as exclusively the cause of the rapid progress of the
Gospel; or, with Gibbon, accounting it one of a number
of natural causes that produced the unparalleled effect(for the question occurs, whence that union?) - we cannot,
with the Savior's intercessory prayer before us, hesitate to
acknowledge it as a powerfully subordinate source of the
church's strength. Ichabod might almost have been written
upon her - for her glory had nearly departed - when men
of worldly policy tampered with her purity, and strifes and
divisions brake her in pieces.




DISUNION OF THE CHURCH.            391
But there have been noble things done since, by the
combined efforts of large portions of the Christian community, which indicate what a mighty influence for good a
thoroughly united church would exert on the mass of mankind.  The reformation from Popery, the most glorious
event since the introduction of Christianity, was, to a considerable degree, the united work of the children of God
that were scattered abroad. The London Missionary Society, the British and Foreign Bible Society, the Tract
Society, and some other kindred institutions, have, by the
catholicity of their constitution, opened up common channels, into which the several sections of the church might
bring their enlightened efforts, and thereby diffuse the river
of the water of life over our own and other lands. But
these have been but earnests, and indications of what that
unity which the Savior prayed for would effect. It is no
utopian dream — a thing to be desired rather than expected -to believe that the time will come when the
church will possess that unity of exhibition and of action
of which we have been speaking, that then infidelity will
be driven from one of its refuges, and the world, now unbelieving without a cause, will have a clear palpable proof
that the Father has sent the Son, and that Christianity is
divine. The old sarcasm of the unbeliever, derived from
the disjointed and disorderly state of the church, will be
silenced; the repulsive aspect, which divisions have given
to Christianity, will be effaced, and her native loveliness be
restored,; a mighty stumbling-block, in the way of the
diffusion of the Gospel, will be removed; and Christians,
being united to each other in heart and hand, will come,
with a moral might such as the world has not experienced
for ages, to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord
against the mighty. The brief but bright description of
the churches given by James MWontgomery, will then be




392           DISUNION OF THE CHURCH.
realized:  "Distinct as the billows, but one as the sea."
Meanwhile God, in the signs of the times, is calling upon
all the friends of the pure gospel truth to make it manifest
that they are one. The religion of Christ, in our land, is
powerfully beset by a bold reviving Romanism on the one
hand, and by a subtile, busy, well-organized infidelity on
the other. Both would, in a great measure, be disarmed
and driven back, were the ranks of evangelical Protestantism to re-unite and move forward under the impulse of an
all-pervading spirit of unity. Let the churches hear the
words of the Genevese Reformer, whose love of union was
as the love of life: "Keep your smaller differences, let us
have no discord on that account; but let us march in one
solid column, under the banners of the Captain of our
salvation, and with undivided counsels form the legions of
the cross upon the territories of darkness and of death."