B 449755
་ ་ ་
-,,,!;z་,』,,

Z. E. Cal Full
253

ARTES
1837
SCIENTIA
LIBRARY
VERITAS
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
PLUATIOUS UNUN
TUEBOR
SI-QUÆRIS-FENINSULAM-AMŒNAM
CIRCUMSPICE
PRESENTED BY THE
HEIRS OF
REV. W. E DWELL
BT
80
P95
ESSAYS,
THEOLOGICAL AND MISCELLANEOUS,
REPRINTED FROM THE
PRINCETON REVIEW
SECOND SERIES
INCLUDING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE LATE
REV. ALBERT B. DOD, D.D.
NEW YORK AND LONDON,
WILEY AND PUTNAM.
1847.
ENTERED according to act of Congress, in the year 1847, by
WILEY & PUTNAM,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District of New York.
R. CRAIGHEAD, PRINTER,
112 FULTON STREET.
PREFACE.
THIS volume, like that which preceded it a year ago, though entirely
composed of selections from the Princeton Review, is not made up by
the Conductors of that valuable publication.
It is with no common satisfaction that the collector of these tracts
presents as many as seven from the pen of the late distinguished
Professor Dod. They are the articles on Capital Punishment, Phreno-
logy, the Vestiges of Creation, Analytical Geometry, and Oxford
Architecture, together with the Reviews of Mr. Finney and Dr.
Beecher. These Essays are the best extant testimonial to the genius
and cultivation of their lamented author.
The article on Hebrew Concordances is also a memorial of departed
intellect; being a production of the late Professor Nordheimer.
Several of the remaining Essays in this volume awakened extraordi-
nary interest at the time of their publication: among these may be
named those on Slavery and Abolition, and that on the Baptist
Translation of the Bible.
The rapid sale of the former volume makes us secure in regard to
that which is now offered.
New York, April 15, 1847.
031240
CONTENTS.
Page
ESSAY I. The Bible, a Key to the Phenomena of the Natural World
1
II. God the End of all Things
15
11
XI.
III. Systems of Theology
IV. On the Atonement
V. On Revivals of Religion
VI. Dr. Beecher's Theology
•
VII. The Doctrines of New England Churches
VIII.
Christian Union
IX. The Division of the Presbyterian Church
X. Slavery
Abolitionism
XII. Capital Punishment
33
•
49
76
152
206
236
259
282
•
313
343
XIII. Phrenology
XIV. Vestiges of Creation
376
•
411
Oxford Architecture
XV. Analytical Geometry
XVI. Baptist Translation of the Bible
XVII. The English Bible
-XVIII.
XIX. A Treatise on Expository Preaching
454
467
503
527
536
XX.
Fürst's Hebrew Concordance
555
XXI. The Historical Statements of the Koran
584
ESSAY I.
THE BIBLE
A KEY TO THE PHENOMENA OF THE NATURAL WORLD.
PUBLISHED IN 1829.
THE stupendous fabric of the universe, part of which we see,
and part of which we ourselves are, cannot but become an object
of earnest contemplation to the inquisitive mind.
The great
majority of men, it is true, pass through life without reflection.
Their intellectual powers are so little cultivated, and they are so
much occupied with objects of sense, and in making provision for
their immediate and pressing wants, that they never attempt to
raise their minds to the contemplation of the wonderful works by
which they are surrounded: but these objects, constantly beheld
from infancy, excite no surprise, and seldom call forth a single
reflection. There have always been, however, among nations
enjoying any degree of civilization, men of minds more cul-
tivated than the rest, and more disposed to investigate the causes
of those phenomena which they continually beheld. These sages,
when they looked upon the heavens and the earth, upon themselves.
and other organized and living beings, have been led to inquire,
Whence all these things? Have they always existed, or have
they been produced? To those who have been conversant with
the truth all their lives, it may seem that it would have been an
easy thing for any rational mind to ascend at once from the crea-
ture to the invisible Creator; but we cannot readily conceive of
the perplexity and darkness which surround the intellect of men,
whom no ray of divine revelation has visited. The reasonings of
such men are also impeded and perverted by prejudices, and
erroneous opinions imbibed from their forefathers; and, not unfre-
quently, pride and other evil passions influence speculative men to
adopt extravagant opinions, for the sake of their paradoxical cha-
racter, or because they are naturally grateful to the feelings of de-
praved nature. It is, therefore, not an unaccountable fact, that
men, unenlightened by divine revelation, should have fallen into so
1
૭
THE BIBLE A KEY TO THE
many egregious errors respecting the origin of the world and its
inhabitants.
A considerable number of those called philosophers entertained
the opinion, that the universe always existed as we now behold it.
They observed that, from age to age, the heavenly bodies move on
in their orbits, undisturbed and unchanged; and that, on earth, the
same changes of day and night, of winter and summer, of seed-
time and harvest, succeed each other in regular order: and no other
power being manifest to the senses but that which operates through
all nature, they concluded that the universe existed without any
cause of itself; and that it ever had existed, and ever would exist,
as it now appears.
Some, however, observing in all things, as they imagined, a
tendency to dissolution, and perceiving in our globe evidences of a
former destruction, adopted the opinion, that the universe contained
in itself the principles of its own dissolution and regeneration;
that, after running through a period of unknown and inconceivable
duration, it falls into a chaotic state, in which catastrophe all
organized bodies are destroyed, and return to their simplest ele-
ments; but, from this chaos, by degrees, springs up a new order
of things, or a renewal of that which before existed; and thus,
while they conceived the universe to be eternal, they imagined
that it is in a state of perpetual change, by a kind of circular pro-
gression, which has neither beginning nor end.
Others of those called philosophers, who seem to have paid a
more minute attention to the curious structure of organized bodies,
were of opinion that they must by some means have been formed
or produced; but, not being able to rise to the conception of a
Creator-or what is more probable, not liking to retain the idea of
God in their minds-they invented the hypothesis of the eternal
existence of the elements of the universe, which they supposed to
consist of atoms, or indivisible bodies of all manner of shapes, and
in perpetual motion among each other. These atoms, possessing
various affinities, came together in every conceivable form of
organized bodies, until, by degrees, and in a long process of time,
the universe assumed its present aspect, and vegetables and ani-
mals of every species were produced by the fortuitous concourse
of atoms.
Such a hypothesis might seem too absurd to be seriously enter-
tained by any rational mind, and yet we find among its abettors,
men of high and cultivated intellect, among the ancients.
It has,
however, met with less favour among modern atheists than the
fore-mentioned theories; although, in point of absurdity, all sys-
tems of atheism may be said to stand on a perfect level; for no
folly can be conceived greater than that which says, "there is no
God."
The idea of the necessity of a cause, wherever we observe what
we must consider an effect, is so deeply seated in human nature,
that most men have professed themselves dissatisfied with any system
PHENOMENA OF THE NATURAL WORLD.
3
which assigned no cause, or no better cause than chance or neces-
sity, for the existence of all things. Many have been led, there-
fore, to adopt the opinion, that the universe was God, believing
that whatever distinctness and variety there may seem to be in
the world, there existed but one substance or being, of which the
heavens and the earth, vegetables and animals, are only so many
parts, or rather manifestations. This theory differs from the first
mentioned in this important respect, that it recognises a great first
cause, which is God; but the difference, as to any useful end, is
more in appearance than in reality; for, according to this hypo-
thesis, there is still nothing in existence besides the universe itself.
There is no free, sovereign, independent being, whom we should
worship or obey; or in whom we can confide for help or safety.
In fact it differs from blank atheism in nothing, except that it gives
the name of God to the universe of creatures; and thus we come
to the horrible conclusion, that we and all other things are parts.
of God.
Although this hypothesis had its advocates among the ancients,
yet Benedict Spinoza has the credit of reducing it to a regular
system, which he exhibited in the imposing form of mathematical
demonstration. As this atheistical theory was published in an
enlightened age, and in a Christian country, it might have been
expected that it would attract but few admirers: and, indeed, the
number of avowed disciples of Spinozism has been small; yet the
same system, new-modelled but not improved, has become a
favourite with a large number of philosophers of the present day,
on the continent of Europe, and especially in Germany, under the
appropriate name of Pantheism. And so great is the infatuation
of some calling themselves Christians, that they have thought that
this disguised atheism might be reconciled with Christianity.
A system less absurd than any of the former was, that the world
has an all-pervading, active, and intelligent soul, which moves and
directs all the operations of nature, as the human soul moves and
governs the body.
Near akin to this, was the opinion that the planets and stars.
were all animated bodies, possessed of the power of moving them-
selves, and of intelligence sufficient to guide and regulate their
own motions.
Many students of the physical sciences, in our times, seem to
have adopted a theory similar to that which gives a soul to the
world. They ascribe all effects to nature, and to the laws of
nature. In all the remarkable contrivances and evidences of
design, which abound in the animal and vegetable worlds, they
see nothing but the plastic power of nature.
The idea of a God,
distinct from the world, and from whom nature derives all its
powers, seems to have no place in their philosophy.
But sometimes the doctrine of the soul of the world has been
combined with that of one supreme God, as in the sublime but
mystical theory of Plato.
4
THE BIBLE A KEY TO THE
From what has been said it is evident that the human intellect
is prone to wander from the truth; and that reason is liable to be
perverted, even in matters of the highest importance; and in which
the light of evidence seems to us to shine most clearly.
A just and impartial consideration of the universe cannot fail to
lead the sincere seeker of truth to the opinion, that there must
exist a first great cause, powerful and intelligent, who has made
the world for some particular end. As sound reason would con-
strain us, if we should find a curiously contrived machine, evidently
formed for a useful purpose, to ascribe it to an intelligent artificer,
how can we refuse to ascribe the structure of the universe, in
which the evidences of design are more numerous and more strik-
ing, infinitely, than in any of the works of men, to a wise and
powerful architect? If a watch or steam-engine could not be
formed by the accidental aggregation of particles, brought together
by the winds or waves, can we suppose that such a structure as an
organized animal body could be formed by a fortuitous concourse
of atoms? There is in a small part of the human body, more pro-
found wisdom in designing the texture and organization of the
parts for the attainment of a particular end, than in all the curious.
mechanism of man's contrivance. And if we should even suppose
(absurd as it is) that such an organized system could come into
existence without design, how could we account for the wonderful
adaptation of other things, existing in an entirely separate state, to
the necessities and conveniences of the animal body? Without
light the eye would be useless, but when we examine the mecha-
nism of this organ, and observe that it is constructed upon the most
perfect principles of optics, can we for a moment hesitate to believe
that the eye was formed by a designing agent, to receive, refract,
and concentrate the rays of light, for the purposes of vision? The
same adaptation is remarkable, between the air and the organ of
hearing; and between the air and the lungs: the same is also true,
in regard to the stomach and the food which it so eagerly craves.
In these, and a thousand other things, the evidences of design are
as strong as they possibly can be. If we can resist these, no
other proofs would answer any purpose in removing our incredu-
lity.
Reason, then, clearly indicates, that this universe is not God, but
is the work of God, and that he must be a being of transcendent
perfection. But having arrived at this conclusion, who would not
wish to have his faith confirmed by some clear manifestation of
this august Being? If he exists and formed our bodies, and
gave
us our rational powers, surely he can find out ways by which he
can make himself known to us. He cannot, indeed, render himself
visible to our bodily eyes, because he is a spirit; but he who
indued man with the faculty of communicating with his fellows,
by the use of speech, can speak to us in a language which we can
understand. Now this very thing he has done, by divine revela-
tion. By inspiring chosen individuals, and attesting their commu-
PHENOMENA OF THE NATURAL WORLD.
5
nications, he has plainly informed us, not only that he exists, but
that he is the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of the universe;
that he is above all, and independent of all; and that all things
were produced by his own pleasure, and for his own glory.
That which reason often missed, or mistook, and at best spelled
out with hesitation, the voice of revelation declares with decisive
authority.
Reason may vaunt herself when the discovery is made, but she
owes her clearest light and firmest convictions to the voice of
inspiration.
The Bible furnishes the full and satisfactory commentary on the
book of nature. With the Bible in our hands, the heavens shine
with redoubled lustre. The universe, which to the atheist is full
of darkness and confusion, to the Christian is resplendent with light
and glory. The first sentence in the Bible contains more to sa-
tisfy the inquisitive mind than all the volumes of human specula-
tion. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Here, in a few words, is comprehended the most sublime of all
truths-the production of a universe out of nothing, by the word
of the Almighty. If God created the heavens and the earth, then
he existed before they were brought forth, even from eternity; for
he who gives beginning to all other things, can have none himself.
Before the world was, this august Being existed, independent
and happy, in the plenitude of his own infinite perfections. This
first word of written revelation teaches us, what reason in her
boldest flights could never reach, namely, that the universe sprang
from nothing: not from nothing as its cause, but from the incon-
ceivable working of almighty power, where nothing existed, from
which it could be made. None of the heathen sages ever believed
such a creation possible. They universally received it as an
axiom, that ex nihilo nikil fieri; but here we learn, "That the
worlds were framed by the word of God, and that the things
which are seen, were not made of things which do appear." This
stupendous work, of giving being to so great a multitude and
variety of creatures, is often celebrated in the sublime strains of
sacred poetry, and in the commanding eloquence of the inspired
prophets. "Thus saith the Lord, that created the heavens and
stretched them out, he that spread forth the earth and that which
cometh out of it." "Which made heaven and earth, the sea, and
all that therein is." “He hath made the earth by his power, he
hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out
the heavens by his discretion."
“O Lord God, behold thou hast made the heavens and the earth,
by thy great power."
"The Lord which stretched forth the heavens, and layeth the
foundations of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.”
The apostles tread in the footsteps of the prophets, in ascribing
the creation of the universe to God alone, "The living God, which
made the heavens and the earth, and all things therein."
6
THE BIBLE A KEY TO THE
"God that made the world and all things therein."
"For the
invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eter-
nal power and Godhead."
"He that built all things is God."
With such declarations as these, coming from the mouth of God
himself, how is the mind enlarged and elevated, in contemplating
the heavens and the earth! How grand, how beautiful, how wise,
how harmonious is the universe, when viewed through the medium
of divine revelation. "The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the firmament showeth his handy work; day unto day utter-
eth speech, and night unto night teacheth knowledge."
“O Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!
who hast set thy glory above the heavens." "When I consider
thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which
thou hast ordained; what is man that thou art mindful of him!
And the son of man that thou visitest him ?”
Without the book of revelation, the book of nature would be as
a volume sealed; but with this key we can open its wonderful
pages, and receive instruction from every creature of God.
But let us descend from the contemplation of the universe, to
the consideration of some of its parts. Here are the race of man-
kind, and multitudes of living creatures, in the earth, the air, and
the water; whence have they proceeded? What can reason and
philosophy answer? Had man and the other animals a beginning,
or were they from eternity? If the former, from what cause, and
by what steps did they arrive at their present condition? On no
subject has philosophy betrayed her weakness more than in her
speculations respecting the origin of the human race. It would
be poorly worth our while to review the absurd theories of an-
cient and modern philosophers, which more resemble the dreams
of the sick than the sober deductions of reason. One will give to
the earth we know not what prolific power to produce men and
animals; another chooses to place man, in his origin on a level
with the speechless brutes, from which condition he is supposed to
arise by long and assiduous exertion; acquiring for himself the
use of articulate and written language, and inventing, from time to
time, all the arts which now minister to the comfort of civilized
life. But such theories are too absurd for refutation. The idea
of the production of animals or vegetables, by what was called
equivocal generation, that is, without progenitors, or organized
seeds and roots, has long since been exploded. Experiments the
most decisive have demonstrated the falsehood of the notions en-
tertained by the ancients, of the generation of animated beings
from mere corruption. The men and animals, now on the earth,
belong to a series reaching back to eternity; or they were formed,
and placed on our globe, by an almighty Being. Let us then, for
a moment, look at the theory which assigns to man an existence
without beginning. While the individuals die, the species is im-
PHENOMENA OF THE NATURAL WORLD.
7
mortal. If such a hypothesis does not do violence to common
sense, it would be difficult to say what does. Each individual is
dependent, and yet the whole series of individuals independent.
The absurdity and contradiction of such a theory are concealed
only by the darkness of eternity. By running back until we are
overwhelmed with a subject which our minds cannot grasp, we
are apt to lose sight of the unreasonableness of a supposition,
which on a limited scale every one can clearly see.
As if one
should say, here is a chain suspended, consisting of a thousand
links, each one depending on the next above it; could such a chain
of a thousand links remain suspended, without anything to sup-
port it? To such a problem every child would give the correct
answer. The thing is manifestly impossible. Well, suppose the
number of links be increased to a hundred million, could the chain
support itself any better than when it consisted of a thousand, or
even ten links? Certainly not, would be the answer of every per-
son of common sense; and such a person
and such a person would be apt to say, the
more links there are in the chain, the more support does it require,
seeing its tendency to fall will be in proportion to its weight. But
then, suppose the links so increased, that our minds can no longer
conceive of the number, will such an increase, however great it
may be, render a support less necessary? The answer ought to
be as decisively as before, in the negative. We have seen that
the increase of the number, while within the limits of our concep-
tion, did not lessen the necessity for a supporting power; and why
should such an increase as goes far beyond our power of imagina-
tion be supposed to have this effect? The idea of a series of men
without beginning, without any Creator to give them being, is
one of the greatest absurdities which can be conceived.
Besides, when we consider the number of men; when we trace
their history; when we reflect upon their small advancement in the
arts and sciences; and how recent the most useful inventions are;
how can we, unless we renounce our reason, believe that mankind
have existed on this globe from eternity? The thing is impos-
sible. The only reasonable hypothesis therefore is, that the hu-
man race, together with the various species of animals and vege-
tables, had a beginning; and that they were created by a wise and
omnipotent Being, by whose care and sustaining power they are
still preserved.
But man feels too little satisfied with his own reasonings to rest
contented with such conclusions as he can himself deduce. He
wishes to see the face, or hear the voice, of his great Creator. He
wants an explicit declaration from the mouth of his Father in hea-
ven, assuring him of the truth of his own reasonings; and author-
izing him to claim the relation of a creature, formed by the power
and goodness of God.
Such a desire of divine instruction is neither sinful nor unrea-
sonable in creatures situated as we are. Who would not wish to
know his own earthly father? And who would like, on such a
THE BIBLE A KEY TO THE
subject, to be left to reasonings founded on abstract principles?
But how much more interesting is it for us to know our heavenly
Father, to whom we owe our very being, with all its faculties and
capacities? Now, this reasonable desire the great Creator has
condescended to gratify. He has, in the revelation which is con-
tained in the holy Scriptures, informed us, not only that he is our
Maker, but has given us most particular information of the time.
and circumstances of man's creation. After the heavens and the
earth, and beasts, fishes, and birds, were formed; in short, after all
things on earth were created, God, speaking in the glorious council
of his own being, said, "Come, let us make man in our own image,
and after our own likeness; and let them have dominion over the
fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle,
and over all the earth.” 'So God created man in his own image;
in the image of God created he him." "And the Lord God formed
man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life and man became a living soul." "And the Lord
God said, it is not good that the man should be alone, I will make
an help meet for him. "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep
to fall upon Adam; and he slept, and he took one of his ribs, and
closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib which the Lord
God had taken from man made he a woman, and brought her unto
the man; and Adam said, this is now bone of my bone, and flesh
of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out
of man."
""
We have somewhere met with an account of an infidel, more in-
genious than wise, who proposed to put the Mosaic history to the
test, by examining whether man was deficient of a rib in one of his
sides. It would have been as reasonable to have examined whether
every male descendant of Adam had the scar of the wound made
in the side of the first man. If Adam had remained, all his life,
destitute of the rib which was taken away, why should it be sup-
posed that this defect should be transmitted to his posterity? But
he laboured under no such defect, for the opening made was
closed up with flesh instead of that which was taken away. The
rib was not taken on account of any difficulty to obtain materials,
but to show that a man and his wife were one, and that a man
should ever cherish his wife as his own flesh. The word here trans-
lated rib, properly means, a side: for aught that appears, the whole
side of the man might have been taken, to form the woman; but
this is a matter of no consequence.
Infidels have been fond of turning this simple and beautiful his-
tory of the formation of the first man and the first woman into
ridicule; but if man had a beginning, and was created by the Al-
mighty, what account could be imagined more natural and reason-
able than this? Let the scoffer produce his own hypothesis, and
subject it to the test of examination-but he has none. He laughs
at the Bible history, and at the same time has nothing to furnish as
a substitute. But to men of sober minds, who wish to be acquainted
1
PHENOMENA OF THE NATURAL WORLD.
9
with their own origin, this narrative is most satisfactory and in-
structive. We know that man must have had a beginning, and
consequently a Creator; but reason could not inform us how, or
in what circumstances, he commenced his existence: that, there-
fore, which we wish to know, and need to know, is distinctly re-
vealed, and plainly recorded in the Bible. Man, instead of being
from eternity, is of yesterday; instead of springing, like a mush-
room, from the putrid earth, he came from the forming hand of the
great Creator; instead of being at first an ape or ourang outang,
he was made in the likeness and after the similitude of God. The
Bible, then, explains to us our own origin, and the origin of all
creatures. It teaches that man was made out of the clay of the
earth, but this clay was wrought into shape, and wonderfully and
fearfully organized, by a divine hand.
The physical history of man exhibits some very remarkable
phenomena; among which none have attracted the attention of the
inquisitive so much as the striking variety in the complexion, hair,
size, and figure of the species in different countries. Of complexion
we find every shade of colour from white to sooty black; and of
hair, from the silken or flaxen locks of the North of Europe, to the
crisped and curled wool of the Guinea negro. In the formation
and prominence of the nose, lips, and cheeks, there is also a re-
markable difference in different nations. These striking and nu-
merous varieties have led some philosophers to adopt the opinion,
that mankind are not descended from one stock; but that originally
there must have been parents corresponding with the several classes
of men.
It is an obvious objection to this theory, that the several
complexions of mankind are not distinctly marked, but run into
each other by imperceptible shades; so that if we suppose more
species of men than one, we know not where to stop. If every
considerable variety must be the foundation of a distinct species,
we must adopt the hypothesis that, originally, God created a mul-
titude of human beings of different complexions.
It is also a fact unfavourable to this hypothesis, that there are
striking varieties in complexion, hair, &c., among those known to
have proceeded from one stock. In the same nation, some whole
families or tribes are distinguished by fair hair and a ruddy com-
plexion; while others are equally remarkable for dark complexion,
and black hair and eyes. These varieties in the same nation are
known also to be transmitted from father to son, for many genera-
tions. But we are unable to account for this variety; and if such
a difference may take place when the external circumstances are
nearly similar, why may not the greater varieties of the human
species be owing to the great difference of climate and other cir-
cumstances of the nations of the earth?
Since a more accurate knowledge has been obtained of the nu-
merous tribes inhabiting the islands of the great South Sea, some
very interesting facts have been brought to light, respecting the
origin of these insulated savages. The information collected by
10
THE BIBLE A KEY TO THE
Dr. Prichard, and published in his PHYSICAL HISTORY OF MAN, goes
far to prove, that men who have at a remote period sprung from
the same stock, may so diverge from each other, in features, com-
plexion, hair, &c., that they form distinct classes, and seem to be as
widely apart from each other as almost any of the differing tribes
of men. The identity of the origin of some of these islanders,
whose appearance is so dissimilar, is ascertained by the radical
sameness of their language; and it is a thing unknown in the his-
tory of savages to change their vernacular tougue. It is manifest,
therefore, that there are natural causes in operation, whether we
understand what they are or not, sufficient to produce all the vari-
eties observed in the human species.
The diversity of features and complexion in the Jews, who have
long resided in widely different climates, and who it is known do
not intermix with other people, affords a strong confirmation of
the same truth.
It is also as remarkable as it is obvious, that, for the most part,
men of a certain complexion are found in a particular latitude,
unless they have been recently removed from their own country.
We do not find the black skin and crisped hair in high latitudes;
nor the fair complexion and light-coloured hair under the equator.
From the first glance, therefore, it would seem that there is some
connexion between climate and the complexion. Whether a
difference of climate is sufficient of itself to account for these
varieties, need not be determined. There may be other causes
combined with this, some of which may be unknown to us. Ani-
mals carried from the temperate regions, far to the north, become.
white, and their fur becomes much thicker and warmer. The
final cause of this change is manifest, and indicates the wisdom
and goodness of the great Creator, but we know not how to ac-
count for it. The fact is certain, but the process of nature by
which it is brought about is concealed; at least, it has not yet been
discovered. Now, there may be, in the constitution of man, a
principle which accommodates itself to different climates, for pur-
poses equally important. Indeed it is a well known fact, that black
people can endure a tropical sun much better than white men.
The analogy derived from other animals and vegetables also
forbids the multiplication of the human species. The changes
produced in the different species of animals, which can live in
climates widely different, are as great, and in some much greater,
than in the human species. Take, for an example, the canine
species. How great the difference between the large mastiff and
the diminutive lap-dog! These varieties in animals of the same
species, extend not only to their size, colour, and shape, but in a
very remarkable degree to their instincts.
Seeing, then, that this is the common law of animal nature, why
should we expect that the physical nature of man should be exempt
from changes, induced by a diversity of climate? And when we
observe that the varieties of the human race have a manifest re-
PHENOMENA OF THE NATURAL WORLD.
11
lation to the climate of the respective nations, the conclusion, upon
all just principles of natural science, must be that the human spe-
cies is one.
In all cases where there is a difference of species, there is a marked
difference in the internal structure of the body; but among the
different tribes of men, no such diversity has been observed as can
be the foundation of a diversity of species. The most exact ana-
tomical dissections have discovered no permanent parts or contriv-
ances, in one nation, which are not found also in all others. They
all have the same bones, the same joints, the same system of
nerves, the same number, use and position of muscles, the same
blood-vessels, glands, and digestive organs. Not only is the exter-
nal appearance of the parts the same, but the interior texture and
constituent particles composing the respective parts of the human
body, are the same in the white man, as in the black, the olive, the
red, or the yellow.
It is scarcely necessary to observe, that all men have the same ex-
ternal senses and the same bodily appetites, the same instincts, the
same susceptibility of forming habits, and the same natural passions
and desires. Those things in the constitution of man which have no
resemblance in other species of animals, are found in all the nations
of the earth. The risible faculty and the faculty of weeping, and
especially the possession of articulate speech, all serve to prove the
identity of the human species. And if from the body and its func-
tions we ascend to the mind, here we find the same original faculties,
in all the varieties of the human race. We observe in all, not only
perception, consciousness, and memory, of which the inferior ani-
mals seem to partake, but the power of reasoning; the faculty of
imagination; the power of association and abstraction; and what
is more decisive still, the moral sense, of which there is no vestige
in the brutes; and the faculty of taste; for all men perceive a dif-
ference between right and wrong, and feel moral obligation; and
all men have some sense of beauty and deformity. Moreover, all
men are capable of improvement, and those nations which are now
the most learned and refined, were once among the most barba-
rous of the human race.
This perfect similarity in mind and body is sufficient to lead all
impartial men to the conclusion, that the human race are all de-
scended from one pair, and that the varieties are accidental;-the
effect of a variety of causes, all of which we are unable to explore.
Some philosophers have, however, thought themselves justified
in considering men of different species, not so much from the variety
in their complexion and external appearance, as from the different.
degrees of flatness or rotundity in the skulls of different nations.
On this ground, the learned Blumenbach has reduced the whole hu-
man race to five classes or species. But in the first place, the exami-
nation of human skulls has not been sufficiently extensive to furnish
correct data for such a classification; and in the next place, if the
difference exists, it affords no philosophical reason for supposing an
12
THE BIBLE A KEY TO THE
original diversity of species. The causes which have operated
other changes, may as easily have produced a difference in the
mere form of a skull: and those who give credit to the discoveries
of the craniologists, will find no difficulty in accounting for any
varieties which are found in the skulls of men of different tribes.
Some time since, a radical difference of intellect was insisted
on, as a criterion to determine a difference of species: but since
our acquaintance with the most degraded and stupid of the human
race has become more accurate; and especially, since we have
witnessed the improvements of which these are capable, and the
rapid advancement of some of them in knowledge and civilization,
the whole ground of this opinion is taken away.
There is another criterion of the identity of species, which by
some naturalists has been considered decisive. It has been found,
that although animals of different species may be made to propa-
gate a mongrel breed, their offspring are for the most part barren,
or are seldom known to propagate. But the various classes of
men mingle as freely and propagate the species with as much
facility as people of the same tribe. Of late, however, some
doubt has been expressed respecting the correctness of the fact
first stated, on which the whole argument rests. It is alleged that
sufficient experiments have not been made on the subject of the
natural want of fertility in mules and other hybrids; and that, as far
as experience goes, they are found to be fruitful in as many cases as
they are barren. Leaving, therefore, the degree of barrenness in
such animals in doubt, it is clear that no new species, capable of
continuing itself by propagation, has been formed by the union of
animals of different species, and that there exists a natural obstruc-
tion, which does not exist in the case of men of the different
classes.
But why might not a number of pairs of the same species, or
exactly similar in parts and powers, have been produced as well
as one? To which we answer, that although the thing is possible,
yet sound philosophy never resorts to such a supposition. Natu-
ralists always go on the principle that more causes of the phenomena
of nature than are sufficient, are not to be admitted; and where
every effect can as well be accounted for by supposing one origi-
nal pair as by many, the hypothesis of more than one ought, on
general principles, to be rejected.
Having seen that reason itself leads us to believe that all the va-
rious nations of men are derived from one stock, and form but one
species, it cannot but add strong confirmation to our belief, that
the sacred Scriptures clearly inform us, that when God created
man upon the earth, he created them male and female ;-one man
and one woman-from whom proceeded all the nations of the
earth.
The idea which some have entertained, that there were men be-
fore Adam, is destitute of all shadow of proof. The apostle Paul,
in his discourse before the Senate of Areopagus, explicitly declares,
PHENOMENA OF THE NATURAL WORLD.
13
"And
what reason and revelation unite in teaching to be the truth.
hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the
face of the earth." One word from the inspiration of God goes
further to establish our minds in the belief of the truth, than
volumes of arguments depending merely on the fallible reason of
man.
The Bible teaches us that every man of every tribe and of every
colour, whether his skull be flat or prominent, is our brother, and
has a claim upon us for all the kindness and beneficence which it is
in our power to show him. The same God is the Father of us all;
and the same man is our common earthly father; and we are
all rapidly tending to the same judgment and to the same eter-
nity.
But if any should, after all, be of opinion that the diversity
among men cannot be accounted for by natural causes, yet it does
not follow that the Mosaic history is false, or that there are several
species of men entirely distinct from each other. At some period
of the history of man, for some special reason, the Governor of the
universe may have given a distinctive colour to one or more fami-
lies of the earth. And some believers in the Bible are so fully im-
pressed with this idea, that they have undertaken to affirm that
we have an intimation of this very thing in the sacred history.
While some, however, would refer the black colour of the skin to
the mark set upon Cain (which is irreconcilable with the history
of the deluge), others, with more probability, refer it to the curse.
upon Canaan, the son of Ham. As his posterity were doomed to
be the servants of servants, it is thought that some peculiar mark
was set upon them, which, it is presumed, was the dark colour of
the skin and the crisped and woolly hair. And in confirmation of
this opinion, they allege, that the black people are the descendants
of Ham, and that they are the slaves of all the world, until this
day.
While we are willing to admit, that for reasons unknown to us,
God might have miraculously changed the complexion and fea-
tures of a part of the human race; we must think that the notion
that the black colour was inflicted as a disgrace and a curse is a
mere prejudice. Why should not the white colour be considered
as a mark of God's displeasure? for no negro from the burning
sands of Africa can appear more shocking to the inhabitants of
northern regions, than the white man does to the people of the inte-
rior of that continent.
It seems, moreover, to be a prejudice without foundation, that
the colour of the whites was that of the first man. Much the
larger part of the inhabitants of the earth are of a complexion
nearly midway between the two extremes. Is it not, therefore,
much more probable that our first parents were red men, or of an
olive or copper colour? This opinion derives some support
from the name of the first man, for the radical signification of
14
THE BIBLE A KEY TO THE PHENOMENA, &c.
Adam is red; and if this be assumed as a fact, then it will be much
easier to account for the various complexions of men from natural
causes, than if we suppose that either white or black was the
original complexion.
But from what has been said it will be seen that no valid argu-
ment against the truth of the Bible can be derived from the variety
in the human species; whether that variety can be accounted for
by natural causes or not.
ESSAY II.
GOD THE END OF ALL THINGS.
PUBLISHED IN 1832.
Ir is natural to inquire, while surveying the extended works of
God, What is the ultimate end of this great and complicated system?
Some parts of it we can easily see were formed for others; objects
that are small and insignificant, for those that are greater and
more important; and, again, these for others greater and more
important still. The pebble and the drop were made to constitute
the mountain and the river; and the mountains and the rivers to
adorn and embellish the face of nature, and in a thousand ways
to minister to the wants of those who dwell on the earth. The
solid earth, with all its immense quantities of matter, its diversified
surface, its fertile soil, its rapid motions, its elastic atmosphere, was
evidently intended to be the habitable abode of men. The extended
ocean, with all its mighty expanse and unmeasured depth of waters,
while it is the grand reservoir of nature and the source of evapora-
tion, perpetually enriching the earth with fertility and verdure,
everywhere distributes its watery treasures for the sustenance and
benefit of the numerous tribes of animated and intelligent existence.
If we extend our views to the solar system, or from the solar system
to the starry heavens, in these trackless regions we behold an
assemblage of resplendent orbs, spacious perhaps as the sun of our
own system, and all subserving the interests of unnumbered worlds,
not improbably invested, like our own, with intelligence and immor-
tality. Matter, in all its variety and magnificence, we see, is made
for mind, and one portion of this great and complicated system for
another.
What, then, is the ultimate end of all things? The lights of
unaided reason are far from fitting us to solve this high problem;
and yet, so far as we are enabled to follow them, they conduct us
to the same conclusion to which we are conducted by a super-
natural revelation, when it so happily and explicitly instructs us,
that "The Lord hath made all things for himself."
When we say that God acts for the purpose of displaying abroad
16
GOD THE END OF ALL THINGS.
the perfections of his nature before the intelligent creation-when
we say that God made all things for himself, we mean, that his
supreme end" is his own glory, or the most perfect gratification
of his infinitely benevolent mind." The word glory, when applied
to God, sometimes denotes the inherent and full perfection of the
divine nature, and sometimes the manifestation of the divine nature
in creation, providence, and grace. There is a difference between
the intrinsic and the manifested excellence of the Godhead. By
his intrinsic excellence, is meant his essential perfections; by his
manifested excellence is meant his essential perfections, exhibited
to himself and the created universe. There is a richness, a fulness
of perfection which constitutes his essential glory; and there is a
diffusion, a resplendency in his perfections which, if I may so speak,
reflects the Deity to himself and the universe; which casts its
light through all worlds, and constitutes his manifested glory. The
chief excellence of God consists in his goodness. Infinite amiableness
and beauty are treasured up in his perfections, because the basis of
them is the most pure, permanent, universal, and perfect goodness.
This is the glory of his nature. But the intrinsic, or essential
goodness of God does not admit of increase or diminution. God
cannot possess more essential goodness than he does possess; and,
therefore, cannot be made essentially more glorious than he is.
When, therefore, we speak of God's being glorified, or of the ad-
vancement and promotion of his glory, we speak of the augmenta-
tion of his manifested excellence-of the expression, or gratification
of his infinite goodness, in some of its forms and modifications. It
is not incompatible with his immutability, that the exhibition he
makes of his nature should be capable of continual growth and
enlargement, and that his manifested excellence should receive
fresh accessions, and be continually growing more extended and
more refulgent. For all that we know, the manifested glory of
God is susceptible of augmentation that is perpetually progressive.
In the same proportion in which the scene opens, will the true
character of God be unfolded, and his perfect goodness made.
known. And as the drama draws to a close, and the catastrophe
of the mighty plot begins to be developed, at every step of this pro-
gressive disclosure will the heart of God be acted out, the name of
God magnified, the glory of God displayed abroad, and the divine
goodness infinitely and for ever exalted and gratified. This is
what we mean when we say, that the glory of God is the ultimate
end of all his conduct, and that he made all things for himself. It
was that he might manifest the perfections of his nature, and thus
exalt and gratify his infinite goodness.
This is God's ultimate end. This is the end to which all other
ends are subordinate and subservient. Jehovah, the king of Israel,
is "the first and the last ;" he is "Alpha and Omega, the beginning
and the ending;" the first cause and the last, or supreme end of all
things. "Of him, and to him, and through him, are all things."
"All things that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and
GOD THE END OF ALL THINGS.
17
invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, principalities, and
powers, all were created by him and for him. God himself often
" for
declares in his word, that he will do, or refrain from doing,
his own sake," for " his name's sake,"-" for his praise,"-" for
his glory,”—and, that " in all things he may be glorified." What
means the sublime declaration in the Apocalypse?" And the four
beasts rest not day nor night, saying, holy, holy, holy, Lord God
And when those
Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
beasts give glory, and honour, and thanks to him that sat on the
throne, who liveth for ever and ever, the four and twenty elders
fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that
liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne,
saying, thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honour, and
power, for thou hast created all things, and for THY PLEASURE they
are and were created!”
Whom could God ultimately regard, in the creation of all things,
except himself? Before the creation there was none other in ex-
istence but God. The motives to create must, of necessity, be
within himself. Is it said, that future existence itself may be an end
in proposing and causing it to exist? Is it said, that the excellence
of his work was an inducement to create ?
But for what purpose did God propose happiness? Did he act
without a motive? Or was it to express and gratify his own per-
fect goodness? Was it his love of happiness, his delight in happi-
ness, that induced the purpose and the wish?
We
The divine glory deserves the most regard. Not only must the
infinite and eternal Creator have had some end in view in the crea-
tion, but one that justifies the expressions of his omnipotence, and
that is worthy of the greatest and best Being in the universe.
can conceive of many ends that might have presented themselves
to his mind, but we can conceive of no supreme end short of him-
self, without derogating from his perfect excellence. Universal
creation is but a point compared with God. Language, and figures,
and comparisons, are lost in the contemplation of his being and
nature. The material and intellectual universe is but a faint adum-
bration of what God himself is, and presents a mere shadow, an
emblem of his infinite perfections. All nations, all worlds, are but
a "drop of the bucket," compared with him, and no more than the
small vapour to the immense ocean. Immeasurable glories and
blessedness belong to Him who fills immensity. The glory of the
infinite God, therefore, deserves the highest regard. And with
reverence be it spoken, it became him to make this his design, as
really it becomes him to give the preference to an archangel
above an insect.
The use which God actually makes of his creation, shows what
end it was intended to answer. It subserves the end for which it
was originally intended. And what do the Scriptures and facts.
declare this to be? Obviously, not the happiness of all God's
creatures; for they are not all happy. Human misery stares us
2
18
GOD THE END OF ALL THINGS.
in the face wherever we turn our eyes. In eternity there are, and
will be greater and deeper miseries than are found in time. So
that if the happiness of all God's creatures be the ultimate end of
creation, most certainly the divine purpose is defeated. But facts
and the Bible unite in declaring that the use God makes of his
universe is the promotion and advancement of his own glory.
When we survey the works of creation, to what do we see them
so really and so much subservient, as the glory of the Creator?
"All thy works praise thee." "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of
hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory." If we survey the works
of Providence, what do they illustrate so clearly, as the suprema-
cy, wisdom, goodness, power, and presence of the Almighty and
efficient Ruler? What grand and deep impression do they pro-
duce on the mind, if not this, that they are full of God ?-that by
them his name is "declared throughout all the earth"-and that
through them men "may know that he is the Lord ?" It will not
be doubted that the glory of God is the great end of the work of
redemption. Angels, when they announced it, sang "Glory to God
in the highest!" The Redeemer, when he achieved it, prayed,
"Father, glorify thy name!" All its promises are "yea and amen
to the glory of God, by Jesus Christ." The graces, and hopes, and
joys it imparts to the saints, are to "make known the riches of his
glory." And the final and triumphant song it inspires in the
heavenly world, is "unto him be glory!" Not only is the glory of
God the ultimate end of all his goodness and mercy to the saints,
but of all his justice and indignation to the ungodly." The wrath
of man shall praise the Lord." Allelujas to God and the Lamb
shall ascend, when the smoke of the torments of the damned go up
for ever and ever. And the close of this terrestrial scene shall de-
clare and confirm the truth we are enforcing with a deep and
memorable emphasis. A voice from heaven shall then be heard,
saying, "It is done; I am Alpha and Omega !" When the great
design shall be consummated, and creation, providence, and re-
demption shall have been brought to their final issue, and the
Judge shall have pronounced the final sentence, then shall this
redeeming God and King "deliver up the kingdom to God, even
the Father, and GOD SHALL BE ALL IN ALL ; " and this surrender
shall eternally proclaim to the universe, that "God made all things
for himself." God shall be all in all. God shall be infinitely and
for ever glorified.
But it may not be amiss to occupy a few pages in VINDICATING
THE CONDUCT OF GOD IN THUS MAKING HIMSELF HIS LAST END. There
is nothing which the Scriptures represent as more essential to en-
larged and consistent views of truth, as well as to the great in-
terests of vital piety, than some just conceptions of this part of our
subject. There is nothing of which God himself is so jealous,
nothing he regards so deeply as his own glory. This he is im-
mutably resolved to secure and advance, and by all means, and at
every step of its development, to make men see. He will not
GOD THE END OF ALL THINGS.
19
66
give his glory to another." His glory is, with him, a consideration
of paramount influence, in every condition and circumstance, and
in all worlds. It is second to nothing which the Infinite Mind itself
has ever conceived. Holy beings in heaven and on earth have no
larger wish, no greater desire, than to behold greater and brighter
exhibitions of the divine excellence.
It is of the highest importance in itself, that God should appear
in the perfect exercise and exhibition of his divine excellence. The
importance of this exhibition depends on the intrinsic and manifold
perfections of the divine nature. If there were no excellence in
the Deity, we should be far from considering it desirable that his
true character should appear; much less should we desire that the
full and complete exhibition and gratification of it should be the
ultimate end of all that he does. In itself considered, no matter
how long, or how impenetrably, intrinsic turpitude of character lies
concealed; it is deformed and disgusting to look at ; it makes no
one the better or happier for being familiar with it; but the more
fully, the more impressively intrinsic excellence is disclosed, the
deeper is the conviction of its reality and loveliness, and the more
sublime and beautiful the survey and inspection of its glories. Now,
it is because God is infinitely great and good, that it is desirable to
see him as he is. That immensity and majesty, that power and
wisdom, that supremacy and immutability, that pure, perfect, and
universal goodness, which diffuse their energy into all the divine
plans, and spread such beauty and glory over all the divine works
and conduct, are in him excellences of the highest kind, and im-
measurable in degree. We do not appreciate the exhibition of the
divine excellence, because we have such low and grovelling
thoughts of God. Were this immensely great and infinitely glo-
rious Being always viewed as he is, did we see him to be "the first
fair and the first good," were we always possessed of just and com-
prehensive conceptions of his glory, we should entertain no doubt,
that the reflection of this excellence, the progressive diffusion of
these concentrated rays, is the highest and best end which the
Supreme Intelligence could propose to himself in all his works.
The principle on which we affirm this, is inwoven with all our
common sense and moral calculations. Every man regrets, and
deems it an unhappiness, when a measure of mere human excel-
lence is hid from the public eye. When virtue languishes in
solitude, when genius withers in retirement, when the heavy hand
of external discouragement or internal depression bears down the
rising efforts of intellectual or moral greatness, what benevolent
mind does not reflect upon such calamity with pain? And if in
proportion to the degree of excellence is the importance that it
should be unfolded, beyond conception important is it that the
matchless, manifold, infinite, and eternal excellence of the Diety
should appear, and be displayed abroad in all its glory. If the
king, eternal, immortal, and invisible, possesses, not the resem-
blance and image, but "the living features" of perfection, who
20
GOD THE END OF ALL THINGS.
feels it not to be important that the light of his fair countenance
should be lifted upon the universe he has made, and that every
subject of his empire should be constrained to see, that "none in
heaven can be compared unto the Lord, and none among the sons
of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord?" Not only is there.
in this disclosure ineffable loveliness and beauty, but there is equity
both to himself and his creatures. If he is a holy God, and there
is beauty in his holiness, then ought it to appear that he is holy and
not sinful. If he is just, and there are beauties and amiableness in
his justice, then is it desirable and important that his justice should
appear, and be magnified; and that he should for ever be acquitted
of the imputation of cruelty, caprice, and injustice. If he is wise, and
powerful, and good, then is it infinitely desirable that these perfec-
tions of his nature should be acted out, and he exalted and gratified;
and that no order of beings should ever call in question the wis-
dom, efficacy, or benevolence of his administrations. If he is gra-
cious and merciful, then ought all men to see "what is the fellow-
ship of the mystery which, from the beginning of the world, hath
been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ, to the
intent that now unto principalities and powers in heavenly places,
might be known through the Church, his manifold glory." If he is
supreme, then is it desirable that his supremacy should appear, and
that all should know, that he "does his pleasure in the armies of
heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth." And if he is in
every view a being of faultless, unequalled perfection, and that
every intellectual and moral excellence adorns his nature, and are
the habitation and glory of his throne, then is it of the highest im-
portance that his unblemished glory should shine forth, and that
nothing mar its unrivalled beauty. There was an emphasis in the
inquiry of Moses, that sinks into the soul of every godly man and
every bending seraph, "What will become of thy great name ?"
name?"
We know that among fallen spirits, and in this world of ours that
lieth in wickedness, the divine character has been subjected to the
foulest stains, his government reproached, and his designs defamed;
and unless his excellence appear in cloudless glory, dissipating the
obscurity in which it has been enveloped by the ignorance, mis-
conception, and wickedness of creatures, the stain can never be
wiped away. God must be glorified. Every supposed blemish
must be removed by the exhibition of himself. Every murmur
against him must die away. "Every mouth must be stopped."
And nothing short of the actual development of the divine nature
can attain this end. All that God is, and all that he does, must
"come to the light," that it may be approved and applauded by
ten thousand tongues, and ten thousand times ten thousand con-
sciences, and that their approbation and their plaudits may be
eternal.
It is also through the bright exhibitions of his own glory, that
the God of love designs to secure and perpetuate the perfect and
progressive holiness of unnumbered multitudes of his creatures.
1
GOD THE END OF ALL THINGS.
21
"Love is the
Some of the creatures of God were created holy, and have main-
tained their primeval integrity, and will maintain it for ever. Some
were created holy, and fell from their primitive rectitude, and have
given birth to a race of beings, fallen like themselves. Of these, a
great multitude are recovered from their apostasy, and will continue
steadfast in their obedience without end. And it is obvious to
remark, that whether true holiness, or moral rectitude, is found
among angels or men, it is advanced and perpetuated by the same
means. Wherever it is found, it consists in holy love, and prima-
rily, in love to the adorable and ever blessed God.
fulfilling of the law." "He that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God,
and God in him." He that "loveth not, knoweth not God, for God
is love." Now it accords with the Scriptures, and all the experi-
ence of good men that the love of God exists and is sustained
through the knowledge of God. The Divine Spirit, is indeed, the
immediate and only cause and author of this heavenly disposition;
but the knowledge of God is the great instrument of it. This is
the aliment of all healthful moral existence. Wherever sinful
beings are made holy, it is by becoming acquainted with God.
When God renews the hearts of the sons of men, and sheds abroad
his love in them, they are illumined from above, and enabled to
discern the supreme excellence and glory of the divine character.
"God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, shines
in their hearts, to give them the light of the knowledge of his glory,
in the face of Jesus Christ." And wherever holy beings see and
learn most of God they become most holy. Holy affections.
delight in nothing but a holy object, and the most holy affections
delight in nothing so much as the most holy. The highest holiness
in creatures can be found only where God is best known, and loved
perfectly. Upon nothing does their holiness so much depend, as
the knowledge of God. It is possible for us to conceive of a sinless
being, who knows nothing except his obligations to his fellow crea-
tures; but it would be a rectitude without a name--an anomaly in
the moral universe-a rectitude that falls far below the actual
rectitude, the real moral elevation of all holy creatures. We do
not see how it is possible there should be any more conformity to
God, than there is knowledge of his true character. Other things
being equal, the reason why one good man is more holy than
another, is that he possesses more clear and comprehensive views
of God. One reason why Moses, and David, and Paul, were so
much more holy than the mass of good men, is that they possessed
such high and extended views of God. It is necessary, therefore,
to the existence of holiness in the world, and its advancement and
perpetuity, and especially its strength and vividness, that there
should be a clear development of the divine character, and that the
great God should be exalted and glorified. It is worthy of God as
the friend and patron of holiness, to select as the ultimate end of
all he does, the most perfect exhibition of his own nature. This
he must do, to be loved, admired, and adored to the extent and
22
GOD THE END OF ALL THINGS.
degree in which holy beings will admire and adore his entire excel-
lence. It is when "with unveiled face, they behold as in a glass,
the glory of the Lord, that they are changed into the same image,
from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." Take
away from the bosom of the holy, on earth or in heaven, those
strong affections which arise from their perception of the glory of
the divine nature, and you abate the fervour and intenseness of
their piety. You starve their graces, and well nigh transform their
character. It is indispensable to the highest and best state of
religious affection, that the glory of God, progressively and in all
its full-orbed splendour, should shine upon the world. He made
this lower world to unfold the greatness and goodness of his cha-
racter, and because his greatness and goodness are and will be here
so wonderfully unfolded, and the whole earth become full of his
glory; it is the school of morals and piety, where the first and the
last lesson is God himself, and where, by becoming acquainted with
God, rational and immortal beings are trained up for perfect holi-
ness and an eternal heaven.
This leads us to remark, that the propriety of God's making
himself his ultimate end, appears more clearly from the fact, that
by the manifestation of his glory, the greatest aggregate of happi-
ness is secured to intelligent beings. The import of this remark
will not, we think, be misunderstood. God is the first cause. All
existence, all happiness, flows from him; and flows only by the
exhibition of his own glory. Without some expression of the
divine perfections, neither created happiness nor creatures would
have had a being. There would have been nothing in existence
besides God, and nothing besides himself to be happy. There would
have been no effort of his power; no results of his wisdom; no
effects from his benevolence; but his inert perfections would have
been buried in the retirement of eternity, and have slept for ever
in the recesses of his own infinite mind. Literally, therefore, does
all created happiness depend upon the manifested excellence of the
Deity. Nor is it less certain that the amount of created good is
advanced by the continued and increased exhibition of the divine
excellence. Had the natural and moral perfections of the Deity
ceased to act, and to be illustrated immediately after the creation,
or immediately after the deluge, or immediately after the death of
Jesus Christ, who does not see that the aggregate of created
happiness would have suffered a lamented diminution? Since no
created happiness could originally have existed without some
manifestation of the divine nature, so none would have continued
to exist. The exhibition of the divine glory is not less essential to
the increase and perpetuity, than to the original existence of created
good. But it is not necessary to suppose an actual cessation in the
diversified exhibitions of the Deity. Had there been a partial
intermission, suspension, or limitation in the exhibition of the divine
excellence, the effect, though less serious, would have been no less.
perceptible. In proportion to the limit imposed on the illustration,
GOD THE END OF ALL THINGS.
23
would have been the diminution in created happiness. Had there
been fewer and less impressive exhibitions of the divine power,
there had been fewer and less magnificent and less exalted beings
and objects created and upheld and governed by the divine hand.
Had there been fewer and less impressive exhibitions of the divine
wisdom, there had been, in the vast and complicated system of
God's operations, an end less benevolent than that which has been
Had
selected, and means less admirably adapted to accomplish it.
there been fewer and less impressive exhibitions of the divine
mercy, it had been purchased at a cheaper rate, bestowed on fewer
sinners, and those less ill-deserving, and that less freely. Had
there been fewer and less impressive exhibitions of the divine
justice, there had been fewer monuments of his holy displeasure
against sin, and those less awful and glorious; and, consequently, a
diminished confidence in God, as the moral governor of the holy
and unholy. Had there been fewer and less impressive exhibitions
of the divine supremacy, there had been less visible superiority and
inferiority among all God's creatures, and less diversity of moral
character and final allotment throughout the universe. But if the
numerous and magnificent objects of creative power and directive
superintendence-if the glorious end of the divine administrations,
together with the wonderful adaptation of means to accomplish it
-if the stupendous sacrifice made for the redemption of fallen man,
the multitudes which no man can number, and those the chief of
sinners, ransomed by grace unutterably rich and free-if the eternal
monuments of Jehovah's displeasure against his incorrigible enemies,
and the security of his government over a world of rational and
accountable agents-if the wide and permanent diversity of cha-
racter and condition in the present world and the world to come-
if these, however fraught with evil in some of their private relations,
are, on the whole, a good, and in their combination and contrast,
in their wide connexions and eternal consequences, subserve the
general welfare, then the conclusion is inevitable, that the manifes-
tation of the divine glory is indispensable to the highest aggregate
of created happiness. And that they are a good, will not be ques-
tioned by any who confide in the absolute perfection of the Deity.
He cannot be a perfect being if the exhibition of his true character
results in anything short of the highest good. We have no other
idea of imperfection than that it is in its own nature bad, and that
its tendency is on the whole to produce evil. But we do not thus
charge God foolishly. If "God only wise" cannot err, if the attri-
butes of his nature are in no way imperfect, then whatever evils
may be incidental to their development, it cannot be otherwise than
that in the final issue they should secure the greatest good.
In perfect accordance with these remarks, the experience of good
men attests the fact, that the source and fulness of created good is
the knowledge and enjoyment of God. There is something in the
divine nature, not merely for the employment of our intellectual
powers, but for the gratification of our most exalted and spiritual
24
GOD THE END OF ALL THINGS.
affections. Whatever brings God to the view of a holy mind never
fails to increase its joy. The happiest moment of the Christian's
existence is when he enjoys the most enlarged and most impressive
views of God, and dwells with adoring wonder on his boundless
and unsearchable perfections. To enjoy this felicity was the desire
of Moses when he said, "I beseech thee show me thy glory;" this
was the desire of Job when he said, "Oh that I knew where I
might find him :" of David when he prayed, "Lord, lift thou up the
light of thy countenance upon me ;" and when he says, " One thing
have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after, that I may dwell
in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, and behold the
beauty of the Lord:" and again, when he declares, “My soul
thirsteth for thee, to see thy power and thy glory, so as I have seen
thee in the sanctuary." When you read the lives of such men as
Flavel and Owen, Baxter and Edwards, Tennent and Brainerd,
you cannot fail to discover that the source of their highest bles-
sedness, their most enduring comforts, their most enraptured joys,
was enlarged views of the divine character and glory. Let God
be brought into view, and a holy mind will be happy; let God be
withdrawn, and it will be miserable. His ineffable glory was
once withdrawn from the holiest created mind in the universe, and
the man Christ Jesus exclaimed in agony inexpressible, "My God,
my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Some of our readers can
accord with the spirit of these remarks, and have no doubt sensi-
bly felt that nothing could make them miserable while the glory
of the divine character beamed around them.
66
But who, in this dark world, is fitted to appreciate the blessed-
ness resulting from the more illustrious and transforming manifes-
tations of the divine beauty? Eye hath not seen them, nor have
they entered into the heart of man. It may not be easy for us,"
says the eloquent Chalmers, "with all our imperfection, to sympa-
thize with the rapture, the ecstasy of holy beings in their survey
of the divine perfections; but it is this that is the constant and
essential principle of all their enjoyment, the never-failing source
of their delighted admiration." Had God withheld the manifesta-
tions of his entire excellence from angels, we do not say they would
have been miserable, but we do say, they would not have been gra-
tified. We do not say their bosoms would not have heaved with
joy, but never would they have swelled with the "joy that is un-
speakable and full of glory," and never would they have known
that "exceeding and eternal weight of glory" which now they
know. Had it pleased the Eternal to shed on them only a few
broken and refracted rays of his divinity, their joys might indeed
have beamed with bright effulgence, but they would have enkindled
only the glimmerings of that flame, which now glows in their
bosoms with unutterable fervour, and which emanates from the
fulness of the Creator's glory. It is a thought very dear to us,
that the glory of God and the good of the universe cannot be se-
parated. When the glorious Being, whose name is love, acts for
GOD THE END OF ALL THINGS.
25
his own glory he acts for the good of his creatures. His goodness
cannot be gratified without promoting the highest good of the uni-
verse. Though he cannot make all his creatures happy consistently
with the highest good, his own glory requires him to make them ast
happy as he can consistently make them. The only source of
blessedness, therefore, that is commensurate with the ever-varying
desires and utmost grasp of the immortal mind is found in God,
and found in him from the exhibition of his excellent glory. Here
are rich and endless disclosures; here is never-ceasing variety;
here are glories which may be contemplated with new and ever-
fresh delight, the longer and the brighter they are spread before
the eye.
There is another thought which we deem of some consequence
in this illustration. We may not think the Infinite One "altogether
such an one as ourselves," nor would we speak of him with uncir-
cumcised lips. "Who, by searching, can find out God? Who can
find out the Almighty to perfection?" The thought we wish to be
considered is this: The perfect exhibition of the divine glory is es-
sential to the happiness of God himself. The Scriptures represent
God as perfectly happy. They speak of him, as "God over all,
blessed for ever," and as the "blessed and only Potentate." But in
what does the blessedness of God consist? Does it not result from
the pure and perfect benevolence of his character, which he him-
self sees and appreciates, and which gives infinite pleasure to his
own holy mind? Would God be happy, and could he contemplate
his nature with self-approbation and complacency, if he possessed
a selfish and malevolent spirit? Does not his blessedness also re-
sult from the expression of his perfect benevolence in the works of
creation, providence, and grace, by which he diffuses so much hap-
piness among his creatures? Is it not thus that his benevolence is
gratified, and that he makes himself happy? And does not his
blessedness also result from beholding the consequences and effects
of his communicative goodness, wherever they are diffused and
enjoyed? With infinite delight does he behold all the fruits of his
pure and perfect goodness. "The Lord shall rejoice in his works."
He "rejoices over them with joy;" he "joys over them with sing-
ing;" he "rests in his love." Is it too much to say, that although
God is a pure and perfect Spirit, eternal, unchangeable, infinite in
his being, power, wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth,
that his blessedness results from the same sources which commu-
nicate happiness to the minds of all holy creatures, and differs from
theirs-this is indeed a mighty difference-only as it is an independ-
ent blessedness; as it is without alloy, without interruption, with-
out limits, and without end; or in other words, only as he differs
from them. Created minds are happy in the perfect gratification
of all their holy desires; and God is happy in the perfect grati-
fication of all his desires. And since he has no desires that are
unholy, all are perfectly gratified; and in this consists his perfect
and inmutable blessedness.
26
GOD THE END OF ALL THINGS.
It is sometimes objected to this view of the divine blessedness,
that God could not have been eternally happy. But the objection
is more specious than valid. We have no doubt God was origi-
nally and eternally happy, and that his happiness always has been
unmixed and uninterrupted. But why is he thus blessed? Most
certainly, not independently of himself; not independently of his
own desires, and of his purposes to gratify them. He was from
eternity happy in the view of himself; in the view of all his pur-
poses and creation, and all the happiness he knew would result
from them, and which were present to his eternal mind, who “de-
clares the end from the beginning, saying, My counsel shall stand,
and I will do all my pleasure." If God has desires to gratify, and
designs to accomplish, it is no impeachment of his independence.
to say, he cannot be happy without gratifying them. It would
be an impeachment of his independence if, in conformity with
some modern notions, he were not able to gratify them. And
this objection to their theory, the advocates of this new the-
ology have not, so far as we know, attempted to obviate. If,
as they affirm, he has desires for the salvation of men which
he is not able to gratify, will they tell us why he is not mise-
rable? Ungratified desire, disappointed purposes, whether in
the mind of creatures, or the Creator, must be the source of pain ;
and the more in the Creator, because his desires are perfectly holy,
and infinitely ardent and strong. Could we, without irreverence-
we regret there are those who not only make the hypothesis, but
insist on the fact-could we suppose the Deity to have one desire
which he is unable to gratify; one purpose he cannot accomplish;
to us it seems, that one ungratified desire or purpose would make
him wretched. Most certainly his blessedness could not be un-
mixed and uninterrupted.
If there be then any force in these suggestions, who does not
see that it is essential to the eternal, undisturbed gratification of all
God's desires, and to the accomplishment of all his purposes, that
he be infinitely and for ever glorified? It is impossible his desires
should be gratified, and his purposes accomplished, without mani-
festing his character; without a full and combined manifestation
of his essential excellence; just as impossible, as that the effect can
exist without the cause. Thus to glorify himself is the consum-
mation of his every desire and purpose. The perfect goodness of
his pure and holy mind must be gratified; the exuberant fulness of
his amiable and awful perfections must flow out; and if there were
anything effectually to obstruct its course and oppose its progress
he could not be happy.
Let us look for a moment at the consequences of a possible de-
feat and disappointment of some of the benevolent desires and
purposes of the Deity. What if it were beyond his power to carry
into effect the designs of his benevolent mind; what if some grand
design, in the dispensations of providence, should fail of its ac-
complishment; what if some endeared purpose in the method of
GOD THE END OF ALL THINGS.
27
redeeming mercy should suffer defeat; what if the gates of hell,
in an evil hour, should prevail against the Church; what if many
whom the Father has given to the Son should not come to him;
what, as some affirm, if the hard and stony heart should prove
superior to his efficient grace, and multitudes should be lost, whom
God, in every view, sincerely and ardently desires to sanctify and
save; what if the day of millennial mercy should never arrive,
and the earth never be filled with the knowledge of the glory of
the Lord, as the waters fill the sea; what if the voice of the arch-
angel and the trump of God should fail to raise the dead, and sum-
mon the universe to his bar; what if the righteous were shut out,
and the wicked received into the kingdom of Heaven; not only
would every holy mind in the universe lament and wail, but God
himself, no longer beholding and enjoying the joy and felicity of
his people, and disappointed in the purest and sweetest desires and
designs of his wisdom and love, would no longer be "God blessed
for ever." Nor does it at all relieve the horror of this result, to
suppose that the divine mind is indifferent to it. For, if his bene-
volence were so torpid as to be unmoved by such disappointment,
if his desires and designs of kindness could be all erased from his
mind, and he still remain unmoved and happy, if his perfections
were so inactive and retired as never to be seen, and so dormant
as never to be acted out, or be sensible of injury, then he would not
be God.
But we have little need of hypotheses of this sort. God is infi-
nitely happy, because he is, and will be infinitely glorified. Com-
pared with the beauty and glory discoverable in the manifestation
of his character, created excellence is lost sight of and forgotten;
and in such beauty and glory, it is impossible but that the infinite
mind should take supreme delight. He is happy because he is
glorified, and he must be glorified to be happy. We venture no
rash expression, we say nothing dishonourable, but what is most
honourable to God, when we affirm, he would be the most wretched
being in the universe, were he not glorified.
Thus would he vindicate the conduct of God in making himself
his ultimate end. And let us ask, in view of this exposition, what
ultimate end can be compared with this? What higher considera-
tion, what weightier inducement, what more benevolent impulse
could move the eternal mind than this? We say, benevolent im-
pulse; because there is no selfishness here. Selfishness regards
its own, simply because it is its own, and not because it is su-
premely worthy of regard. It were a novel kind of selfishness.
that is gratified only in doing good; and this is all the selfishness
discoverable in the ultimate end of Deity. It is true, that in all his
vast operations, he makes himself first, himself midst, himself every-
thing; and the reason he does it is, that it is so unspeakably im-
portant, as we have seen, that he should be all in all. There is no
end he could propose so benevolent as this. It is an end, which,
from its very nature, cannot be accomplished without comprising
28
GOD THE END OF ALL THINGS.
a greater amount of good, than could be secured in any other way.
There is no supreme end worthy of God but this. It has been a
needless indifference to the best interests of his great empire, to
have aimed ultimately at anything below himself. Never does
the eternal God appear so excellent, so worthy of supreme love,
confidence, and homage, as when the grand object of his pursuit is
seen to rise far above all the minor interests of his creation, and
he himself is beheld "decked with light, as with a garment," and
creating, upholding, and governing all things for his own glory.
There are several practical thoughts which we are loath to
forego, though we have already greatly trespassed on the patience
of our readers.
To us it appears, that the prominent truth contained in the pre-
ceding remarks, is one which ought to be frequently and faithfully
exhibited. There is no principle of greater importance, either in a
theoretical or practical view, than that God himself is the ultimate
end of everything he does. There is no truth with which we
ought to be more familiar than this, and none which is capable of
being more usefully employed, either in the confirmation and illus-
tration of truth, the confutation of error, or the presentation of the
most constraining inducements to elevated and consistent piety.
No man can understand the doctrines of the Gospel, or discover
their beauty and consistency, who does not see them in their rela-
tion to this important and fundamental truth; and no man can be
led
away by the subtilties of error who does. Establish this prin-
ciple, and you give a mortal wound to every heresy that has dis-
tracted the Church and the world; relinquish this, and it is of little
moment to which of all the variety of errors you give the prefer-
ence. Once consent to come down from the lofty elevation that
God is above all creatures, and that all things were made by him
and for him, and no matter how low you fall. This truth is like a
"moral perspective glass," it brings distant objects near, and pre-
sents, in their true and real position, objects that are inverted. It
presents also a telescopic vision of the works and ways of God, by
which everything that he does is magnified, and in which he is
seen forming his purposes and laying out his plans upon a scale of
magnitude and grandeur, that overwhelms the human understand-
ing. If he made all things for himself, then it became him to pro-
ject and achieve a multitude of designs, the rectitude and magnifi-
cence of which, without this ultimate end, would not, and could
not have been seen by mortal eyes. It became him to form all
his purposes from eternity, and with the sublime view of demon-
strating his own excellence and glory. It became him to give ex-
istence to a world of moral agents, and to extend his government
over them through interminable ages. "It became him by whom
are all things and for whom are all things," to make the captain of
our salvation perfect through sufferings, and to devise a method of
mercy, which, though to the Jew a stumbling-block, and to the
Greek foolishness, is the wisdom and power of God to salvation.
GOD THE END OF ALL THINGS.
29
It became him to reveal the operations of a mighty and invisible
agent in the moral renovation of his people, and thus to produce
impressions of the Deity upon their minds, which shall prostrate
them in everlasting humiliation before his throne. And it becomes
him, in his progressive administrations, to give no account of any
of his matters; but to magnify his own august dominion, and make
all intelligences understand, that he legislates, not for a province,
but for the universe; and that he plans and governs, not for a day,
but for an infinite lapse of ages. Nothing so allures a holy mind
to adoring and humble piety, as the thought that God made all
things for himself, and is governing all according to the counsel of
his own will. "I know," saith the inspired preacher, "that what-
soever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it,
nor anything taken from it; and God doeth it that men should fear
before him.' In a word, establish this principle, and you shed
lustre over all the works of God; you have a clue to every laby-
rinth in providence, and a solution of every mystery in grace; you
have the keystone of the arch, sprung by unseen hands, when they
laid the beams of his chambers in the mighty waters, and stretched
out the line upon the foundations of the earth.
29
Again: If the suggestions we have made are true, supreme
selfishness constitutes neither the religion of the Gospel, nor
the religion of heaven. It is very possible, that in all Our
religious affections, and in all our religious conduct, in all we
do for God and our fellow men, we may have a
may have a supreme
regard to ourselves. Not a few moral philosophers and grave
divines have advocated the sentiment, that all religion consists in a
well directed selfishness. But if God himself is the ultimate end
of all things, this is not the religion of the Gospel, nor of heaven.
It matters not how wisely, nor with how much discretion a man
undertakes to exalt himself, so long as his supreme object is not to
please and glorify God. It is impossible for him, from a supreme
regard to himself, to love and honour God more than himself.
Everything he does may be in itself lawful, it may be religious and
devout, it may be very discreet and wise policy; but if self be his
grand, his ruling object, his spirit will be found to differ essentially
from the spirit of angels, and of the just made perfect. The mind
illumined by the Spirit of God, sees things as they are, and appre-
ciates them according to their intrinsic worth. It ceases, in some
good degree, to regard those that are of no comparative moment,
and has learned to estimate those that are of real and permanent
importance. And since there is nothing of so much importance as
that God should be glorified, the real Christian desires nothing so
much as this. God has the first and highest place in his heart.
And since he loves every attribute of the divine character, so he
desires to behold it in its native beauty. Every new manifestation.
of the Deity raises the Creator in his esteem, sheds lustre around
all that God is, and all that he does, and often fills his heart with
joy unspeakable and full of glory. The people of God may be
30
GOD THE END OF ALL THINGS.
frequently under the cloud; but let God appear, and the cloud
vanishes away; let God be exalted, and they are happy. This is
not selfishness. This is the religion of heaven. The religion
which springs from selfishness never truly terminates on God.
The religion of the Gospel and of heaven neither springs from
self, nor terminates in self, but springs from God, and terminates
in God. And the man who has the most of this spirit is the most
godly man. There are those who see and rejoice that God will
be glorified; and there are those that see he will be glorified, and
rebel and mourn. And wide, very wide, is the difference between
them! No sinful affections will amalgamate with the glory of
God. No love, no faith, no submission, no hope, no joy, that has
not a stronger affinity to the divine glory, than to any other and
all other objects, will stand the test of that day that is to "try
every man's work of what sort it is.
Again: If the leading sentiment defended in these pages be true,
most certain is it that all holy beings will be happy for ever. There
is no need of separating the glory of God and the eternal happi-
ness of his people. We will not say that they are identified; for
one is the effect, and the other the cause. The eternal, unchange-
able Jehovah has indissolubly bound the highest and eternal bles-
sedness of all holy beings to the manifestation of his own glory.
He cannot be glorified without making those who love him happy;
and those who love him cannot be happy, unless he is glorified.
If you would make a good man miserable; if you would torture
the spirits of the just made perfect with agony, go, tell it in heaven,
that God will not be glorified. But if God is glorified, they are
safe, they are happy. Nothing can disturb their serenity, nothing
diminish their rapture. So long as their highest love terminates
on God, and their largest desires on his glory, they shall be grati-
fied to the full. They shall behold his glory, even the glory which
the Son had with the Father, before the world was. They shall
be filled with all the fulness of God.
And be it also remarked, that with equal certainty will the full
manifestation of the divine glory be for ever inseparable from the
perdition of all the ungodly. If God is exalted, the wicked must
die. It is a most fearful truth, that God cannot be glorified with-
out the perdition of the ungodly; and it is a truth which may well
carry death to the hopes of every incorrigible sinner. If there are
those who will sin, and sin incorrigibly, let them know that God is
able to glorify himself by it all. Their rebellion shall never dis-
turb God. It shall not disturb one peaceful emotion throughout
his holy and happy kingdom. Though they "mean not so, neither
in their hearts do they think so;" their incorrigible wrath" shall
praise the Lord, and the remainder thereof he will restrain." The
"expectation of the wicked shall perish," and their " triumphing shall
be short." They shall sink for ever under their disappointment and
shame. They will eternally rebel and mourn, because they can-
not maintain a successful controversy with God. And it will
GOD THE END OF ALL THINGS.
31
shame them, and it will fill them with despair and rage, that there
is One above them who will turn all their iniquity into the means
of his own and his people's advancement. This is the Hell to
which the haters of God and the despisers of his Son are destined.
And nothing can deliver them from it but the divine dishonour.
No, nothing can exalt them, but what would humble God; nothing
lift them up but what would cast him down; nothing save them,
but what would ruin him. Oh! "it is a fearful thing to fall into the
hands of the living God!" It will be a direful allotment to stand
In the place of that man, on whom the great God undertakes to
glorify his justice.
But we turn from this painful subject. Have we not, in view
of the preceding illustration, the fullest assurance of the fact, that
God will be abundantly and for ever exalted?" He is of one mind,
and none can turn him; and what his soul desireth, that he doeth."
The Infinite One must cease to be wise, good, and omnipotent, ere
he abandons the paramount purpose to glorify himself. His own
great mind alone is capable of appreciating the worth and impor-
tance of this mighty object. None but himself is capable of fully
conceiving it. But his discerning eye has been fixed upon it from
the beginning, and will be fixed upon it to the consummation of all
things. Here all his ardent and powerful affections concentrate.
The strength, the fervour, the zeal of his combined attributes are
engaged, and publicly pledged to propel the magnificent and glo-
rious design.
"God hath made all things for himself." And when we say
this we utter a grand and awful truth. Whatever of majesty there
is in the divine power; whatever of extent and resource in the
divine wisdom; whatever of munificence in the divine goodness;
whatever of liberality and tenderness in the divine mercy; what-
ever of terror and dismay in the divine justice; whatever of royalty
and splendour in the divine supremacy, shall all be progressively
disclosed. Every dark dispensation shall, by and by, be covered
with light, and every intricate providence have a satisfactory solu-
tion. Everything shall be laid open. Every valley shall be ex-
alted, and every mountain made low. The wonderful revolutions
in the material, animal, and intellectual kingdoms, the various and
unexpected developments of the human character, the successive
periods of time, and the revolving ages of eternity, shall all be
fraught with deep and impressive illustrations of the Deity.
"God hath made all things for himself." Creation shall yet
more and more unfold its wonders, disclosing the hand of Deity.
Providence shall yet more and more bring to light his universal
agency and care, while under his omnipotent influence its mighty
machinery, like the wheel of Ezekiel, shall move still more high
and dreadful to the last. And the great redemption shall yet more
and more spread far and wide its glories. The Father shall be
exalted. Every knee shall bow before the Son, and every tongue
confess to him. And the Eternal Spirit, so long retired from this
32
GOD THE END OF ALL THINGS.
apostate world, shall be seen and honoured, and by his own mighty
influence on the soul, make impressions of the Deity hitherto un-
known. Ages so long pregnant with preparations for the Son of
Man, shall bring forth their unexpected blessings. The benevo-
lent exertions now making in the earth, shall be succeeded by those
greater and more extended, and these by greater, till "a little one shall
become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation-till the Spirit
be poured from on high, and the wilderness become a fruitful field"
-till these clouds of mercy, the glory of the age in which we dwell
and the hope of ages to come, shall issue in one extended and long
continued effusion of the Holy Spirit-till the earth shall become a
temple, and time a Sabbath, and these humble notes, so indistinctly
heard from here and there, a voice scattered over this wide crea-
tion, shall receive the accession of ten thousand tongues, and burst
forth in one harmonious Alleluja to Him who is seated on the
throne, and to the Lamb, for ever and ever.
ESSAY III.
SYSTEMS OF THEOLOGY.
PUBLISHED IN 1832.
A SYSTEM of theology is a methodical disposition of scriptural
doctrines, with due connexion and arrangement, so far as they are
susceptible of a scientific form. Such a work may contain either
a simple enunciation of truths under appropriate topics, or the body
of proof by which these are sustained. But within the latitude of
our definition are comprised, not only the volumes of professed
theologians, but even confessions, catechisms, and other symbolical
books of churches.
The origin of systems is to be sought in the laws of the human
mind. The Scriptures present us with divine truth, not in logical
or scientific order, but dispersed irregularly under the various forms
of history, precepts, promises, threatenings, exhortations, and pro-
phecies. It is scarcely left to the option of the reader whether he
will classify these truths in his own mind; for this classification
begins and is pursued, spontaneously, with regard to all depart-
ments of human knowledge. Every man, whose reasoning faculty
rises above that of the idiot, is conscious of an attempt to refer
each successive acquisition of knowledge to its proper place in the
general fund of his recollections, and to connect it with its like
among that which is already known.
It is very evident that the order of truths as they are presented
in the Scripture, is not intended to be the only order in which they
shall be entertained in the mind. If this were the case, all medi-
tation would be useless, since this exercise does not reveal new
doctrines, but, by giving rise to comparison of those already
known, in various connexions, discovers the relations and depen-
dencies of all. The illustration of Lord Bacon is well known:
the water of life as contained in the fountain of the Scriptures is
thence drawn and set before us, very much in the same manner as
natural water is taken from wells. For when the latter is drawn,
it is either first received into a reservoir, whence, by divers pipes
3
34
SYSTEMS OF THEOLOGY.
it may conveniently be conducted abroad for general use; or it is
at once poured into vessels for immediate service. The former
methodical way, adds this philosopher, gives origin to systems of
theology, by which scriptural doctrine is collected in scientific
form, and thence distributed, by the conduits of axioms and propo-
sitions, to every part.*
No primitive Christian could have answered the question, What
is Christianity? without proceeding to systematize its truths in a
greater or less degree; and every reader of the holy Scriptures
undesignedly pursues the same method. For instance, the various.
attributes of God are revealed in Scripture, not in theological
order, nor consecutively, but in various places, by means of scat-
tered examples, sometimes figuratively, sometimes by implication,
and never all at once. Now it is manifestly desirable that every
man should have a connected idea of the perfections of Jehovah;
and the reader of the Bible will necessarily lay together the vari-
ous representations, and thus conclude that God is spiritual, eter-
nal, infinite, immutable, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, most
true, most holy, most wise, and most good. This aggregation of
truths is, in fact, a system, and it is precisely thus that systematic
theology has its origin. No man can converse with a Scottish
mechanic, who happens to be a good textuary, without discerning
that he has his heads and topics to which he refers all his scriptu-
ral knowledge, and that the doctrines which he believes are re-
duced to a classification more or less exact. Indeed, each of us
may bring the matter to a speedy test by looking within and
inquiring whether such an arrangement of our religious tenets is
not constantly going forward, with the gradual increase of our
settled opinions. This will be clear or obscure, logical or con-
fused, according to the correctness and extent of our knowledge,
and the sagacity and vigour of our intellect. It may be vitiated
by the addition of that which is extraneous, or by false expositions
of Scripture; but such a syllabus of divine truth is possessed, in
memory if not in writing, by every Christian, whether wise or
simple.
The association of ideas affords a natural ground for classifica-
tion; though by no means the sole ground. Mere similarity of
particulars may serve as a basis for technical arrangement, as in
the Linnæan system of botany, but this is scarcely a philosophical
method. The more any department of knowledge partakes of the
character of a pure science, the greater is its susceptibility of being
systematized; and this is eminently the character of divine truth.
There was a time, indeed, when the question was mooted, whether
theology is a science, but that time has gone by, and with it should
have vanished the occasion of the present argument.
There is danger, however, that we shall be charged with disre-
spect to the understanding of our readers, in offering serious proof
* De Augm. Scient., lib. lx., c. i., § 3.
SYSTEMS OF THEOLOGY.
35
of a position so tenable, and which, but for party zeal, would never
have been controverted. For what are all theological discussions
but so many systems? Every didactic sermon is a systematized
chapter of the great book of revelation. Every essay or discourse
upon any scriptural truth is an attempt to arrange, under certain
topics and with conclusive arguments, the scattered testimony of
inspiration in favour of that truth. The only effect of banishing
professed systems would therefore be, to repress all endeavours to
present the subject as a harmonious whole, and to leave us in pos-
session of schemes characterized by undigested crudity.
"
The logical and systematic arrangement of a science has vari-
ous important uses. It affords aid to the memory; since a thou-
sand insulated and disjointed truths can scarcely be kept in remem-
brance, while, in their regular connexion and mutual dependency,
they may be tenaciously retained, and clearly communicated. The
knowledge of a subject may be said to be adequate, only when it
is thus known. The heterogeneous mass is clarified and reduced
to order, by being ranged under topics according to the inherent
differences of the several species, and set off into departments,
with reference to the distinction of elementary, secondary, and
inferential positions. Thus in the study of natural history,
although the classification of the received systems is in a measure
arbitrary (that is, independent of the philosophical connexion of
cause and effect), those things which are homogeneous are placed
together, and the mind is enabled to comprehend what would
otherwise be a mighty maze, and all without a plan." In the
progress of study, as knowledge is augmented, it is highly advan-
tageous to have a predisposed scheme, to some niche of which
every new acquisition may immediately be referred, as to its pro-
per place in the system. This is true, even when the scheme is
framed in a merely technical and arbitrary manner. Such was
the classification of minerals, as practised before the late discove-
ries in crystallography; and such the science of chemistry con-
tinues to be in many of its departments. But the advantage is
immensely greater, when, as is true of theology, the subject admits
of a natural, exact, and philosophical disposition. It is only under
such a form of arrangement that we can be in the highest degree
made sensible of the admirable and divine harmony of all reli-
gious truth, which necessarily escapes us in the examination of
detached and dissociated fragments. The system, however brief
or imperfect, affords a convenient test of propositions which might
otherwise pass unsuspected, and a guide in applying the analogy
of faith to interpretation.
But it is as affording a special facility for communicating instruc-
tion to others, that we wish to be considered as recommending the
systematic arrangement of theology. The history of catechetical
instruction, in every age, furnishes a commentary upon this re-
mark. In applying ourselves to the study of any science, we have
our choice between two discrepant methods. By the one, we
36
SYSTEMS OF THEOLOGY.
make a commencement, indifferently, with any separate fact or
proposition, without reference to its place in the general scheme;
and travelling onward from this point, through the whole, we
attempt to acquire the knowledge of all the parts; traversing in
succession departments the most remote and unconnected. As if,
for example, one should attempt to acquire the science of astro-
nomy by commencing with observations on the ring of Saturn,
thence passing to the milky way, or the moon's libration, and then
assailing the obliquity of the ecliptic. By the other method, we
commence with simple, acknowledged, and fundamental principles,
proceed to the demonstration of elementary propositions, and
thence by regular deduction to the ramifications of the subject.
The latter is the systematic method, and cause is yet to be shown
why it should not hold good in theology, as well as in other sci-
ences. The history of the Church shows us that from the earliest
ages it has been deemed advisable to abstract the truths of reve-
lation in a systematic form, for the convenience of instructers and
pupils, for the aid of memory, and for the purpose of displaying
the completeness and coherence of the entire plan of scriptural
knowledge. In certain periods, it is true, flagrant abuses have
been connected with these methods, especially during the reign
of the Peripatetic philosophy: yet there has been an entire unity
of opinion as to the general expediency of the plan. It may not
be inappropriate here to advert to some of the predominant schools
of systematic theology.
Omitting any particular notice of the patristical systems, we
shall name a few of those writers who contributed to the mass of
doctrinal theology before the Reformation. There are those who
trace the origin of the scholastic divinity to as high an epoch as
the monophysitic controversy in the fifth and sixth centuries; yet
it is more usual to consider John Scotus Erigena, a theologian of
the ninth century, as the founder of this method. It was, how-
ever, the Platonic philosophy by which he endeavoured to eluci-
date divine truth. He signalized himself as an antagonist of the
Predestinarians, in the court of Charles the Bold. The School-
men, or Scholastics, are supposed to have been so called from
their training in the theological schools of Charlemagne. This
training was little else than regular instruction in the Latin version.
of Aristotle, the writings of Boethius and Porphyry, and the Peri-
papetic dialectics. Three periods are noted by Buhle: the first
ends with Roscellinus (A. D. 1089), or the contest between the
Realists and Nominalists; the second with Albertus Magnus
(ob. 1280), at which time the metaphysics of Aristotle were gene-
rally known and expounded; the third extends to the revival of
letters in the fifteenth century.* The renowned Englishman,
Alexander de Hales, holds an eminent rank among the ancient
*
Brockhaus Real-Worterb., vol. ix., p. 835. Buddei Isagoge, p. 326. Hornii.
Hist. Phil., 1. vi. ciì. p. 297.
SYSTEMS OF THEOLOGY.
37
scholastics, as is commonly cited as Doctor Irrefragabilis: until
the time of Aquinas, his commentary on Lombard was a univer-
sal text-book. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor Angelicus, and a saint of
the calendar, was the pupil of Albertus Magnus, and so close an
adherent of Aristotle, that he left fifty-two commentaries upon the
works of the latter. It is unnecessary to advert to the estimation
in which he has ever been held by the Romanists; although it has
been satisfactorily shown by Protestants that this truly great man
diverged in a multitude of instances from the doctrines of the
Catholic faith as they are now defined.* Next in eminence was
his great competitor, John Duns Scotus, whose dialectic acumen
was proverbial, and who is denominated Doctor Subtilis. From
this rivalry of sects arose the familiar distinctions of Thomists and
Scotists. During the third period flourished the celebrated
Durand, called on account of his independent boldness, Doctor
Resolutissimus. This remarkable man was bishop of Meaux, and
died about the year 1333. He went out from the ranks of the
Thomists, and without going over to the opposite sect became
the founder of a new school. He is supposed by Staeudlin to
have contributed greatly to the downfall of the scholastic system.
To these may be added Occam, an English Franciscan, who
opposed the papacy and encouraged a more liberal method in
theology; and Bradwardin, who openly attacked the scholastic
system, and maintained that the genuine or Augustinian doctrines
had been exchanged for mere Pelagianism. His work, de Causa
Dei contra Pelagium, contains much that savours of a purer
theology.
This was the dawn of a brighter day for religious investigation.
In looking back from this point upon all the dialectic school, we
are struck with the darkness which overspread the field of
theology in consequence of the multitude of sects, the introduc-
tion of foreign principles and speculations, the contempt thrown
upon sound exegesis, the almost divine honours paid to philoso-
phers and doctors, and the barbarous roughness with which every
subject was handled. The bounds of human reason were over-
leaped, and a recondite sophistry usurped the place of candid argu-
ment. It is not, therefore, in this period that we are to seek for
anything like purity in theological systems.
The Reformation gave birth to a new school of dogmatic theo-
logy. Luther, indeed, though celebrated as a logician, left no
work strictly pertaining to this class; but in the Loci Communes
of Melancthon, we have a model which might do honour to the
brightest age of scriptural investigation. It is pleasing to observe
with what deference this good man was regarded by his bolder
coadjutors. The first edition of this earliest system reformed theo-
logy appeared at Wittemberg, A. d. 1521.† Luther characterized
the work, as "invictum libellum, et non solum immortalitate, sed
* Dorschaeus. Aquinas Confessor Veritatis.
† Buddeus, p. 346.
38
SYSTEMS OF THEOLOGY.
quoque canone dignum.”* In the Reformed Church, we need not
remind the reader of the compendious works of Zwingle and the
Institutes of Calvin. The latter work has passed through innu-
merable editions, and has appeared in the Latin, French, Spanish,
English, German, Dutch, Hungarian and Greek languages. In the
Lutheran Church might be mentioned the leading names of Calix-
tus, Chemnitz, Striegel, Gerhard, Horneius, Henichius, Hulsemann,
Calvius, and Koenig; in the Reformed Church, Beza, Bullinger,
Musculus, Aretius, Heidegger, Turretine and Pictet. It would be
unjust to the memory of the divines of Holland, who more than all
others cultivated this field, to omit the names of Rivet, Maresius,
Hoornbeeck, and the Spanheims, all of whom followed the phi-
losophical school of Voet; and Burmann, Heidan, Wittichius,
Braunius, Witsius, Leydecker and Hulsius, who pursued the system
of the covenants, as marked out by Cocceius.
But time would fail us in following down the stream of systema-
tic writers. This was the age of systems, and a lifetime would
scarcely suffice to study those which it produced. Most of these
last mentioned were free, to a remarkable degree, from the techni-
cal distinctions of the schools, and may be used with profit. It is
at least desirable that every theologian should be acquainted with
the history of religious opinion. We have fallen upon days in
which works of this nature are little prized, and in which essays,
pamphlets, and periodicals, are almost the only vehicles of theo-
logical discussion. Of this it is needless to complain, yet it is mor-
tifying that so much unmerited contempt should be cast upon the
learned labours of other days. There are few eminent scholars,
it is true, who join in this cant; yet scarcely a week passes in
which our attention is not drawn to some ignorant and captious
disparagement of all productions of this kind. There are persons
who never deign to mention systematic theology without a sneer,
and whose purposes seem to demand that they should represent all
books in this department as assuming a rivalship with the sacred
Scriptures. We disavow the wish to attribute these sentiments
and objections to any particular school, or to connect them with
any doctrinal opinions held by our brethren; except so far as this,
that they are usually avowed by those who contend for greater
latitude in speculation, and who protest against any interference
with their innovating projects. No very distinguished writer has
presented himself as their advocate, and they are usually heard to
proceed from youthful and hasty declaimers, yet the arguments
even of these demand a refutation when they spread their contagion
among the inexperienced; and we would gladly contribute
towards a disentanglement of the question.
It would be an unwarrantable hardihood to deny that, among the
volumes of past ages, there are systems which lie open to valid
objections; but the faults of some are not to be attributed to the
* Luth. Op., ii., 241, Wittemb.
SYSTEMS OF THEOLOGY.
39
whole class. Thus, for instance, it is common to charge the whole
of the continental theologians with the scholastic subtleties of the
middle age. The systems of the schoolmen are, indeed, noto-
riously chargeable with dialectic refinements, and it is not strange
that some of the same leaven should betray itself in the writings
of the early reformers, just emerging as they were from the
dreary night of barbarism. The objection lies against most of the
Romish systems. Revelation is here confounded with philosophy;
the Scriptures are perverted into accordance with traditions and
the schools; and the questions which perpetually arise are, in a
majority of instances, frivolous and ridiculous, or knotty and osten-
tatious. Such, however, are not the faults of our received works,
and the only trait which they have in common with the former, is
that they profess to communicate the doctrines of the faith, in
regular connexion, with scientific order and method, and some-
times with the technical language of the then predominant phi-
losophy. The terminology of the reformers and their immediate
successors is a dialect of which no literary antiquary will consent
to remain ignorant; it is a source of alarm to students who consult
their ease, and even grave divines among us have been sadly dis-
concerted with the materialiter, formaliter, &c., of the seven-
teenth century. Yet the history of theological opinion can never
be learned, in its sources, without some knowledge of this peculiar
phraseology.
The plan or schedule according to which a system is arranged
may be artificial, unnatural, arbitrary, or otherwise inconvenient.
It is not every mind which can be satisfied with the method pur-
sued by so many eminent divines, especially in Holland, in arrang-
ing the whole circle of truth with reference to the covenants.
Others are as much displeased with a historical or chronological
plan which has been attempted. Or the whole work may labour
under a fault of an opposite character, namely, the want of
method, and under the title of a system may be an unsystematized
farrago. Yet in all such cases, though the objection is granted to
be valid, yet the excellence of systems, as such, is no whit dis-
paraged by the failure of special attempts; and indeed it is not
upon these grounds that the exception is usually taken.
Again, the system may be objectionable, as being incautiously
and hastily framed, upon insufficient testimony of the Scriptures.
Every methodized body of theological doctrine may be considered
as a general theory of the whole sphere of divine truth. As such,
it should be deduced directly from the Scriptures, after a most
careful survey and impartial comparison of all its doctrines. The
work of the theologian here resembles that of the philosopher who
reasons from natural phenomena. There is, indeed, this important
difference, that the philosopher is mainly employed in observing
the sequence of cause and effect, and in assigning all the changes
in natural objects to their true causes, and to as few causes as
possible; thus by induction arriving at general laws-whereas
40
SYSTEMS OF THEOLOGY.
the theologian is called to arrange isolated truths, already revealed
in the form of propositions, and by reducing these to order, to dis-
cover the plan and harmony of religious science.
In both cases,
however, there is the same process to be observed; facts or pro-
positions must be ascertained, generalized, placed in the same
category with analogous truths, and reserved until new light
enables us to refer them to more comprehensive laws or prin-
ciples. Now, if in physical science it is so highly important that
caution should be used in this process, so as to avoid leaping to a
conclusion without a sufficient induction, how great should be the
patience, self-distrust, and hesitancy of one who undertakes to pro-
nounce upon the great mysteries of revelation. "The liberty of
speculation which we possess in the domains of theory is not like
that of the slave broke loose from his fetters, but rather like that of
the freeman who has learned the lessons of self-restraint in the
school of just subordination."* This is the dictate of sound phi-
losophy in every investigation; it teaches us not to reject system,
but to systematize wisely. It is the neglect of this rule which has
given occasion to the scores of heresies with which the Church has
been rent. Doctrines taken up from the superficial and apparent
meaning of a few texts, have been made the foundation of theories
which have possessed scarcely a trait of genuine Christianity. Yet
even when a system is absolutely false, the objection prostrates
only that particular scheme which is proved to be erroneous. And
the question still remains open, how far systematic arrangement is
conducive to the progress of sound theology.
The favourite argument of many is this: The Scriptures do not
admit of being systematized. This cannot be more impressively
stated than in the words of Cecil: "The Bible scorns to be treated
scientifically. After all your accurate statements, it will leave you
aground. The Bible does not come round and ask your opinion
of its contents. It proposes to us a Constitution of Grace, which
we are to receive, though we do not wholly comprehend it." In
this argument the premises are stated with sufficient clearness, but
we confess ourselves unable to make the necessary deduction of
the conclusion. This was the position of the Anabaptists and the
Quakers. It may mean either that divine truth is in its own na-
ture insusceptible of a regular scientific arrangement, or that it is
impracticable for human minds so to arrange it. We contend that
so long as it is granted that the propositions contained in Scripture
are so many truths, that these are harmonious and accordant, and
that some flow by necessary inference from others, it follows that
the doctrines of revelation may be topically arranged, exhibited,
and discussed. Some religious truths do, indeed, surpass our rea-
son, but it is a mere sophism to argue that they are therefore thrown
beyond the limits of any conceivable system; for this very cha-
* Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, § 201.
† Remains, p. 118.
‡ Barclay's Apology, Orig. Thes. x., § 21. Van Mastricht., lib. 1, c. i., § 6.
SYSTEMS OF THEOLOGY.
41
..
racteristic may designate their place among ultimate propositions.
If it is asserted that the imbecility of human minds is such that
they cannot arrange and classify the whole of divine truths, inas-
much as these are absolutely intractable, and refuse to arrange
themselves under any of our general topics, we reply that this
would put an end to physical philosophy itself, for the same re-
mark holds good in nature. There are exempt cases, extreme phe-
nomena, which are as yet explicable by no laws of science, and
which must remain beyond the range of all systems as elementary
facts. Such are the attraction of gravitation and the principle of
animated life. Still, there are a thousand truths which continue to
be free from these difficulties, and which may be methodized with
profit.
If it should be urged that the simple method in which God has
been pleased to arrange truth in the Bible is the only proper method,
and that this beautiful simplicity is vitiated by the artifice of sys-
tems, we reverently acknowledge that the order of divine revela-
tion in the Scripture is the best conceivable for the immediate end
proposed. Yet the nature of truth is not altered by a change in
the arrangement of propositions; nor is its simplicity taken away
by scientific disposition. Moreover, the argument destroys itself
by proving too much. For, by parity of reason, all discourses and
essays on theology, all sermons and exhortations of a religious kind,
must equally violate this divinely prescribed order, since they cull
and dispose the passages of Scripture, not in the method observed
in the sacred volume, but with reference to some truth or truths
attempted to be established. No one can fail to perceive the
frivolity of an argument which would restrict all theology to the
regular consecution of chapters and verses in the Bible.
It has been alleged, that the use of systems has had a tendency
to restrict the belief of the theologian within certain prescribed
limits, and thus to arm the mind against conviction from passages
which, to an unsophisticated reader, would be clear and decisive;
and that what is called the Analogy of Faith is a barrier against
independent investigation. The application of any such analogy
to the exposition of Scripture has been strenuously opposed in
modern times. That the principle may be abused, is too evident
to admit of denial. Yet, unless the interpreter pursues the course
of neological commentators, utterly careless whether the sacred
penmen contradicted themselves or not, this rule, or something
tantamount, must be applied. It is the dictate of reason that-a
revelation from God being admitted-all real contradictions are
impossible. Hence, when a class of truths is satisfactorily deduced,
all those which do not quadrate with these, in their obvious mean-
ing, must be interpreted with such latitude as may bring them into
unison with the whole. In all interpretation of works, sacred and
profane, single passages must be understood in accordance with
the general tenor of the discourse. Indeed, so plainly is this a prin-
ciple of hermeneutics, that we should never have heard the objec-
42
SYSTEMS OF THEOLOGY.
tion, if certain unwelcome doctrinal positions had not been in-
volved. There are truths which lie upon the very surface of the
Scriptures, and are repeated in almost every page: these taken
together give origin to the analogy or canon of faith. The force
of reasoning from such an analogy must vary with the extent of
the reader's scriptural knowledge, and the strength of his convic-
tions. Every man, however, whether imbued or not with human
systems, reasons in this manner. It is by the analogy of faith
that we pronounce the literal interpretation untenable in all those
cases which represent God as the author of moral evil, or which
attribute to him human members and passions. So long, there-
fore, as God "cannot deny himself," we must resort to this very
principle.
The simple inquiry appears then to be, whether the use of a ju-
dicious system opens the door for the abuse of the analogy of faith.
It is contended that it necessarily does so by expanding this ana-
logy so far as to make the whole of a certain theological system a
canon of faith, which nothing is suffered to contravene. There
are slavish minds in which this effect will doubtless be produced;
but the result in such cases would be the same if, instead of a writ-
ten system, the learner availed himself of the oral effusions of some
idolized errorist. And in this whole controversy, let it be observed,
the choice is at last between the dead and the living, between the
tried systems of the ancients and the ill-compacted schemes of
contemporaries. We forget the place which has been assigned to
the theological system when we hold it responsible for excesses of
this kind. It is by no means a rule of faith, else were it needless.
to refer to the Bible. It may be compared to the map of a country
over which a geographer travels, and which affords convenient
direction, while at the same time the traveller does not hold it to
be perfect, but proceeds to amend it by actual survey. Without
it he might lose his way, yet he is unwilling to give implicit faith
to its representations.
There are many problems in analytic mathematics in which the
unknown quantity is to be sought by successive approximations.
In these cases it is necessary to assume some result as true, and to
correct it by comparison with the data. Not unlike this is the
process by which we arrive at certain conclusions in the other
sciences, and in theology among the rest. If in the course of our
investigation we are met by scriptural statements which positively
contradict any position of the system which is assumed as approx-
imating to the truth, the consequence will be a doubt, or an aban-
donment of the system itself. Precisely in this way every inde-
pendent thinker knows that he has been affected by the difficulties
of Scripture. The case would not be rendered more favourable
if he had in his hand no system. As it is manifestly impossible
for any one to come to the study of the Word of God without
entertaining some general scheme of divine truth as substantially
correct, we can see no reason why the student should not avail him-
SYSTEMS OF THEOLOGY.
43
self of that which he esteems true in its great outline. It will be
no bar to just inquiry that he is hereby prevented from hastily
catching at specious error, by perceiving that it varies from his
guide. Life is too short for every man to be left to the hazard of
running through the whole cycle of errors and heresies before he
arrives at the truth; and this is prevented only by presenting to the
learner some beacon against seductive falsehoods. He may, as
many have done, conclude, upon due inquiry, that his own impres-
sions are right, and his system wrong.
We have compared the theological system to the hypothesis by
which the natural philosopher directs his inquiries. The compari-
son is good for the present instance. The system, like the hypo-
thesis, is not unalterable. It is to be studiously scrutinized, and
even suspected; adopted if verified, and rejected if proved to be
false. There is a well-known process by which natural philoso-
phers arrive at the primary physical laws, viz. "by assuming in-
deed the laws we would discover, but so generally expressed, that
they shall include an unlimited variety of particular laws; follow-
ing out the consequences of this assumption, by the application of
such general principles as the case admits; comparing them in
succession with all the particular cases within our knowledge; and
lastly, on this comparison, so modifying and restricting the general
enunciation of our laws as to make the results agree. "Analogous
to this is the process according to which, by the hypothetical as-
sumption of a given system, we proceed to determine upon its
truth.
But we are here arrested by an objection urged against this
whole method of proceeding, which comes in a specious shape,
and with the air of sincerity, and therefore demands a serious ex-
amination. We are addressed in some such terms as these: "The
whole method of investigating theological truth by the advocates of
systems is erroneous, because it is diametrically opposed to the
principles of the inductive philosophy. Instead of framing a system
à priori, and making it a bed of Procrustes, to which every decla-
ration of the Bible is to be forcibly adapted, the only safe method
is to reject all the hypotheses of divines, to come to the examina-
tion divested of all preconceived opinions, to consider the scattered
revelations of Scripture as so many phenomena, and to classify,
generalize, and deduce from these phenomena; just as the astrono-
mer or the botanist uses physical data in framing a sound hypothe-
sis. The study of theology should be exegetical, and the obsolete
classifications of past ages should be entirely laid aside." We
have endeavoured to state the objection fairly and strongly, and
we shall now inquire how far it operates against the positions
which we have taken. The objection assumes an analogy between
theological investigation of revealed truth and physical inquiry
into the system of the universe. This analogy we have already
* Herschell's Discourse, § 210.
44
SYSTEMS OF THEOLOGY.
noticed, and in reply to so much of the objection as concerns the
original investigation of divine truth, we grant that nothing can be
more unphilosophical or untheological than to receive any system
as true, previously to examination, however it may have been sup-
ported by consent of antiquity or wideness of diffusion. This
were to forsake the great principles of the Reformation, and revert
to the implicit faith of the apostate Church. We ask no conces-
sion of private judgment on the part of the learner; we acknow-
ledge that the final appeal is, in every instance, to the Scriptures
themselves. We go further in meeting those who differ from us,
and accept their illustration. Let the Scriptures be considered as
analogous to the visible universe; and its several propositions as
holding the same place with regard to the interpreter, which the
phenomena of the heavens do with regard to the astronomer. Let
it be agreed that the method of arriving at truth is in both instances
the same, that is, by careful examination of these data, from which
result generalization, cautious induction, and the position of ultimate
principles. Let it be further conceded that exegesis answers to
experiment or observation in the natural world, and consequently
that the theologian is to consider exegetical results as the basis of
all his reasonings. In all this there is not so wide a separation.
between us as might at first appear. We avow our belief that
the theologian should proceed in his investigation precisely as the
chemist or the botanist proceeds. "The botanist does not shape
his facts," says a late ingenious writer. Granted, provided that
you mean that the botanist does not wrest his facts to a forced cor-
respondence with a hypothesis. Neither does the genuine theolo-
gian "shape his texts. nor constrain them to an agreement with
his system. But both the botanist and the theologian do in this
sense "shape their facts," that they classify and arrange the fruits
of their observation, and gather from them new proofs of that
general system which has previously commended itself to their
faith.
""
There is an entire agreement between the contending parties, as
to the independent principles upon which original investigation for
the discovery of truth is to be conducted in every science. It is
the method which bears the name of Bacon, though practised
to a limited extent, by the wise of every age. It is the method of
Newton, which in his case resulted in the most splendid series of
demonstration which the world has ever known. Up to this point.
we agree, yet we have left the main question still untouched-
whether in pursuing this method it is absolutely necessary to reject
all the results of precedent labours. It is not merely concerning
the way in which original investigation should be pursued, but also
the way in which the results of such investigation are to be com-
municated. The former would be the inquiry how to make a
system-how to deduce it from its original disjected elements; the
latter is the inquiry how the general truths thus deduced may
be made available to the benefit of the learner. Systems of theo-
SYSTEMS OF THEOLOGY.
45
logy are in their nature synthetical. They are the results of the
toilsome analysis of great minds, and they are to be put to the test
by a comparison of all the separate truths, of which they purport
to be a scientific arrangement. That they are convenient helps,
in the transmission of such results as have been attained by the
wisdom and diligence of our predecessors-results which else
would have perished with their discoverers-is made evident by
reference to the very analogy above stated. In every science, it is by
such synthetical arrangements that the observations and inductions
of philosophers are embodied, in order to facilitate the advance of
those who follow. Thus, for instance, when the Abbé Haüy, by a
tedious and laborious induction of particulars, had traced up the
apparently amorphous crystals of the mineral kingdom to certain
clear and primitive figures, he reduced the whole of his discoveries
to the form of a system, so that future crystallographers might with
less toil follow out his inquiries, and with immense advantage take
up the subject where he left it.
But lest we should be suspected of the slightest misrepresentation
or evasion of the argument, let it be supposed that the gist of the
objection is, not that systems are useless, but that they should not
be put into the hands of learners, lest they fill their minds with
doctrines unproved and unexamined, and close the door against
manly and independent inquiry. Far be it from us to lay one
shackle upon the chartered freedom of the theologian! We
would that there were a thousandfold more independence in the
search of truth—and that so many hundreds were not enslaved by
the prejudice of novelty, whilst they clamour against the prejudice
of authority and antiquity. To the objection, under this new phase,
we reply the only possible method of making the labours of past
theologians available and profitable to the tyro, is by presenting to
him the fruits of these labours in some compendious form. In every
other case, the learner is despoiled of all the aids afforded by su-
perior wisdom and learning, and reduced to the condition of one
who has to build the whole structure for himself from the very
foundation. But it is rejoined, "The Bible is the text-book:
Theology is to be pursued exegetically; let the student, with his
hermeneutical apparatus, come to the investigation of the Bible
itself, to the neglect of all systems of human composition." Again
we reply, that in correspondence with the analogy above suggest-
ed, exegesis is the true instrument of discovery, and the test of all
pretended results. It may be compared to the glasses and qua-
drant of the astronomer. But is this all that is afforded to the
inchoate astronomer? Let the analogy be pursued. We suppose
a professor in this new school of physics to say to his pupil, "Here
are your telescopes and other instruments, your logarithmic tables.
and ephemeris-yonder is the observatory. Proceed to make your
observations. Be independent and original in your inquiries, and
cautious in your inductions. You are not to be informed whether the
sun moves around the earth, or the earth around the sun.
This
46
SYSTEMS OF THEOLOGY.
would be to prepossess you in favour of a system. Ptolemy and
Copernicus are alike to be forgotten!" What is our estimate of
such a method of philosophizing? The unfortunate youth is not
permitted to take a glance at Newton's Principia, lest his mind
should librate from its exact poise, towards some preconceived
opinion. He is reduced to the very condition of the thousands
who grope in disastrous twilight for want of direction. He is
called upon to be a Galileo without his powers, or a Kepler without
his previous training.
To an unprejudiced mind it must commend itself as reason-
able, that the beginner in any science should be furnished at
least with some syllabus of its details, which may serve as a clew
in the labyrinth of his doubts. In order to discover truth, it is not
the safest nor the wisest plan to reduce the mind to the unenviable
condition of a tabula rasa; although such is the assumption of
certain modern writers. It is highly useful to be informed as well
of what has been held to be true, as of what has been proved to
be false. For lack of the latter knowledge-the knowledge of pre-
ceding errors-our improved theologians are daily venting, with
all the grave self-consequence of discovery, the stale and exploded
blunders of the dark ages; which the perusal of any single work
of systematic divinity would have taught them to despise. The
impartiality of the mind is in no degree secured by the banishment
of all previous hypothesis. There is a partiality of ignorance, a
partiality of self-will and intellectual pride, a partiality of innova-
tion, no less dangerous than the predilections of system. Or, to
bring the whole matter to a speedier issue, the condition of mind
in equilibrio, which it is proposed to secure, is utterly impossible-
the merest ens rationis-which was never realized, and never can
be realized by any one in a Christian country. It is like the chi-
merical scepticism of the Cartesians, the creature of an overheated
imagination. For when you have carefully withheld all orthodox
systems of theology from your pupil, he comes to the study of the
Scriptures, emptied indeed of all coherent hypotheses, but teeming
with the crude and erroneous views which spring up like weeds in
the unregulated mind.
The true light in which a system of theology should be viewed
by one who uses it as an aid in scriptural study, is as a simple
hypothesis, an approximation to the truth, and a directory for
future inquiries. Every position is to become the subject of a
sifting examination, and comparison with what is revealed. With-
out some such assistance, in the mind or in writing, the student
might spend a life-time in arriving at some of those principles.
which, if once proposed to him, would commend themselves in-
stantly to his approbation.
But it is queried: "What if your system should be false ?" Let
us then go so far as to suppose that it is false. It would be no
very difficult task to prove that, for this purpose, even a false sys-
tem, if scientifically arranged, might not be without its uses. Every
SYSTEMS OF THEOLOGY.
47
one who commences the study of the Scriptures, does so with some
system, true or false, symmetrical or crude, written or conceived.
If he is influenced by no living idols in the world of theologians,
and bows to no Calvin or Arminius, he has within him those
causes of error which spring from his own character and educa-
tion; or, to use Bacon's expressive terms, idola specus et fori, if
not idola theatri.* When Kepler began his observations, he no
doubt held the old erroneous doctrine of the sphere; but in the
progress of inquiry he discovered such irregularity in the orbit of
Mars, as was altogether incompatible with a circular motion.
Hence he arrived at the truth that all the planetary orbits are ellip-
tical. In this we have an example of a fact impinging upon a sys-
tem, and causing it to be abandoned. The same thing may be in-
stanced in the case of Martin Luther. It may not be too much to
say, that if they had been ignorant of the opinions of their fathers,
and had practised upon the rule above-mentioned, their names
would never have come down to us. But all this is gratuitous.
We are not bound to prove that an erroneous system may have
its uses. We put into the hand of the pupil the nearest approxi-
mation to truth which we can procure, even that which we cordi-
ally believe ourselves; and then, to add new guards to the mind,
we exhort him to use it simply as a history of what the Church
has held; leaving it to his judgment whether it is consistent with
the Scriptures. It is the method in which the study of all sciences
must be begun; and as all lectures in theology are systems-in-
deed no other systems are enjoined to be studied in our seminaries
-it is in accordance with this very method that candidates for the
ministry are everywhere instructed. There may be a time, at
some later period, when a method purely analytic may be at-
tempted; but no man is competent to institute such an analysis,
until he has mastered the leading hypotheses of those who have
gone before him: and about one theologian in a thousand has the
taste for investigations of this kind.
It is not a little surprising that the very persons whose delicate
susceptibilities lead them to shrink from the contact of an orthodox
system or exposition, lest they should receive some undue bias, are
at the same time under no apprehensions from the contagion of
German neology. There are, for instance, ministers of our ac-
quaintance who avowedly banish from their shelves the works of
Turretine, Scott, and Henry, but who daily refer to the innocuous
commentaries of Rosenmueller, Kuinöl, Koppe, and Gesenius.
it so then, that the only partialities against which we need a cau-
tion, are towards what is called orthodoxy-the system of doc-
trines to which we have subscribed; Are there no vicious leanings
of the mind in favour of plausible heresies, lofty rationalism, or
imposing novelty? Let him answer who has learned the deceit-
fulness of the human heart.
* Nov. Org., lib i., aph. 41.
Is
48
SYSTEMS OF THEOLOGY.
If systems of theology are assailed upon the ground that they
have usurped the place and authority of the sacred canon, we
leave our opponents to try the issue with those who are guilty of
the offence. We are conscious of no such wish. The formularies
of our Church have borne many violent assaults; and in their
turn all doctrinal works which coincide with them have been de-
nounced. We have no hesitation in "postponing the Confession
of Faith to the Holy Scriptures."* If systems of divinity have
been raised to a co-ordinate rank with the Word of God, let those
answer for it who are guilty of the impiety. The books them-
selves are chargeable with no part of it, since they unanimously
declare that the Bible only is the standard of faith. Yet shall we
deny to any the liberty of making any scheme of doctrine his own
confession of faith? No constraint has been used to bring any
man to such a declaration; nor have we heard of any man who
has been required to conform himself to such a system, unless he
had previously, of his own free will, confessed it to be a statement
of his faith. We may, therefore, dismiss the cavil, as scarcely
pertaining to this inquiry.
In view of the absolute impracticability of the visionary scheme.
now controverted, and the absence of any attempted exemplifica-
tion of it, we are constrained to look somewhat further for the se-
cret cause of the clamour against systematic theology. And
when we regard the quarter from which it issues, we are con-
vinced that the real objection is, not that systems are exceptionable
qua tales, but that doctrine is systematized on the wrong side.
Systematized heterodoxy is attacked upon its own merits; syste-
matized orthodoxy is opposed because of its form and arrange-
ments. The great standard works in this department are the re-
sults of labour, the monuments of tried doctrine; while the ephe-
meral fabrics of innovators do not live long enough to assume a
regular shape. Hinc ille lachrymæ! When the late Robert
Hall was arraigned by a certain loyalist, as having written in fa-
vour of parliamentary reform, he replied, in terms not inapplicable
to this subject: "The plain state of the case is, not that the writer
is offended at my meddling with politics, but that I have meddled
on the wrong side. Had the same mediocrity of talent been ex-
erted in eulogizing the measures of ministry, his greetings would
have been as loud as his invective is bitter." If the system is
false, let this be made to appear, let its errors be exposed, but,
until this is done, let no arrangement of divine truth be decried as
injurious. In conclusion, we apprehend no evils to our rising the-
ologians from scholastic systems, for the best of all reasons-they
know nothing of them. The literature of the day has extended
its influence to the domain of theology, and the weekly, monthly,
and quarterly receptacles of religious discussion consume too much
of our attention to leave opportunity for poring over the works of
our ancestors.
* See Rev. E. Irving's late Letter in Frazer's Magazine.
ESSAY IV.
ON THE ATONEMENT.*
We are pleased with this volume on the Atonement, because
such a work on this cardinal subject was needed; and because
we are of opinion that the author has exhibited the true Calvinistic
view of the atonement, as to its necessity, nature, and extent.
This work is more comprehensive than any work on this subject
with which we are acquainted; it embraces every point which it
is proper to have discussed in a popular treatise. We consider it
also a high recommendation that it is not written in a controversial
spirit. The author attacks no one, but goes straight forward to
his object. The style is characterized by vivacity and perspicuity.
It would be difficult to find an involved or obscure sentence in the
whole book. On every point the discussion is as concise as most
readers will desire, and in our opinion is conducted with admirable
judgment and good temper. Where the reader may differ from
the sentiments of the author, he will never have occasion to cen-
sure him as deficient in Christian candour.
Mr. Symington's plan is also very judicious. He begins by an
explication of the principal terms which relate to this subject. He
then undertakes to answer the most common and popular objections
to the doctrine. This part of his work is executed with great
clearness and force. Nothing seems to be omitted which is proper
to be said, and yet these objections are answered within a very
moderate space. The necessity of an atonement comes next in
order; and this he argues logically and conclusively, from the PER-
FECTIONS OF GOD-FROM THE NATURE OF MORAL
GOVERNMENT-
FROM THE INEFFICACY OF OTHER MEANS TO OBTAIN PARDON AND
FROM THE EXPRESS TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE.
The proof of the
reality of the atonement is next exhibited. Under this head he
avails himself of the ancient sacrifices, and particularly of those
which were appointed in the Levitical law. On this interesting
subject he furnishes the reader with a condensed view of all that
is most important in the popular works of Magee and John Pye
Originally published in 1836, in review of the following work: "On the Atone-
ment and Intercession of Jesus Christ." By the Rev. William Symington.
4
50
ON THE ATONEMENT.
Smith. He then considers the atonement as exhibited in prophecy:
especially in the remarkable predictions of Isaiah and Daniel, con-
cerning the vicarious sufferings and death of the Messiah.
The author now comes to the consideration of the sufferings of
Christ, as the facts are recorded by the Evangelists; and considers
the several conceivable ends of these extraordinary sufferings, and
shows that none of these could have been the principal end, but that
of making an atonement. The principal passages of scripture
which speak of atonement, reconciliation, redemption, &c., are taken
up and considered.
The matter of the atonement is now more particularly brought
into view, where the expiatory sufferings of Christ are described.
The value of the atonement is evinced from a consideration of the
DIGNITY OF CHRIST'S PERSON-FROM HIS RELATIONSHIP TO MAN—
FROM HIS FREEDOM FROM ALL PERSONAL OBLIGATION TO THE LAW
-FROM HIS RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF HIMSELF-FROM THE VOLUNTA-
RINESS OF HIS OFFERING—AND FROM ITS BEING MADE ACCORDING
TO THE APPOINTMENT OF GOD. The vexed subject of the EXTENT
of the atonement is not omitted by our author. On this point he
takes middle ground between the schemes of those who represent
the atonement as indefinite and universal, and those who make it
so limited as to be sufficient only for the salvation of the elect. He
admits and maintains that the atonement, as to its intrinsic merit,
is infinite; while, in its application, it is limited to the elect. The
true point of dispute is not the intrinsic value of the atonement, but
the design with which it was offered: and where the parties
agree in relation to the doctrine of election, we do not see much
room for dissension in regard to the extent of the atonement.
Both parties consider it as a sufficient ground of a universal offer
of Christ to all who are willing to receive him. The author main-
tains the definite character of the atonement, and its limitation to
the elect in its design, with great force of argument, from the
DIVINE PURPOSE FROM THE RECTITUDE OF GOD FROM THE NATURE
OF THE COVENANT OF GRACE-FROM THE VERY NATURE OF THE
ATONEMENT-FROM THE RESURRECTION AND INTERCESSION OF CHRIST
-FROM THE WORK OF THE SPIRIT-FROM THE LIMITED APPLICA-
TION AND REVELATION OF THE ATONEMENT-FROM THE ABSURD
CONSEQUENCS OF THE CONTRARY SUPPOSITION AND FROM EXPRESS
TESTIMONIES OF SCRIPTURE. He then considers and answers the
objections to this opinion, derived from its being derogatory to the
honour of the Saviour-from its supposing a redundancy of merit
-from the universal offer of the gospel-from universal terms
used in scripture-and from the possibility of some perishing for
whom Christ died.
Whether on this much disputed point the arguments in favour of
a definite or general atonement preponderate, will be differently
decided by readers according to their respective prepossessions.
But for ourselves, we are of opinion that the author has placed the
subject on the old Calvinistic ground, as particular redemption is
ON THE ATONEMENT.
51
known to have been one of the doctrines in which almost all old
Calvinists were agreed, and was one of the five points disputed
between the Calvinists and Arminians, and decided in the Synod of
Dort. It may, however, be admitted, that where there is an
agreement respecting the vicarious nature of the atonement, and
in the belief of the doctrine of election, the controversy must be
rather verbal than real; for both sides hold the intrinsic sufficiency
of the atonement, and both maintain that it was the design of the
Father in giving his Son, and the design of the Son in dying, to
save only those chosen in him before the world was. Wherein
then is the difference, except in the proper mode of expressing our
views? But we can see no advantage from representing the
atonement to be universal; and when it is said to have been made
as much for one man as another, the language is certainly incon-
sistent with the other parts of the Calvinistic system, and furnishes
strong ground on which both Arminians and Universalists can
erect their batteries to subvert it.
After discussing the extent of the atonement pretty fully, Mr.
Symington devotes one section to the consideration of its results,
which he makes to be the following: IT ILLUSTRATES THE CHARAC-
TER OF GOD-VINDICATES HIS MORAL GOVERNMENT-DEMONSTRATES
THE EVIL OF SIN-SECURES FOR ITS OBJECTS PERFECT AND ETER-
NAL SALVATION--OPENS A WAY FOR THE EXERCISE OF DIVINE
MERCY, AND ENCOURAGES SINNERS TO RELY ON THE MERCY OF GOD,
AND AWAKENS GRATEFUL EMOTIONS IN THE PIOUS AFFECTS THE
DIVINE DISPENSATIONS TO OUR WORLD-and FURNISHES AN ETERNAL
THEME OF CONTEMPLATION TO THE WHOLE UNIVERSE OF MORAL
CREATURES.
This concludes what strictly belongs to the atonement, but the
author has very judiciously annexed a Second Part, containing the
fullest and ablest view of the Intercession of Christ which we have
seen. Indeed the subject of Christ's intercession cannot be sepa-
rated from his atonement; for while the latter may be represented
by the slaying of the sacrifice and laying it on the altar, the former
is strikingly typified by the presentation and sprinkling of the blood
of the sin-offering in the most Holy Place, accompanied with
clouds of precious incense. The offering of Christ's body on the
cross would have accomplished nothing, unless he had entered with
his precious merit into the highest heavens, there to plead the cause
of his people. We would particularly recommend this part of the
work to the attentive perusal of the pious; it cannot be read,
we think, without pleasure and profit by any sincere Chris-
tian. The topics which are introduced under this head are such
as these; the Intercession of Christ displays the love of God, and
proves the Divinity of Christ-shows the efficacy of his death
affords security to the people of God. The discourse is concluded
by considering the sin of dishonouring Christ's intercession, and
the duty of daily seeking an interest in it.
It is gratifying to learn that the first edition of this work was all
52
ON THE ATONEMENT.
sold in a few days, and a second edition called for before the
author had the opportunity of revising the work, or availing him-
self of the remarks of the reviewers. He promises, however, "if
a third edition be required, to supply this deficiency." The Chris-
tian Instructor of Edinburgh, which has always been ably con-
ducted, and uniformly appears on the side of orthodoxy and evan-
gelical piety, speaks of this work in the following terms: “Mr. S.
has accomplished his work in the happiest possible manner. We
have not often read a work which does more credit to its author,
or is better fitted to edify the Church of God. The divine and the
private Christian will alike find their account in giving it 2. careful
perusal, and we are mistaken if there be many of its readers who
will be satisfied with perusing it only once." The work is also
highly commended in the Presbyterian Review, published in
Edinburgh.
To account for the avidity with which this volume was bought
up in Scotland, it will be necessary to advert to the circumstance,
that the Christian public there has been considerably agitated with
the publication of new and dangerous doctrines on the subject of
the atonement. It will be recollected that Thomas Erskine, Esq.,
who had acquired considerable reputation as a theological writer,
by his work on the INTERNAL EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY, pub-
lished a little work on the ATONEMENT, in which he maintained
not only the universality of the atonement, but its universal
efficacy in bringing the whole human race into a justified state.
In connexion with this he taught that the glad tidings of the gospel
was the annunciation of this fact, and that saving faith consisted in
a full persuasion that we are already in a justified state; and that
the condemnation of any would be for refusing to believe this
merciful testimony of God. This antinomian work of Erskine was
mixed up with much that was good and pious; and the author and
his followers insisted that nothing so much promoted personal
holiness as the persuasion above mentioned; and this they declared
to be the effect of the doctrine on their own minds. Several able
answers were returned to this publication. Dr. Wardlaw, so
favourably and extensively known as a theological writer, took up
his pen to counteract the influence of this pernicious publication.
His little work has been republished in this country. Dr. Dewar,
principal of Mareschall college, Aberdeen, also published a work
on the atonement about this time. This subject was also involved
in the prosecution carried on in the ecclesiastical courts of the
Church of Scotland against Irving, M'Clean, Campbell, &c., which
resulted in their deposition from the sacred ministry. The atten-
tion of theologians in that country was therefore turned to the
subject of atonement; and as these errorists made the universality
of the atonement the foundation of their whole system, this will
show why the point has received so large a share of attention in
the treatise now under review.
In this country discussions on the atonement have taken a dif-
ON THE ATONEMENT.
53
ferent turn; for while we have too many who reject the whole
doctrine with scorn, we have also a large number who have adopt-
ed a new theory of the atonement, which they persuade them-
selves avoids the most prominent difficulties of the old doctrine.
We propose, therefore, to occupy some space in giving our own
views of the atonement in relation to the existing state of opinion
in this country. And we are induced to undertake this, not only
because the subject is of momentous importance, but because we
have never given our views at large on this subject in the pages
of the Biblical Repertory.
It is a fact worthy of notice, that in the lapse of time a remark-
able change takes place in the language of theology, without an
apparent design entertained by any to bring it about. Words
once in current use are laid aside, and new terms adopted without
any important reason for the change; and without anything being
gained or lost by the substitution. Of this a more striking example
cannot be given than in the word atonement, to express the expia-
tion made by the sufferings and death of Christ. This word was
much used by the translators of the English Bible to signify the
efficacy of the sacrifices and other rites of the Levitical service
intended to purify from sin and ceremonial defilement: but in the
New Testament, where the whole work of Christ is fully exhibited,
the word is but once read (Rom. v., 11), and seems to be there
used to avoid the too frequent use of the word reconciliation,
which would certainly have been the appropriate term by which
to render the Greek word καταλλαγή. But as these two words were
then used, it was perfectly indifferent which was employed, for
they were considered synonymous, as might be shown by a refer-
ence to the writers of that period; and as appears, indeed, from
the derivation of the word atonement, which has a purely English
original, and signifies to be AT ONE, as all the old English lexico-
graphers inform us. For those who have been at variance to be at
one, is evidently the same thing as to be reconciled. But as in the
Old Testament the Hebrew word is almost uniformly rendered
by the LXX., by the Greek word εξιλάσκομαι, ἱλάσκομαι Οι ἱλάομαι, and
the noun by auós, which words are in English constantly trans-
lated, to make atonement, to atone, atonement, this analogy should
have been followed in the New Testament; and then we should
have had the word atonement in our version, not where the word
is used (Rom. v., 11), but in 1 John ii., 2, where we have xaì àvròs
ἱλασμός ἐστι περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν; and he is the atonement for our sins.
And in 1 John iv., 10, where we read, kaì àñégreide Tòv diòv avtov idacµův
Tepi rŵv àµapríŵv ¡¡µ; and he sent his son an atonement for our sins.
We find the Greek verb which signifies to make atonement, in the
New Testament, Heb. ii., 17, εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ; το
make atonement for the sins of the people. The version of this text
furnishes another proof that atonement and reconciliation were
considered synonymes by our translators; for as in the former pas-
sage they used atonement instead of reconciliation, here, they use
54
ON THE ATONEMENT.
reconciliation where atonement was the proper word. The word
¡Macríptov is also twice read in the New Testament, and in one of
these (Rom. iii., 25) should be translated atonement, v ρоébeто & Oεds
¡Maorńpiov, whom God hath set forth to be an atonement. In the other
passage (Heb. ix., 5) this word retains the sense in which it is uni-
formly used by the LXX., for the mercy-seat or cover of the ark
of the covenant, and would be well rendered by the word propiti-
atory, or place of atonement.
As the phrase to make atonement, as the translation of the He-
brew and Greek words before mentioned, occurs nearly eighty
times in the Old Testament, it may aid our investigation to endea-
vour to ascertain its precise meaning; and there is no passage
which furnishes us with a better opportunity of accomplishing this
object, than the account of the transactions of the day of atonement
which is recorded in the 16th of Leviticus. It has frequently been
asserted that the literal radical sense of the Hebrew verb is to cover;
but as the word is seldom used in a literal sense, probably but once,
where Noah is commanded to pitch the ark without and within
with pitch, we think there is but slight ground for this opinion. In
the figurative use of the word, though often thus employed, there
is no clear allusion to this idea of covering. If we might infer the
literal from the uniform figurative use, we should say, that the
radical meaning was to cleanse or to purify. It appears from the
passage referred to, and from other texts, that an atonement,
though usually made with blood, consisted sometimes of other
things. Thus in Exodus xxx., 15, the half shekel paid by every
Israelite, is called an offering unto the Lord to make atonement for
your souls. And in Lev. xvi., 10, the scape-goat is called an atone-
ment. But the goat on which the lot fell to be the scape-goat shall
be presented alive before the Lord to make an atonement with him,
and to let him go for a scape-goat into the wilderness. But com-
monly atonements were made with bloody sacrifices; so on the
day when the scape-goat was made an atonement by symbolically
carrying off the sins of the people which had been confessed over
his head, another goat and a bullock were sacrificed as sin-offerings,
the one for the whole congregation, the other for the priest and his
family. "And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin-offering
which is for himself and his house, and shall make atonement for
himself and for his house. Then shall he kill the goat of the sin-of-
fering that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and
do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprin-
kle it upon the mercy-seat, and before the mercy-seat, and he shall
make an ATONEMENT for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness
of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all
their sins. And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congre-
gation, when he goeth in To MAKE ATONEMENT in the Holy Place,
until he come out and have MADE AN ATONEMENT for himself and
his household, and for all the congregation of Israel. And he
shall go in before the altar of the Lord, and make an atonement
ON THE ATONEMENT.
55
for it (or on it) and shall take of the blood of the bullock and of
the blood of the goat, and put it on the horns of the altar round
about. And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger
seven times, and cleanse it and hallow it from the uncleanness of
the children of Israel." Here we have as distinct a view as could
be desired of the nature of atonement under the Mosaic dispensa-
tion; and as these solemn transactions on the day of atonement
are in a very eminent degree typical of the great sacrifice of
Christ, the atonements of this day will aid us in understanding the
true nature of the Christian atonement. That the solemn rites of
this day were typical of Christ, we are not only informed, but the
apostle expounds at large these significant ceremonies. In the 9th
chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews, Paul applies the type to the
antitype. "The priests went always into the first tabernacle ac-
complishing the service of God. But into the second went the
high priest alone, every year, not without blood which he offered
for himself and for the errors of the people. The Holy Ghost this
signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made
manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing, which was
a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts
and sacrifices which could not make him that did the service per-
fect as pertaining to the conscience. Which stood in meats and
drinks and divers washings, and carnal ordinances imposed on them
until the time of the reformation. But Christ being come a high
priest of good things, by a more perfect tabernacle not made with
hands, that is to say, not of this building. Neither by the blood
of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into
the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if
the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling
the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much
more shall the blood of Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit
offered himself without spot to God, purge your souls from dead
works to serve the living God."
From this inspired exposition of the sacrifices and ceremonies of
the day of atonement, we learn several things, as-
1. That the offerings and transactions of that solemn day were
indeed typical of Christ and his atoning sacrifice for the sins of
his people. They are called a figure for the time then present.
2. That the sacrifices so solemnly offered under the law had in
themselves no efficacy to take away the guilt of sin. These gifts
and offerings could not make him that did the service perfect as per-
taining to the conscience. The sprinkling of this blood of bulls and
calves could only sanctify to the purifying of the flesh; but had no
power to purge the conscience from dead works. For it is not
possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin.
3. That these ceremonies, called here carnal ordinances, were
not intended to be perpetual but temporary, imposed until the time
of reformation; that is, until the introduction of the gospel dispen-
sation.
56
ON THE ATONEMENT.
4. That the tabernacle, erected by Moses according to the pattern
showed him in the holy mount, is a type or figure of that heaven
into which Christ had entered.
5. That the entrance of the high priest once in the year into the
HOLY OF HOLIES, with the blood of atonement, was a lively prefigu-
ration of the entrance of Christ into heaven with his own blood,
to obtain eternal redemption for us.
6. That Christ's blood and offering of himself through the
ETERNAL SPIRIT is a real and efficacious atonement, by which the
conscience is purged from dead works; that is from sin. And by
this one offering, he perfects for ever those who are sanctified. He
who appeared in the end of the world has put away sin by the
sacrifice of himself.
He
In this part of holy scripture we have a clear exhibition of the
Christian atonement. It is a sin-offering, or a sacrifice for sin. It
is a vicarious sacrifice; for as the sins of the people were laid both
upon the scape-goat who bore them away, and upon the goat which
was sacrificed and his blood carried within the veil, and sprinkled
on the mercy-seat; so Christ bore our sins in his own body.
was wounded for our transgressions, and was made sin for us. The
atonement of Christ was an offering made through the Eternal
Spirit without spot unto God to render him propitious; to purge
the conscience, and to obtain eternal redemption for us. This
offering and sacrifice was made by Jesus Christ in the character of
HIGH PRIEST. But he infinitely excelled those high priests who
ministered in the tabernacle below. These were obliged to offer
their atoning sacrifices year by year, because they could not really
put away sin, but significantly pointed to the one true and effica-
cious atonement. They were not permitted to continue by reason
of death. But Jesus Christ because he continueth for ever hath
an unchangeable priesthood, wherefore he is able to save to the
uttermost all that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to
make intercession for them." It seems to have been on this ac-
count that he was declared to be a priest for ever after the order
of Melchisedec, because the sacred scriptures make no mention of
his death, or that there were any others in the succession either
before or after him. But again, "other priests were encompassed
with infirmity, and had to offer first for their own sins and then for
those of the people; but Jesus Christ is holy, harmless, undefiled,
and separate from sinners." He had, therefore, no need to offer
any sacrifice for himself, but only to make the one offering which
has, in itself, merit enough to make atonement for the sins of the
whole world. It is also mentioned, as a remarkable point of dis-
tinction, that Christ was made HIGH PRIEST by a solemn oath. He
is also styled the SURETY of a better covenant, and the MEDIATOR of
the New Testament. And the end of all his sacerdotal acts and
offerings was that by his death, they who are called may receive the
promise of eternal inheritance.
The legal sacrifices had in themselves no intrinsic value; and
ON THE ATONEMENT.
57
when the people made a merit and a righteousness of them, so far
from being pleasing to a holy God, they were exceedingly offen-
sive.
When Christ came, therefore, he said, "Sacrifice and offer-
ing thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me;" intimating
that these typical rites were now to be abolished to make way for
the only efficacious offering which was his own pure and sacred
body which had been miraculously prepared for him in the womb
of the virgin. The substance being come, the shadows were now
ready to vanish away. "He taketh away the first that he may
establish the second." And the Son being come as a priest, and
furnished with a spotless sacrifice, cries, "Lo, I come to do thy
will, O God. By the which will we are sanctified through the
offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all." As was before
said, this priest had no need to offer more than once, once for all.
"Other priests stood daily ministering, and offering oftentimes the
same sacrifices which can never take away sin, but Jesus Christ,
after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down at the
right hand of God."
No doctrine of the Bible is more clearly and fully expounded
than that of atonement, by the apostle Paul in this epistle to the
Hebrews. And having now exhibited the leading points in his ex-
position, nothing more would be necessary, were it not for the
pride and perverseness of men, who refuse to receive the simple
truth of God's word, and turn themselves every way to evade the
force of the divine testimony. It is truly wonderful, after what we
have seen, that any should deny that the doctrine of a vicarious
atonement is taught in the sacred scriptures. We may ask such
persons to tell us what more could have been said, had the apostle
intended to inculcate this doctrine? But let us consider some of
the arguments by which they attempt to defend their cause. And,
in the first place, they object to the doctrine as unreasonable, and
derogatory to the character of God. They allege that there can
exist no necessity for such a costly sacrifice; that if the creatures
of God sin against him, he is a merciful sovereign who can forgive
them without requiring any atonement; and they assert that
reason teaches us that if they repent and reform, God will receive
them into favour, and remit all the punishment which was threat-
ened.
Such reasonings might appear plausible enough, if man were a
competent judge of what plans it becomes the Ruler of the universe
to adopt in the government of the world; or if human reason
could decide what terms of reconciliation a holy God ought to
adopt for his rebellious creatures. It is a sufficient answer to all
such objections, that the same mode of reasoning, applied to the
state of things as they actually exist in the physical and moral
world, would lead us directly to atheism. We should not find it
difficult to frame plausible objections to the structure of the uni-
verse, to the constitution of man, to the providence of God, and to
every principle of moral government. Why should a God of in-
58
ON THE ATONEMENT.
finite benevolence bind his creatures by a law; and especially, why
should he annex to it a penalty so tremendous as death? The
acts of creatures cannot affect the infinite, Almighty Ruler of the
universe.
The doctrines of divine revelation can never be brought with
propriety to the bar of human reason: they are as far above rea-
son as the heaven is above the earth. When a revelation is suffi-
ciently attested, it is reasonable to receive every thing which it con-
tains, however repugnant to our preconceived opinions. To act
on any other principle is the height of arrogance and impiety.
Why do we want a revelation but to teach us what reason does
not know? But it is pretended that this doctrine of atonement is
not taught in the scriptures. Then, as we said before, it cannot be
taught in words. If this is not a doctrine of scripture nothing is
taught in scripture. It would be almost as reasonable to assert
that there are neither words nor letters in the Bible. As we have
exhibited sufficient scriptural evidence of the doctrine, we might
decline any further discussion of the subject. But lest these pre-
tended Rationalists boast that reason is altogether on this side, we
will descend into the arena, and contend with them on their own
ground, and with their own weapons. The question which we
propose first to discuss is, whether a holy God can consistently for-
give sin without any satisfaction or atonement. It is agreed that
God exercises a moral government over the world, and has given
to man a just and good law, which all men have transgressed.
That sin exists is not disputed, and it is not to be denied that all
sin deserves to be punished, for otherwise it would not be sin-it
would have no demerit. And if it did not deserve to be punished,
it would not need forgiveness, for forgiveness is the remission of
deserved punishment. If, then, sin deserves to be punished, it can-
not be an evil thing, or inconsistent with the divine attributes, to
inflict deserved punishment. To assert this would be to say that
it was wrong for the Ruler of the universe to do right-unjust to
act justly, by giving to every one his due. But this is held by no
one. Even Socinians admit, that it is right for God to punish sin,
and if right to punish in one instance, it must be right to punish sin
in every instance, according to its demerit. Indeed, as the punish-
ment of sin is the act of God as a righteous Governor or just
Judge, we do not see how he can do otherwise than impartially
punish all sin according to its demerit. How can the Judge of all
the earth, who must do right, punish one sinner, and permit another
equally guilty to go unpunished. Certainly reason can never teach
us that he will do so. Reason cannot teach opposite things, and
we have seen that it is the dictate of reason that sin should be
punished according to its demerit; the same reason never can teach
that in some instances it should not be punished at all. Whatever
argument will prove that sin ought not to be punished in one
instance, may be applied to any other case; and would go to
prove that no sin could be punished in the divine government.
ON THE ATONEMENT.
59
In
But we know that some sins have been and are punished; reason,
therefore, cannot assure us, or even render it probable, that in a
perfectly righteous, moral government, any sin will escape deserved
punishment. We know that it is alleged that in those cases, in
which the punishment of sin is remitted, there is a special reason for
this dispensation-namely, the repentance and reformation of the
sinner. Unitarians themselves maintain, that if no repentance in-
tervene to turn aside the stroke of justice, transgressors must bear
their iniquity. It follows, therefore, upon their own principles,
that if none should ever repent, there could be no remission. And
it would not be very difficult to show that sinners left to them-
selves will never repent. But we shall now proceed upon the sup-
position that a sinner can repent and reform his life at any time.
We ask how can it be ascertained that sin will be pardoned upon
repentance without any atonement? It cannot be learned from
experience, for the natural consequences of intemperance, debauch-
ery, fraud, &c., are not removed by repentance; and yet these
consequences of sin are a part of God's moral administration.
civil governments the criminal who has been convicted of murder,
treason, perjury, or any other crime, is never released and the
punishment remitted as a matter of course, because he repents.
However sincerely penitent, he pays the penalty of the law, and a
contrary course would be subversive of all law and government.
Suppose that God should create two moral agents of similar pow-
ers, and place them under the same law, and in the same circum-
stances; and suppose that one of them should continue perfectly to
obey his maker, and that the other should wickedly rebel against
his sovereign; can any man persuade himself that he could treat
these creatures exactly in the same manner? God cannot look
upon sin but with disapprobation proportioned to its malignity;
and he cannot but be pleased with obedience. Unless, therefore,
he should act contrary to his own views and feelings, he cannot
but make a difference between the man who loves and serves him
with all his heart, and him who ungratefully cherishes enmity
against his Maker. This case is so plain that no man who has
any perception of moral fitness can doubt respecting it. The So-
cinian, as well as others, feels the necessity of such a course in a
moral Governor; and he does not plead for pardon to such as con-
tinue obstinate in their rebellion. He only maintains that God
may remit the penalty of his law to him who repents and reforms.
Let us suppose then that these two creatures had a probation of a
hundred years; and that while the first fulfilled his duty to the
end of his course, the other, having rebelled soon after his creation,
persists obstinately in iniquity until near the close of the last year
of the period of probation, and that he then repents and returns
to his duty; how ought an infinitely righteous, moral Governor
to treat these persons? Would it be right merely on the ground
of repentance to admit this penitent to as rich a reward as if he
60
ON THE ATONEMENT.
had never offended? And what effect would this have on other
free agents when put on their probation?
If any should still be of opinion, that upon repentance, the
Governor of the world may and ought to treat the returning sinner
just as if he had never offended, and that this is the dictate of sound
reason; it must always be known to creatures put on probation
under a moral law. The consequence will be, that God gives an
option to every creature whether he will obey perfectly and con-
stantly, or sin and rebel the greater part of the time, and at last re-
pent, for the results will be precisely the same in each case. Such
a provision annexed to the divine law would completely annul it.
It would in fact be an invitation to creatures to rebel, as they would
be assured that they have it in their power to prevent all punish-
ment, and to secure the same reward as if they never transgressed.
If it should be said that their punishment might be remitted, and
yet they not put on an equality with those who never disobeyed,
we answer that this concedes the principle for which we contend,
as in this case a part of the punishment would be inflicted; for
whatever a man loses in consequence of sin, or whatever mark of
disapprobation is set on him by God, makes a part of the punish-
ment of his sin. How is it then an amiable virtue in men, it will
be asked, to forgive those who offend them, so that such forgive-
ness is made a condition of asking for forgiveness? To answer
this objection fully would require more space than we can afford
in this review. We will therefore merely indicate the principle on
which a reply may be made. Creatures have nothing to do in the
punishment of sin as a moral evil; God is the only administrator of
his own law. Vengeance belongeth unto him, he will repay. No
creature, therefore, can be compared with God in relation to this
matter. Again, when men receive injury or offence from their
fellow creatures, it is reasonable that they should not undertake to
avenge themselves, because this is going beyond their proper
sphere, and encroaching on the prerogative of God, who takes cog-
nisance of all offences, and knows their exact demerit. Besides,
as we are all offenders against God, and can be saved from wrath
only by his mercy, it is reasonable that we should not be rigid in
executing punishment on those who trespass against us.
But it may be objected that, according to this view of the divine
character and government, he has the attribute of justice but not
of mercy; whereas all men who entertain correct opinions of the
divine attributes believe that mercy is the most amiable perfection.
of his character. To which we reply, that it is even so, that reason
knows nothing of the attribute of mercy. Reason clearly indicates
that God is good to the obedient, but it cannot inform us that he
will remit the punishment of any sin. Indeed it is by reason that
we conclude that God will render to every man according to his
deeds, and it never can teach, therefore, that in some instances
he will not render to every one his due. The idea of divine mercy
so prevalent among men is derived from revelation, and is intimate-
ON THE ATONEMENT.
61
Jy connected with the atonement. The very design of the atone-
ment is to enable the righteous Governor of the universe to exer-
cise mercy, not at the expense of justice, which is impossible, but
by a complete satisfaction to justice," that God might be just and
the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus." It is a radical mistake
in theology to think that mercy is exercised irrespectively of the
demands of justice. God cannot divest himself of his justice any
more than of his being; and if his retributive justice have claims on
any one on account of sin, these claims can never be set aside.
Erroneous ideas on this point have been the source of many errors;
the ramifications from this root are very extensive, but we cannot
trace them now through all their windings.
It may be again objected, that on these principles mercy is not
an essential attribute of God. If by essential be meant that which
belongs to his nature, mercy is essential; all divine attributes are
essential. But we admit that there was no necessity for the exer-
cise of mercy. To suppose that there was, is to destroy its very
nature. Mercy must depend on mere will. It is grace,
but grace
might be withheld, or it ceases to be grace, and becomes justice.
As God showed no mercy to apostate angels, he might have pro-
ceeded on the same principles of rectitude towards fallen men.
The very idea of mercy is derived from the doctrine of atonement,
and yet an argument is derived from mercy to overthrow the
atonement. Take away the atonement, and mercy and grace are
blotted out with it.
We have hitherto been arguing the necessity of atonement from
the holiness and justice of God; the truth and faithfulness of God
furnish an argument corroborative of the same thing.
When the Ruler of the universe promulgates a law, it is not only
a rule to guide the obedience of the creature, but a solemn decla-
ration of the principles on which he means to administer his go-
vernment. And when he annexes a certain penalty to his law, his
veracity is pledged to execute it; for a penalty is nothing else than a
public intimation to the creature what the consequence of transgres-
sion will be. Some theologians, however, to answer a particular
purpose, have maintained, that although God is bound by his faithful-
ness to fulfil his promises, he is not in the same manner obliged to
execute his threatenings. And they assign this reason of the differ-
ence, that as the interests of creatures are involved in the fulfilment
of a promise, this gives them a kind of right which cannot be
violated, whereas no one is injured by an omission to execute
threatenings; but the contrary. The doctrine is, that God may
act contrary to his own public and solemn declaration, provided
no one is injured by his doing so. But if the penalty of the law
was annexed to prevent evil to the public, from its neglect will not
the public interest suffer? And if it does not, will such a course be
for the honour of God? Shall we attribute to the God of truth a
disregard to his word, which all must acknowledge would be a
great moral defect in man? Certainly this ought not to be receiv-
62
ON THE ATONEMENT.
ed as a settled principle in the divine administration without the
most manifest proof. We believe, that at the first hearing of such
The
a proposition every unsophisticated mind would revolt.
great and glorious God has claimed for himself truth and faithful-
ness as attributes essential to his character; and he has manifested
his detestation of all falsehood in creatures by the strongest expres-
sions. We ought therefore to be cautious of ascribing to him what
would have the most distant tendency to derogate from his vera-
city. "Hath he spoken, and will he not do it?" It ought to be
considered also, that this principle would go far to render all divine
threatenings nugatory. The certainty of punishment is found to
have more effect than its severity. But this doctrine renders it
altogether uncertain, when a penalty is denounced, whether it will
ever be executed. It spreads uncertainty over the future punish-
ment of the guilty. Who knows but that the Judge of all the earth
will at the day of judgment remit the penalty incurred by all sin-
ners, men and angels? This principle is eminently calculated to
subserve the cause of the Universalists, but we do not know that
they have had the boldness to avail themselves of it. And it does
away at once all necessity of atonement; for if the penalty of the
law may
be remitted, and is often remitted, there can be no abso-
lute need that any one, much less a divine person, should suffer a
cruel and ignominious death, to open a way for pardon.
As one consequence of this doctrine, referred to above, is, that
God may, for aught we know, omit to inflict the penalty now
threatened upon any transgressor, and as this is a very grave
objection, we have understood that the advocates of the tenet en-
deavour to evade it by making a distinction between a threatening
and a prediction, that while the former may be changed for good
reason, the latter must be verified, for the prophecies must be ful-
filled. To us there appears no difference, except that threatenings
are not absolute, but conditional. In a prophecy an event is
usually foretold as certain; in a threatening it is made to depend
on the disobedience of the creature. A penalty is only incurred
where there is transgression; but on the supposition that the law
is broken, it is a prediction of what will be done with the sinner.
If it is not, it has no force, and cannot be even a terror to evil
doers. Besides, the reason assigned why God may omit to exe-
cute a threatening when incurred, will equally apply to a predic-
tion. If the thing predicted be an evil, no one will be injured by
omitting to bring it about.
The cases from Scripture which have been adduced to support
this hypothesis, will not sustain it. The threatenings against Nine-
veh were obviously conditional. Within forty days this great
city would have been destroyed, had not the inhabitants repented.
That it should be thus understood is evident from commissioning
a prophet to go and preach to them. If the prediction had been.
absolute, there would have been no object to be answered by
preaching. And thus the king of Nineveh and his people under-
ON THE ATONEMENT.
63
stood it for in the hope of averting the heavy judgment which
impended, they humbled themselves with fasting and sackcloth, and
God was pleased to spare the city. In all this there is nothing to
favour the opinion that God will not certainly execute his threat-
enings. If the Ninevites had not repented, and God had omitted
to destroy the city, then the case would have been in point. But
as it is, it furnishes no example of God's failing to execute his
threatenings.
But another case of much greater importance, and to suit which
it is probable the doctrine in question was invented, is that of
Adam in Paradise. It is alleged and confidently asserted, that the
penalty was not executed on him in conformity to the threatening,
"In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Adam ate
the forbidden fruit, but did not die on that very day, nor for cen-
turies afterwards. If God could not consistently with his truth
deviate from a threatened penalty, Adam must have died on that
very day, as is evident. If it be so that God said one thing and
did another, it is a serious case, not as it relates to this or that
theory of Christianity, but to divine revelation. We do not know
any objection which a deist could more plausibly and forcibly urge
against the Bible; for it would be difficult to persuade a sensible
deist that there was nothing derogatory to the truth of God in
failing to do what he solemnly declared should be done. But may
not the abettors of this opinion be mistaken when they assert that
the threatening was in no sense executed on the very day on which
Adam sinned? The word death has other significations besides
the extinction of animal life. Our first parents were equally stran-
gers to every species of death. As death is the opposite of life,
they would expect the loss of life; but the noblest and most pre-
cious life which they enjoyed consisted in the image of God, and
in communion with him. The mere separation of the soul and
body is a trifle compared with a separation from God as the source
of life. Undoubtedly by death in the threatening we should un-
derstand all penal evils of every kind and degree; for no punish-
ment is ever inflicted on creatures which is not a part of the
penalty of the law. Every bodily pain and mental pang help to
make up this death. And as temporal death comes on gradually,
man may be said to be dying from the moment when he became
mortal. He was now also dead in law; the eternal life which
God promised as the reward of obedience was forfeited, and the
law, instead of a blessing, denounced death. The whole of that
threatened death could not be endured in one day; it extends
through eternity. It is sufficient to save the divine veracity if the
commencement of death was experienced on that day. The exe-
cution of the penalty is supposed to have been suspended by the
interposition of a scheme of mercy. This might have modified
the circumstances of our first parents, and no doubt did, but could
not prevent the execution of the sentence threatened. The Sa-
viour finds those whom he came to save, lost, dead in trespasses
64
ON THE ATONEMENT.
and sin, children of wrath, under the curse. From this he under-
takes to redeem them, by dying for them. The sentence of the
law was therefore executed upon our first parents on the very day
of their sinning, and virtually on all their posterity, for we are all
born under the sentence of that death which fell on them. We are
therefore under no necessity of having recourse to this opinion so
derogatory to the divine attributes, in order to explain the facts in
the case of Adam.
Let us next proceed to inquire, since the penalty of the law can-
not be set aside, whether the punishment of sin can be transferred
from the actual transgressor to a surety or substitute. This is a
vital question in Christian theology. The whole gospel system of
salvation turns upon this point: all our hopes and dearest interests
are suspended on it.
This doctrine of substitution and satisfaction by the obedience
and sufferings of another is one of pure revelation. Reason never
could have discovered that such a relaxation of the law as admits
one to die in the place of another was possible consistently with
the moral government of God. Indeed, if the principle of substi-
tution could have been reasoned out by some mighty intellect, it
would have answered no purpose, as certainly no created wisdom
could have found a person so qualified as to accomplish the work.
We need not be surprised, therefore, that the pride of human rea-
son is offended with this doctrine, and sets itself in opposition to
the plan of infinite wisdom-a plan which may be called the great
mystery of the Gospel, which was hidden from eternity in the deep
counsels of God, until after the fall of man it began to be deve-
loped, and still by the incarnation and death of the Son of God for
us sinners, the divine economy was revealed in a blaze of light. As
the whole Bible is a revelation of this method of salvation by the
merit of another, who has been pleased to stand in our place and
make atonement for us, to produce all the proofs of the doctrine
would be to expound the whole Bible. That the punishment due
to the guilty can consistently with justice be inflicted on an inno-
cent substitute capable of enduring it, and who voluntarily takes
the place of the transgressor, is the grand characteristic of the gos-
pel system. It is a device of infinite wisdom to open a way for
divine mercy, while justice receives a perfect satisfaction. Such
a principle could scarcely find a place among men. It would not
be proper to permit a virtuous citizen to sacrifice himself for the
guilty, for by this course the public would receive a double detri-
ment; first from the loss of a good citizen, and secondly from hav-
ing the guilty person retained in the bosom of society. If a case
could be found in which no evil of any kind could arise from such
a substitution, all objections would cease. The case of Zaleucus,
king of the Locrians, has often been mentioned with great applause.
The story is related by Diodorus Siculus and Ælian; and by Plu-
tarch and Valerius Maximus is considered a most remarkable dis-
play of justice. This king having made a law that whoever should
ON THE ATONEMENT.
65
be convicted of the crime of adultery should have both his eyes
put out; when his own son was found guilty, the whole state be-
sought him to remit the threatened punishment. This he refused.
But that the law might substantially have its demand, and justice
be done, and a salutary example given, he consented to participate
in the punishment himself, and while one of his son's eyes was put
out, he substituted one of his own for the other. This case, so
much celebrated by the ancients, Socinus speaks of contemptu-
ously, and says that this prince ought to be classed with those rulers
who deserve to be denominated weak and rash. While the rigour
of the law and the inflexibility of justice were maintained, still the
case is liable to some strong objections. But none of these apply
to the substitution of Christ. For while the law is maintained and
honoured, no injury is sustained by the public, nor eventually by
the substitute. The sinner is not only pardoned but purified, and
made a good citizen. The divine Mediator, though he dies, livest
again, and receives an ample compensation for his humiliation and
sufferings. Here, then, is a transaction which gloriously displays
the divine justice and mercy; which maintains the honour of the
divine law, and at the same time rescues a great multitude of lost
souls from eternal misery. Why should we complain of injustice
when no one is injured? The case stands thus: the justice of God
leads him necessarily to punish sin, the law denounces a penalty
according to justice, the sinner is found guilty and deserves to suf-
fer. But God feels love and compassion towards him, and enters into
covenant with his own Son to redeem a great multitude of fallen
men. The plan is, that the son become incarnate, place himself
under the law, bear its curse by dying for us, and thus render a
complete satisfaction to divine justice. By such an atonement a
way is opened for the exercise of mercy to the guilty; and provi-
sion is made for their regeneration and sanctification.
But the objection to an innocent person's suffering for the guilty
is as strong against the Socinian scheme as against the orthodox;
for they admit that Christ, an innocent person, did suffer for the
benefit of men. It matters not whether you call it punishment or
not. It is suffering inflicted on the innocent. Its being considered
the punishment of our sins cannot add to the injustice of the tran-
saction. If an innocent person may consistently with justice suffer
for our benefit, he may endure the same sufferings as the penalty
due to sin. That guilt or liableness to a penalty may be transferred
from the actual transgressor to others connected with him, may be
shown from the case of Canaan and Ham, of David and the peo-
ple of Israel, seventy thousand of whom died for his sin; of Jero-
boam and his descendants; of Achan and his children. But we
will confine our attention to the remarkable case of Saul and the
Gibeonites, where we have, with the approbation of God, seven of
the descendants of Saul executed on account of a sin committed
by him. When David inquired of the Lord respecting the cause
of a three years' famine, by which Israel was afflicted, he received
5
00
ON THE ATONEMENT.
for answer, that it was for Saul and his bloody house, because he
slew the Gibeonites. "Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites,
what shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make THE ATONE-
MENT, that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord ?" And they
said:
"Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we
will hang them up unto the LORD in Gibeah of Saul.” “And he
delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged
them in the hill before the Lord." Now there is no evidence that
these men died for their own sin; the judgments of God had fallen
upon all Israel on account of Saul's breach of covenant and cruelty.
But even supposing that some of them had participated in his
crime; these seven were not the whole of his descendants, and
yet they suffered for the whole house. Here an atonement was
made to the Gibeonites by the death of seven men. These men
bore the punishment of the sin of their ancestor, and the offended
party was satisfied, and the divine judgments were withdrawn.
Here, then, is a clear case of guilt being transferred from the father
to his offspring, and of an atonement being made which reconciled
the offended party, and turned away the wrath of God from the
people. And this was in exact accordance with what is said in
the second commandment, "visiting the iniquities of the fathers
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that
hate me."
As then sin cannot go unpunished, as law and justice require the
execution of the deserved penalty, there can be no salvation for
any sinner, unless vicarious sufferings are admitted. There was
no obligation on the Ruler of the universe to relax the strict de-
mands of the law upon the individual transgressor; he might have.
held him to endure the penalty in his own person. But when a
divine SUBSTITUTE appears, and offers his body to be wounded and
bruised for our iniquities, and his soul to be poured out unto death
to make an atonement for our sins-when THE LAMB OF GOD pre-
sents himself to the stroke of divine justice, and offers to bear our
iniquities in his own body on the tree to die the just for the unjust
-to give his life a ransom for our redemption, and God is well
pleased with his sacrifice, and accepts it as sweet smelling savour,
a full satisfaction and complete atonement-who has any right to
object to the gracious transaction? Surely there is no injury sus-
tained, and consequently there is no injustice.
But on this subject we have to contend not only with those who
deny the atonement altogether, but with brethren who have in-
vented a new scheme of atonement, which if it does not subvert
the doctrine, greatly obscures and endangers it. As this the-
ory is much more current in this country than in Great Britain, Mr.
Symington has not particularly considered it; although, indeed,
the principles which he has established do virtually overthrow it.
But as this new theory is in our opinion exceedingly dangerous,
and is defended and zealously propagated by many among our-
selves, we shall be pardoned for spending some time in examining
ON THE ATONEMENT.
67
its principles. And we here make the avowal that we charge the
opinions which we endeavour to refute only on those who acknow-
ledge them. Some have thought that between the old and new
theology respecting the nature of the atonement there was a mere
verbal difference, and that the controversy was a logomachy of no
manner of use. It is not so, as we shall sufficiently make appear
before we conclude. It is a difference so great and radical, that
we candidly believe that the new theory of atonement approaches
much nearer to the Socinian than to the old Calvinistic view of the
nature and end of Christ's death. We do not say this invidiously to
prejudice the reader, but simply with the view of calling his serious
attention to the subject. We know there are many who have acquired
a sickly sensibility in regard to all controversies between those who
belong to the same communion; but whatever such may say or
think, we must, as far as we are able, defend the truth of God, and
give faithful warning of such errors as appear to us to be danger-
ous in their consequences; or we should be traitors to our divine
Master. And as to the disturbance and contention which arise
from the discussion of theological subjects, they should be attributed
to those who bring in new opinions. If all who are ministers in
our church did sincerely receive the doctrines laid down in our
standards, in the obvious sense in which they have from the be-
ginning been understood, there would be no contention, except
with those without. But certainly it is important that all new
opinions on a subject so vital as the atonement, should be thoroughly
canvassed before they are received. It is scarcely credible that
all theologians, until very lately, should have mistaken the true
nature of the atonement.
Until very recently, as far as we know, all who believed that
Christ made an atonement by his death, were agreed that he en-
dured substantially the penalty of the law which we had broken;
and that his sufferings and death were a complete satisfaction to
the retributive or vindicatory justice of God; so that the word
satisfaction was in universal use to express what is now signified
by the word atonement. But of late a new theory has been in-
vented, and is believed by many to be a real improvement in
theology. They ask, why should not the science of theology be pro-
gressive as well as other sciences? According to the new theory,
Christ our Mediator neither suffered the penalty of the law nor
made any satisfaction to distributive justice. His death was de-
signed to be merely an exhibition of God's displeasure at sin, and
to convince the universe that he would not suffer it to go un-
punished. When we first noticed this opinion, we were inclined
to hope that the objection was not to the substance of the old
doctrine of atonement, but to some supposed inaccuracy of the
language commonly employed to represent it. We were disposed
in charity to put this construction upon their doctrine, because they
were accustomed to say, that Christ did not literally bear the
penalty of the law, which they alleged to be an impossible thing.
68
ON THE ATONEMENT.
because that penalty included remorse and despair, and required
the sinner to suffer eternal death. That Christ thus suffered the
penalty of the law, not one of the orthodox ever held. If, there-
fore, it was only meant to deny this, there was no difference of
opinion but what was verbal. And when they denied that Christ
offered a satisfaction to retributive justice, they were careful to add,
that his death was a satisfaction to general justice; because, ac-
cording to their account of distributive justice, none could satisfy
it but the sinner who had broken the law. We were also for a
while misled by their still using the terms vicarious, substitution, &c.
But since we have become better acquainted with the new divinity
we are convinced that these technical phrases are used by its ad-
vocates in an entirely different sense from what they bear in the
theology of the old school. By vicarious, they do not mean
obedience or suffering in our stead as strictly answering the de-
mands of a violated law, but something done or suffered which is
intended to answer the same end as the fulfilment of the law. And
substitution is that which is admitted in the place of the execution
of the penalty of the law. Whether this use of these theological
phrases is consistent with perfect candour, we shall not stop
to inquire. It is sufficient for our purpose that we know in
what sense they are now employed by the teachers of the new
doctrine.
We do not apprehend that we shall be charged with misrepre-
senting the new theory of the atonement by any who are familiarly
acquainted with it. We have charged upon the system nothing
but what its abettors avow and strenuously plead for. But for the
sake of others we will exhibit some of its leading features in the
very words of popular writers, who have appeared in print as its
defenders. It is no part of our business to reconcile these theolo-
gians with one another, or even with themselves; nor do we at-
tribute every sentiment of each to all who belong to that school.
Let every man in this case bear his own burden, and be only
answerable for his own words. A late English writer* says:
“The execution of the penalty, on the principles of distributive
justice, is inconsistent with the present administration of moral
government, as it is a state of probation and trial. The exercise
of what is called vindictive justice in the administration of the law
ill accords with the present connexion between God and man.”
Again, "The providential government which God exercises over
the world shows that threatenings can be honourably suspended,
when the ends of good government can be secured by it." And,
as a proof that the penalty of the law of God may be set aside, he
alleges the fact that the penalty threatened to our first parents was
not inflicted:"for," says the writer, "had it been literally ex-
ecuted there would have been no human race now existing. The
penalty was, in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."'
*Jenkyn on the Atonement.
ON THE ATONEMENT.
69
Adam did eat of the forbidden fruit and was spared. He did not
die. The penalty was suspended and his punishment was re-
mitted." It would be difficult to crowd a greater number of errors
into the same space than are contained in the preceding citations.
If God no longer governs the world on the principles of distribu-
tive justice, what sort of moral government do we live under ?
If vindicatory justice is entirely excluded from the administration
of the law, how can God judge and punish the wicked? If God
can at pleasure suspend his most positive and solemn threatenings,
and that without limit, what truth was there in uttering these
threatenings? If the penalty of the law was in no sense executed
on Adam after he fell, then he suffered no injury by the fall, and
we his posterity suffer no inconvenience from our connexion with
him. If Adam would have been annihilated, had the penalty been
inflicted, then eternal misery was not the penalty of the original
law, and that so many are exposed to this dreadful punishment is
entirely owing to the interposition of a Saviour. If men were not
liable under the law to the sentence of eternal death, then Christ
has not redeemed any from that curse. Upon these principles is
it clear that the world has been essentially benefited by the coming
of a Saviour?
A popular writer of our own country* has explicitly informed
us what they mean by satisfying the demands of public justice.
"In this acceptation," says he, "it has no direct reference to law,
but embraces those principles of virtue or benevolence by which
we are bound to govern our conduct, and by which God governs
the universe." "This atonement was required that God might be
just or righteous; that he might do the thing which was fit and
proper, and best and most expedient to be done, and at the same
time be at perfect liberty to justify him who believeth in Jesus."
"The legal obstacle to man's salvation," he informs us, "was re-
moved by the sacrifice of Christ." But how could a legal obstacle
be removed by a transaction which left the penalty of the law
in full force, and which had no direct relation to law? That
the death of Christ had no effect in removing the penalty of
the law, or in satisfying distributive justice, this writer teaches
expressly. It was therefore incumbent on him to show how
such an atonement as he pleads for could remove any legal ob-
stacle to the sinner's salvation. But lest we should be suspected
of misunderstanding or misrepresenting him, we will cite his own
words. Speaking of the design of Christ's death he says: "The
penalty of the law, strictly speaking, was not inflicted at all, for
this penalty, in which was embodied the principles of distributive
justice, required the death of the sinner, and did not require the
death of Christ." "THE RELATION OF THE SINNER TO THE CURSE
WHICH THIS LAW PRONOUNCES AGAINST THE TRANSGRESSOR IS JUST THE
SAME THAT IT WAS WITHOUT THE ATONEMENT." How then, we ask
* Dr. Beman, Sermons on the Atonement.
70
ON THE ATONEMENT.
again, could such an atonement remove the legal obstacles to the
sinner's salvation? But he goes on to make the sentiment ex-
pressed above still stronger by saying, "He is the same guilty crea-
ture he was before satisfaction was made. The law has the same
demand upon him. The law and justice, that is distributive jus-
tice as expressed in the law, have received no satisfaction at all."
"The whole legal system has been suspended, at least for the
present, to make way for one of a different character." If a doc-
trine which subverts or suspends the law of God is antinomian,
we have antinomianism here in perfection. There is no law now
in force; the whole legal system is suspended, at least for the pre-
sent. How long this lawless state is to continue we are not in-
formed. In another part of the same work this writer asks: "How
did the atonement made by Jesus Christ, prepare the way for
the exercise of mercy to sinners?" After telling us what pur-
poses it did not answer, in stating which he sets aside all the usual
ends which have been assigned by the orthodox, he concludes by
declaring," that it is a sovereign act of God as moral Governor.
"Should it be asked,” says he," if the arm of distributive justice
can be arrested, and if the law that threatened is not in this instance
to inflict the curse, why was not this special, sovereign interposition
so arranged, as not to involve the sufferings and death of Christ ?"
The very question which we wish to have answered; and until it
is answered, we shall consider the new theory as essentially
defective. Here was the point which called for all the ingenuity
and reasoning powers of the author; but instead of meeting the
difficulty, or attempting a full answer, he merely says, "We must
recur to the doctrine before advanced and defended." Where
that defence is made we know not. We believe, however, that
the advocate of this new doctrine could not have better served his
cause here than by observing a profound silence. The fact is that
the question which he suggests is not susceptible of a satisfactory
answer, on his principles. But what he adds in the next sentence
is so strangely inconsistent with his own principles, that we were
at first inclined to think that there must be an error of the press.
The words are, "that the penalty of the law is essential to the
existence and happiness of a moral government." It would, we
believe, be impossible in a single sentence to express a sentiment
more repugnant to the principles laid down by this writer in
other parts of his work, which we have already cited. If the
penalty of the law is essential to the existence and happiness of a
moral government, then it must be maintained-it must be in-
flicted-it cannot be set aside. But in the passages quoted before
he declares, that the penalty of the law is not inflicted, that the
whole legal system is suspended, and that the law has the same
demand upon the pardoned sinner as though no atonement had beer
made. But we are furnished with the following explanation. "The
only method in which the execution of this penalty can be sus-
pended is to furnish an adequate, and practical, and public substi-
ON THE ATONEMENT.
71
tute in its place. For the end of distributive justice must be secured,
and the substitute by which these are effectually accomplished is to
be found in that atonement which is made in the gospel." This
sounds so much like the orthodox opinion, that we are sorry to be
obliged to think that the sense is very remote from that which we
would give them, if the author had not opened to our view so fully
his whole theory. The meaning is, that while the law receives no
fulfilment, and its penalty is not inflicted, something else of a differ-
ent character is done, which serves as a substitute for the execu-
tion of the penalty of the law. This use of the term substitution
we before noticed. But the supposition of a substitute for law and
justice is absurd. There can be no substitute for doing what is
right, as there is no substitute for truth or honesty. If the death of
Christ has no relation to the penalty of the law it can never be a
substitute for the infliction of that penalty; and if the penalty re-
mains in full force, and yet is suspended, the law is dishonoured.
That opinion which derogates from the honour of the law, re-
flects dishonour upon the Lawgiver; for the law is the clearest ex-
pression of the holiness and righteousness of his nature. Thus to set
aside the law would be to deny himself. Christ came not to de-
stroy the law, but to magnify it and make it honourable. The
exercise of mercy, which is alleged to be provided for by this
scheme, is mercy at the expense of justice. By the whole theory
these two attributes are exhibited as at variance, and the result
is that mercy triumphs over law and justice.
Another American author,* who, perhaps, has brought out the
features of the new theory more distinctly than any other, seems to
find some difficulty in reconciling the atonement with the justice of
God; but he relieves himself by adopting explicitly the idea that
the atonement is nothing more than a public exhibition, or symboli-
cal representation of the evil of sin, intended to produce a moral
effect upon the universe. His words are, "the only difficulty is to
understand how this exhibition was a display of the righteousness
of God. To solve it some have resorted to the supposition that
the Son of God became our SPONSOR, and satisfied the demands of
the law on us, by suffering in our stead. But to this hypothesis
there are strong objections"-"This hypothesis, like all others
which suppose the Son of God to have entered into a close legal
connexion with sinful men, and afterwards to have redeemed them,
would make the atonement a legal satisfaction for sin; and then
the acquittal would be no pardon at all, but would follow in the
regular course of law." What else, we would ask, can an atonement
for sin be than a legal satisfaction to the law which has been broken?
and as to the absurd consequence supposed to follow on this sup-
position, it is merely imaginary. Remission and redemption by a
full price are nowise incompatible. If a mediator delivers a crimi-
nal by satisfying the law, what is justice to him, is mercy to the
* Dr. Murdock.
72
ON THE ATONEMENT.
כי
:
offender. The greater the price paid, or the sufferings endured to
obtain forgiveness, the more indebted is the condemned person to
his deliverer but the pardon to him is perfectly free. And whether
liberation shall be conditional or unconditional, immediate or defer-
red, will depend upon the agreement between the judge who holds
the prisoner in confinement, and the mediator. But this author,
having without much ceremony rejected all idea of a Sponsor, a
legal satisfaction, and a legal connexion between Christ and his
people, brings out his own scheme of the atonement.
"We must,
therefore," says he, "resort to some other hypothesis. And what
is more simple, and at the same time more satisfactory, than that the
atonement was an exhibition or display—that is, it was a symboli-
cal transaction." "The impression to be made was that God is a
holy and righteous God; that while inclined to mercy he cannot
forget the demands of justice."
Now this theory has no colour of proof from Holy Scripture.
According to this view every idea of anything like an atonement
is excluded: an exhibition or display may teach something or
make an impression, but it is an abuse of language to call it an
atonement. And as to this scheme illustrating the justice or right-
eousness of God, nothing could be further from the truth. Accord-
ing to this theory the demands of both law and justice are entirely
disregarded. To remove this difficulty he says, "The justification
of believers is not a justification founded on the principles of law
and distributive justice." Did any one before ever hear of a sen-
tence of justification which had no relation to the law? The very
notion of justification is the sentence of a judge pronouncing a
person who has been arraigned, acquitted according to law. Such
a sentence may by an unjust judge be contrary to the law, but that it
should have no respect to the principles of law is a solecism. "For,"
says he, "the operation of Christ's sacrifice was not, it appears,
in the regular course of distributive justice in regard to individual
transgressors. Neither did it satisfy the demands of the violated
law upon him. It did not cancel any of the claims of the law
The atonement was not a legal or forensic transaction. It
was altogether extrajudicial. It was in its nature simply an exhi-
bition, intended to impress on all creatures a deep sense of the
righteousness of God as a moral Governor." How a transaction
which proceeds upon the principle of setting aside the demands of
the law and distributive justice, can serve as an impressive exhibi-
tion of the righteousness of God as moral Governor, is a thing
utterly beyond our conception. Certainly the difference between
the old and new theory is radical. The one holds that vindicatory
justice is essential to God, and that sin can be pardoned only by
an adequate satisfaction being made; the other, that God may, by a
sovereign act, pardon sin without any satisfaction to distributive jus-
tice. The one maintains that the threatenings of God against sin
must be executed substantially; that to omit to execute the penalty
of the law would be a departure from truth and faithfulness which
on us.
ON THE ATONEMENT.
73
cannot without impiety be charged on the infinite God. They be-
lieve that Christ did actually suffer, in substance, and as literally as
was possible, the penalty which we had incurred; that there existed
no other reason why he should suffer at all than because law and jus-
tice demanded that the sinner should be punished. They believe that
he suffered death, because death is the wages of sin; that he endured
such sufferings, as, considering the dignity of his person, fully exhaust-
ed the penalty of the law, and fully satisfied divine justice for all the
sins of those whom he had undertaken to redeem. They do not
think that in bearing the penalty of the law, it was necessary for
such a SUBSTITUTE to suffer the very same sort of pains, or for as
long a duration, as would have been experienced by the sinner, if
the penalty had been inflicted on himself. It was essential that
the Mediator should die, and that his death should be accursed,
and that he should endure inconceivable agonies of soul, arising
from the pressure of divine wrath, and from the hiding of his
Father's face, as well as from the cruelty and reproaches of those
who by wicked hands crucified and slew him. The new theory
maintains, that the death and sufferings of Christ were merely
a display or exhibition of God's disapprobation of sin, but by
no means a satisfaction to the law and justice of God: that this
law remains unsatisfied, its claims being suspended by the intro-
duction of another system of measures. The atonement, there-
fore, if it may be so called, is a device adopted to supply the place of
the execution of the law and even justification is not a justifica-
tion according to the law, but an extrajudicial act, not founded upon
the view of a righteousness commensurate to the demands of the
law, but a sovereign act in which no regard is paid to the demands of
the law. These demands remain and will remain unsatisfied in
the case of believers to all eternity. The law pronounces him.
guilty, but the atonement, as thus understood, receives the guilty
sinner out of the hands of the law, and obtains his pardon, while
the justice of God condemns him to death. If these two theories
are not radically different, we confess that we have no judgment.
in such matters. The one insists upon a real efficacious atonement
or expiation; the other retains the name of atonement, but rejects
the thing. We ask the abettors of this new scheme, if neither God's
justice nor law required to be satisfied, where was the necessity of
a Mediator? On these principles we are persuaded, such a neces-
sity can never be shown. We ask again, how God can be just and
holy, and suffer sin to go unpunished; for according to this theory,
it is not punished in the sinner, nor in the surety. We ask what
conceivable purpose Christ's sufferings and death could have an-
swered? They tell us, indeed, that they were intended to be an
impressive exhibition of the righteousness of God and of the evil of
sin, and God's determination not to suffer it to pass with impunity.
But it is impossible, upon their principles, that it can answer any of
these ends. Instead of illustrating the justice of God, it violates it
in several respects. First, it is the punishment of an innocent
ON THE ATONEMENT.
74
person to whom no guilt is imputed. Secondly, the sinner ist
rescued from the demands of justice without satisfaction. And
thirdly, the culprit justly condemned by the law is justified in de-
spite of the sentence of the law. When we see a person suffering
a cruel death by the appointment of some government, we learn no-
thing from the event until we know why he suffers. If for crimes.
which have merited such a punishment, we are impressed with a
sense of the just severity of the government; or if we are informed
that with the consent of the government he voluntarily suffers in
the place of others who had rebelled against the laws, whatever
we may think of the policy of the measure, we are still impressed
with the inflexibility of the demands of justice, which refuses to let
the guilty go free, unless some responsible person undergoes the
penalty in his stead. But if we were assured that the person
who suffered was neither punished for his own crime, nor as a
substitute for the guilty, we should instantly pronounce the pro-
ceeding to be unjust. But what if we should be told that the
government meant to make an exhibition of the righteousness of
its laws, and the evil of rebellion by such an infliction? Every
one would pronounce it to be perfectly absurd. The king of
Moab, when he saw that his city was likely to be taken, took his
own son and hung him on a gibbet from the wall in the sight of the
enemy. But what did it effect? It might indeed teach his own
desperation and folly, but nothing more. Such a transaction can-
not prove that the wicked will be certainly punished. As far as
actions speak it will make the impression, that under this govern-
ment the innocent may suffer. And in the case of our Saviour,
while the innocent suffers the guilty are exempt. Though deserv-
ing to die they are pardoned; and instead of their being punished,
an innocent person suffers a cruel death. Surely this can never
make the impression that the guilty will in time to come be punish-
ed. The suspension of a just penalty never can have the effect of
convincing the universe that God is determined to execute it.
The infliction of undeserved punishment upon an innocent person
can never make the impression that God is righteous, or that the
innocent are safe. If it be alleged, that an innocent person did
suffer, and the guilty escape, as all acknowledge; we reply that
according to our theory the innocent_suffered the penalty due to
the guilty; the just for the unjust. In this transaction the law,
instead of being disregarded and its penalty set aside, was glorious-
ly honoured. It received a perfect obedience from one such as
never in any other case was subject to its authority. Christ was
made under the law to redeem them that were under the law.
He fully bore its tremendous penalty. The cup of wrath due
for sin could not pass away from him. He therefore submitted to
drink it, bitter as it was. "The cup which my Father hath given
me, shall I not drink it?" Truly he did magnify the law and
make it honourable. "Christ," says Paul, "hath redeemed us from
the curse of the law being made a curse for us." Was there no
ON THE ATONEMENT.
75
enduring of the penalty here? What is a curse but the awful
penalty which the law denounces? It is a remarkable fact that
the defenders of this scheme scarcely ever appeal to scripture in
support of their views. They depend on their own reason to prove
that the death of Christ was no satisfaction to law and justice, and
in examining the objections we were struck with the fact that the
advocates of the new theory make use of the same arguments and
resort to the same evasions which were employed by Faustus
Socinus and his coadjutors, in opposing the doctrine of atonement,
in the sixteenth century. Indeed, we see not why he might not
have called the death of Christ an atonement, for similar reasons.
with those which are alleged by the abettors of this scheme. Ac-
cordingly, John Taylor of Norwich has written a book against the
orthodox doctrine, and yet retains the word, and says, "Our
Lord's death took its value not from pain or suffering, imputation or
punishment, but from obedience and goodness, or the most complete
character of all virtue and righteousness, the noblest of all princi-
ples and the highest perfection of intellectual nature." On account
of this exhibition of moral excellence, he thinks that God is pleased
to pardon the sinner upon his repentance. And Dr. Sykes, who
rejects all the orthodox views on this subject, still maintains what
he calls the doctrine of atonement, which is simply, that Christ died
to convince men that God was not angry with them, but really
loved them. If the new theory may properly be called an atone-
ment, why may not the schemes of Taylor and Sykes?
All that we plead for is that what is plainly expressed or clearly
implied in hundreds of texts of scripture, be admitted to be a doc-
trine of divine revelation. As this is the grand peculiarity of the
Christian system, we are bound to guard it from perversion, and to
maintain this cardinal truth in unadulterated purity. This is our
apology for occupying so many pages with our own views of the
necessity and nature of the atonement.
ESSAY V.
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.*
WE Congratulate the friends of truth and order on the appear-
ance of these publications. We have never had any doubt what
would be the decision of the public mind respecting the new divi-
nity and new-measure system of our day, if its distinctive features
could be brought out to the light and exposed to general observa-
tion. History warrants us in cherishing this our confidence. The
truth is, that this system contains but little that is new. It is
mainly, if not entirely, composed of exploded errors and con-
demned heresies. The church has already once and again pro-
nounced judgment upon it; and we have no doubt therefore, that
the same sentence of condemnation will be repeated by the Pres-
byterian church of the present day, whenever the case is fairly
presented for decision. The chief reason why the condemnation
of this system has at all lingered, is, that its true character has not
been generally known. Its advocates, when charged with teach-
ing certain obnoxious doctrines, and, in their religious meetings,
violating the sobrieties of good sense as well as of Christian order,
have evaded or denied the charge, and complained piteously of
misrepresentation. Much has been done to blind the minds of
those who were not able to bear the things they had to say, to the
undisguised character of the doctrines they have taught in the
lecture room and the chapel. We rejoice, therefore, in the publi-
cation of Mr. Finney's sermons and lectures. The public can now
learn what the new system is, from the exposition of one of its
chief promoters. He has stated his own case, and out of his own
mouth may he now be justified or condemned.
The lectures on revivals were delivered by Mr. Finney to his
congregation in Chatham-street chapel, during the last winter.
They were first published from week to week, in the columns of
the New York Evangelist, from reports furnished by the editor of
that paper. They were subsequently collected, and after having
Originally published in 1835, in review of the following works :-" Lectures on
Revivals of Religion." By Charles G. Finney.-" Sermons on Various Subjects."
By Rev. C. G. Finney.
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
by by
""
been submitted to the author for correction, published in a volume.
The work, we perceive, has already reached a fifth edition. Much
diligence is employed in efforts to give it an extended circulation.
It is recommended as a suitable book for Sabbath-school libraries;
and no pains are spared to spread it abroad through the length and
breadth of the land. Its friends evidently have a strong persuasion
of its extraordinary merits. Their zeal for its circulation proves
that they consider it a fair and able exposition of the new system.
The sermons appear to be a monthly publication. We have
obtained seven of them, which are all, we presume, that have yet
been published. They discuss the several topics, "Sinners bound
to change their own hearts," "How to change your heart," "Tra-
ditions of the Elders," "Total Depravity," "Why Sinners hate
God," and, "God cannot please Sinners." These sermons, with
the lectures on revivals, give a pretty full exhibition of Mr. Finney's
peculiar views. If we may judge from the tiresome degree of
repetition in these productions, the perpetual recurrence of the
same ideas, phrases, and illustrations, we should suppose that he
can have nothing new to say; nothing, at all events, that would
materially add to, or modify, what he has already said. We may
consider ourselves fairly in possession of his system. To the
interpretation of that system we shall now proceed, having it less
for our object to refute, than merely to exhibit its peculiarities.
We shall endeavour to gather up the plain, obvious meaning of
Mr. Finney's statements, taking it for granted, that there is no hid-
den, esoteric sense attached to them.
Of the literary merit of these productions we have but little to
say. The reporter deprecates, or rather defies all criticism upon
their style, affirming that the critic "will undoubtedly lose his
labour." No doubt he will, so far as the amendment of the author
is concerned. But the reformation of an offending author is not
the sole object of criticism. The reporter himself (the Rev. Mr.
Leavitt) says of Mr. Finney's language, that it is "colloquial and
Saxon." Words are but relative in their meaning. What kind of
colloquies" the Rev. Mr. Leavitt may have been used to, we do
not pretend to know; but for ourselves we must say, that we desire
never to have a part, either as speakers or hearers, in any colloquy
where such language is current, as Mr. Finney often permits him-
self to employ. If his other epithet, Saxon, means simply, not
English, we have no objection to it. For, surely, it has not often
fallen to our lot to read a book, in which the proprieties of gram-
mar as well as the decencies of taste were so often and so need-
lessly violated; and in which so much that may not inappropriately
be termed slang was introduced. But we have higher objects
before us than detailed criticism upon Mr. Finney's style. We
should not have made any allusion to it, but that we deemed it
worth a passing notice, as forming part and parcel of the coarse,
radical spirit of the whole system.
We proceed to examine, in the first place, the doctrines of this
78
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
new system. Mr. Finney does not pretend to teach a slightly
modified form of old doctrine. He is far from claiming substantial
agreement with the wise and good among the orthodox of the past
and present generation. On the contrary, there is a very peculiar
self-isolation about him. Through all his writings there is found
an ill concealed claim to be considered as one called and anointed
of God, to do a singular and great work. There is scarcely a re-
cognition of any fellow-labourers in the same field with him. One
might suppose indeed, that he considered himself the residuary
legatee of all the prophetic and apostolical authority that has ever
been in the world, so arrogantly does he assume all knowledge to
himself, so loftily does he arraign and rebuke all other ministers
of the gospel. He stands alone in the midst of abounding degene-
racy, the only one who has not bowed the knee to Baal. The
whole world is wrong, and he proposes to set them right. Minis-
ters and professors of religion have hitherto been ignorant what
truths should be taught to promote revivals of religion, and he
offers to impart to them infallible information.
It is true, in his preface, he disclaims all pretensions to infalli-
bility, but in his lectures, he more than once substantially assumes
it. He tells his hearers, in relation to promoting revivals, "If you
will go on to do as I say, the results will be just as certain as they
are when the farmer breaks up a fallow field, and mellows it, and
sows his grain." He speaks repeatedly of the "endless train of
fooleries," the "absurdities," the "nonsense," which, up to his time,
have been taught both in private and from the pulpit. He declares,
"there is only here and there a minister who knows how to probe
the church," &c. "This is a point where almost all ministers fail."
"When I entered the ministry so much had been said about the
doctrine of election and sovereignty, that I found it was the univer-
sal hiding place, both of sinners and the church, that they could
not do anything, or could not obey the gospel. And wherever I
went, I found it necessary to demolish these refuges of lies." "There
is and has been for ages, a striking defect in exhibiting this most
important subject." "For many centuries but little of the real
gospel has been preached." "The truth is, that very little of the
gospel has come out upon the world, for these hundreds of years,
without being clogged and obscured by false theology." What
can be more evident than that Mr. Finney considers himself a great
reformer? He, comes forth with the avowed purpose of clearing
away the errors by which the true gospel has been so overlaid as
to destroy its efficiency. He comes to declare new truths, as well
as to unfold new methods of presenting them to the mind.
The first of these new doctrines to which we call the attention
of our readers, has relation to the government of God. It will be
remembered that a few years since, Dr. Taylor, with some other
divines, publicly announced and defended the proposition, that God
could not prevent the introduction of sin in a moral system. At
least he was very generally, if not universally, understood to teach
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
79
this proposition. And it is strange, if not actually unprecedented,
that a writer of an honest and sound mind, understanding the
language he employs, and having it for his serious purpose to
convey to his readers certain important information, should be
misunderstood as to the main purport of his message by those best
qualified, from education and otherwise, to comprehend it.
But Dr. Taylor did complain that he was misunderstood. He
insists that he did not intend to teach that God could not prevent
the existence of moral evil, but only that it is impossible to
prove that He could prevent it. His object was to unsettle
belief in all existing theories upon this subject, and then to substi-
tute this negative one in their place; in other words, to inculcate
absolute scepticism upon this point. This is the ground now
occupied by the New Haven divines. We fear, therefore, that
they will be alarmed by the position which Mr. Finney has taken.
He has evidently neglected, since his return from his foreign tour,
to post up his knowledge. He has not acquainted himself with
the improvements made during his absence. He teaches, without
any qualification, the doctrine which the New Haven school was at
first understood to teach. He complains that sinners "take it for
granted that the two governments which God exercises over the
universe, moral and providential, might have been so administered
as to have produced universal holiness throughout the universe."
This, he says, is a "gratuitous and wicked assumption." It is
wicked, then, to believe that God could have produced universal
holiness. Mr. Finney further adds, "There is no reason to doubt
that God so administers his providential government, as to produce
upon the whole, the highest and most salutary practicable influence
in favour of holiness." This sentiment, it is true, is susceptible of
a correct interpretation through the ambiguity of the word practi-
cable. But another quotation will make it evident that he means
this word to include nothing more than the resisting power of the
human will. "The sanctions of His law are absolutely infinite
in them he has embodied and held forth the highest possible
motives to obedience." "It is vain to talk of His omnipotence.
preventing sin if infinite motives will not prevent it, it cannot
be prevented under a moral government; and to maintain the
contrary is absurd and a contradiction." A more explicit and
confident statement of this doctrine could hardly be given. It
is absurd and contradictory to maintain that God could have
prevented the introduction of sin into our world. The only
semblance of an argument which Mr. Finney urges in support of
this opinion is, "that mind must be governed by moral power,
while matter is governed by physical power." "If to govern
mind were the same as to govern matter-if to sway the intellec-
tual world were accomplished by the same power that sways the
physical universe, then indeed it would be just from the physical
omnipotence of God, and from the existence of sin, to infer that God
prefers its existence to holiness in its stead." Again he says, " To
80
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
""
maintain that the physical omnipotence of God can prevent sin is to
talk nonsense.' We see not the least ground for this distinction
between the moral and physical power of God; nor do we believe
that Mr. Finney himself can attach any definite meaning to his
favourite phrase, " physical omnipotence.' By the omnipotence of
God we understand a power to do anything without those hindrances
and restrictions by which we and all created beings are beset. It
must be the same power which sways the intellectual and physical
universe, unless we are to make as many different species of power
as there are objects upon which it may be exerted. This distinction,
however, were it well founded, would avail Mr. Finney nothing in
defence of his position. The power of God, by whatever name
called, can be limited in its exercise only by the laws which He
has himself immutably fixed. The power of the Creator was with-
out any limit;—the power of the Governor labours under no other
restrictions than the ordinances of the Creator have imposed upon
it. It is often said that God cannot achieve impossibilities, such as
to make a body exist in several places at the same time. All such
limitations of the divine power are found in those relations and pro-
perties of things which He has himself established. A body cannot
be made to exist in several places at once, for if it could it would
no longer be a body. So in the nature of man we may trace cer-
tain properties and laws, which lay a similar restriction, if so it
may be called, upon the exercise of the divine power. God cannot
make a sinner happy, while he continues a sinner, for He has
already so made man that his happiness must come to him as the
consequence of the right action of his powers, and he would cease
to be man if this law of his nature were altered. Now is there
any similar restriction in the nature of moral agency? Does it
enter into our notion of a moral agent, and go to make up the defi-
nition of one, that he cannot be subjected to any other influence than
that of motive? Suppose that God should, in some inscrutable way,
so act upon his will as to dispose it to yield to the influence of
motive, would such action make him cease to be a moral agent?
If not, we have no right to deny the power of God to effect
it It is impossible to conceive that His power can be re-
strained by anything exterior to himself. The only bounds be-
yond which it cannot pass must be those that have been established
by His own nature, or His previous acts. Unless he has so made
moral agents that it is a contradiction in terms to assert that they
can be influenced in any other way than by motive, it is in the
highest degree unwarrantable and presumptuous to deny that God
can act upon them by other means. But a moral agent, while
possessed of the necessary faculties, and not forced to act contrary
to his will, or to will contrary to his prevailing inclinations and
desires, remains a moral agent still. Would, then, the operation of
any other influence than that of motive upon him, destroy his liberty
of action or his freedom of will? Certainly not. And as certainly
no man can deny that God can influence men as he pleases without
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
81
thereby denying His omnipotence. A more groundless, gratuitous
assumption could not well be found, than Mr. Finney has made in
asserting that it is impossible for God to affect his moral subjects
in any other way than by motive.
Let it be observed that we use the word motive, as Mr. Finney
himself has evidently used it, to denote simply the objective consi-
derations presented to the mind as they are in themselves, without
taking into account the state of the mind in relation to those con-
siderations. This is the only sense of the word in which it can be
at all maintained that "infinite motives" have been urged upon
man for the prevention of sin and the promotion of holy obedience.
If the state of the mind, which always determines the apparent
qualities of the object, be included, as it generally is, in the term
motive, then it is not true that the mind could resist "infinite mo-
tives." In this sense of the word it is self-evident that the
will must always be determined by the strongest motive. An
"infinite motive," by which can be meant only a motive infinitely
strong, or stronger than any other we can conceive of, would of
course prevail and carry the will with it. Then it would be just
to infer, from infinite motives having been presented to bear man
onward in the paths of holy obedience, that God had done all that
he could to prevent sin. And then too it would be impossible that
any sin could exist, or that sin could ever have entered our world.
But granting, what we have shown to be the gratuitous assump-
tion, that God cannot influence men in any other way than by the
objective presentation of truth to the mind, Mr. Finney has
given us no reasons for adopting the opinion that," He has done all
that the nature of the case admitted to prevent the existence of sin,"
while we can see many reasons which forbid us to receive it.
The state of the question, as we are now about to put it, in con-
formity with Mr. Finney's representations, does indeed involve
the three gratuitous assumptions, that God could not have
made man a moral agent and yet give him a greater degree
of susceptibility of impression from the truth than he now pos-
sesses; that man being as he is, God could not have devised any
external considerations to affect him, in addition to those which
are actually placed before his mind; and lastly, that man and the
truth both being as they are, God cannot reach and move the mind of
man in any other way than by the truth. These are by no means
axioms, and Mr. Finney would be sadly perplexed in the attempt
to prove any one of them. But, for the sake of showing that even.
with these bold and barefaced assumptions he cannot maintain his
position, we will admit them all. Man could not have been a mo-
ral agent had he been more yielding to the truth than he now is.
"Infinite motives" to obedience have been provided; by which, as
we have already shown, can be meant only that all the truth which
could possibly affect the human mind has been revealed to it. And
thirdly, man cannot be moved but by the truth. The "nature of
the case" being supposed to demand all these admissions, does it
6
82
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
still follow that God has done all that he could to prevent the exist-
ence of sin? Mr. Finney himself shall answer this question. His
theory of the nature of divine influence is, that the Spirit "gets
and keeps the attention of the mind"-" He pours the expostula-
tion (of the preacher) home"-He keeps the truth, which would
else have been suffered to slip away, "in warm contact with the
mind." Here is of course the admission, and we are glad he is
willing to concede so much power to his Maker, that God can gain
the attention of the mind, and keep before it and in contact with
it, any or all of the "infinite motives" which he has provided to
deter from sin. Connect this admission with another class of
passages, in which Mr. Finney teaches that, "When an object is
before the mind, the corresponding emotion will rise," and who
does not see in the resulting consequence a glaring inconsistency
with the doctrine that God has done all that he can to prevent the
existence of sin? To make this more plain, we will take the case
of Adam's transgression, of which Mr. Finney has, out of its con-
nexion with the subject we are now discussing, given us the ration-
ale. "Adam," he says, "was perfectly holy, but not infinitely so.
As his preference for God was not infinitely strong, it was possible
that it might be changed, and we have the melancholy fact writ-
ten in characters that cannot be misunderstood, on every side of
us, that an occasion occurred on which he actually changed it.
Satan, in the person of the serpent, presented a temptation of a
very peculiar character. It was addressed to the constitutional
appetites of both soul and body; to the appetite for food in the
body, and for knowledge in the mind. These appetites were con-
stitutional; they were not in themselves sinful, but their unlawful
indulgence was sin." The temptation in this case was the motive
addressed to Adam's constitutional appetites. The reason why
this motive prevailed was, that it was kept before the mind to the
exclusion of adverse considerations. The emotions of desire
towards the forbidden fruit were not unlawful until they had be-
come sufficiently strong to lead Adam to violate the command of
his Maker. If, then, just at the point of unlawfulness, the atten-
tion of Adam's mind had been diverted from the forbidden fruit to
the consideration of God's excellency and His command, "the
corresponding emotion" would have arisen, and he would not have
sinned. But the Spirit has power to "get and keep the attention
of the mind." Certainly then He could have directed the atten-
tion of Adam's mind to those known truths, though at the moment
unthought of, which would have excited the "corresponding emo-
tions" of reverence for God, and preserved him thus in holy obe-
dience.
But though Mr. Finney holds forth the views here given of the
Spirit's agency in presenting truth to the mind, it would evidently
be a great relief to his theological scheme if he were fairly rid of
the doctrine of divine influence. The influence of the Holy Spirit
comes in only by the way, if we may so speak, in his account of
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
83
the sinner's regeneration and conversion. We will cast away this
doctrine, therefore we will grant him even more than he dares to
ask-and still his position is untenable, that God has done all that
he can to prevent the existence of sin. Before he can demand our
assent to this proposition, he must prove, in the case already pre-
sented, that God could not have prevented the entrance of Satan
into the garden. Admitting that the volitions of Satan were be-
yond the control of his Maker, he must investigate the relation of
spirit to space, and prove that it was impossible for God to have
erected physical barriers over which this mighty fiend could not
have passed. He must show that it was impossible for God so to
have arranged merely providential circumstances, that our first
parents should have been kept out of the way of the tempter, or
that the force of the temptation should have been at all diminished.
Until he has proved all this, and then proved that his three as-
sumptions which we have pointed out are true, we must prefer the
"absurdity" and "nonsense" of rejecting his doctrine, to the wis-
dom of receiving it.
The argument thus far has been a direct one, and we should not
fear to leave it as it now stands. But we cannot refrain from ad-
verting to some of the consequences of the doctrine we have been
examining. If God has done all that he can to prevent the exist-
ence of sin, and has not succeeded in his efforts, then must he have
been disappointed. If he cannot control at pleasure the subjects
of his moral kingdom, then must he be continually and unavoidably
subject to grief from the failure of his plans. Instead of working
all things according to his good pleasure, he can do only what the
nature of the case will permit, that is, what his creatures will
allow him to do. He in whose hands are the hearts of all men,
and who turns them as the rivers of waters are turned, is thus
made a petitioner at the hands of his subjects for permission to
execute his plans and purposes. Accordingly we find Mr. Finney
using such language as this: "God has found it necessary to take
advantage of the excitability there is in mankind, to produce pow-
erful excitements among them before he can lead them to obey."
He speaks of a "state of things, in which it is impossible for God
or man to promote religion but by powerful excitements."
of course there may be states of things in which neither by excite-
ments nor by any other means will God be able to effect the results
he desires. Then may we rightly teach, as some at least of our
modern reformers have taught, that God, thwarted in his wishes
and plans by the obstinacy of the human will, is literally grieved
by the perverse conduct of men; and sinners may properly be
exhorted as they have been to forsake their sins from compassion
for their suffering Maker! It is a sufficient condemnation of any
doctrine that it leads by an immediate and direct inference to so
appalling a result as this. We know of nothing which ought more
deeply to pain and shock the pious mind. If the perverseness of
man has been able in one instance to prevent God from accom-
??
And
84
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
plishing what he preferred, then may it in any instance obstruct
the working of his preferences. Where, then, is the infinite and
immutable blessedness of the Deity? We cannot contemplate this
doctrine, thus carried out into its lawful consequences, without un-
speakable horror and dismay. The blessedness of the Deity! what
pious mind has not been accustomed to find in it the chief source
of its own joy? Who does not habitually turn from the dis-
quieting troubles and scenes of misery that distress him here, to
"drink of the river of God's pleasures?" Who can bear the
thought that the infinitely holy and benevolent God should be less
than infinitely happy? We see not how any heart that loves God
can feel happy itself, unless it believes him to be, as he deserves to
be, infinitely blessed. Nor can we find any security for the felicity
of the creature but in the perfect and unchangeable felicity of the
Creator. If God, therefore, be as this doctrine represents him, un-
able to produce states of things which he prefers, and if his benevo-
lent feelings are thus continually exposed to grief from obstructions
to their operation, the voice of wailing and despair should break
forth from all his moral subjects. We can see, indeed, but little to
decide our choice between such a God as this and no God.
Another consequence of this doctrine is that God cannot confirm
angels and saints in holiness. If he could not prevent the introduc-
tion of sin into our world, we see not upon what principles we are
entitled to affirm that he can prevent its re-introduction into hea-
ven. We see not how he can at any time hinder the standard of
rebellion from being yet once more uplifted among the bright and
joyous throng that now cast their crowns at his feet. We are per-
fectly aware of the answer which Mr. Finney will make to this
objection. He will contend that the additional motives furnished
by the introduction of sin, such as the visible and dreadful punish-
ment of the sinner, and the display of the divine character thereby
afforded, are sufficient to enable God by the use of them, together
with the means and appliances previously existing, to confirm holy
beings in holiness. Now, independently of other insuperable objec-
tions to this as a sufficient reply, how does it consist with that other
part of the scheme, that "infinite motives" had been already arrayed
against the introduction of sin? If these motives were infinite,
then no addition could possibly be made to them. We leave Mr.
Finney to reconcile this contradiction, or to admit that we have
no reason to expect that the gates of heaven will be barred against
sin.
This doctrine also takes away from the sinner all just ground for
the dread of everlasting punishment. Its advocates, we know, have
contended that it is the only position from which Universalism can
be effectively assailed. But if, when man was tempted to sin by
so insignificant a motive as the forbidden fruit, while "infinite mo-
tives" were drawing him back. God could not prevent him from
yielding, it must surely be impossible for him to prevent the sinner
in the other world from obeying the impulse of the infinite motives
1
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
85
which, more strongly there than here, will urge him to holiness.
The sinner, then, may dismiss his apprehensions of the everlasting
experience of the miseries of a wicked heart. If God could not
prevent Adam from sinning, under the influence of a small motive,
there is no reason to fear that he can prevent any inhabitant of hell
from becoming holy, under the influence of infinite motives. We
have dwelt upon this subject at greater length than was at first in-
tended. Our excuse is, that the question at issue is a very serious
and important one; and the views of it presented by Mr. Finney
seem to be so dishonouring to the character of God, as well as
subversive of some of the most important truths of religion, that
they should be carefully examined. Had our object been simply
to criticise, Mr. Finney might have been more briefly despatched.
There is in his pages a surpassingly rich treasure of contradictions,
which might at every turn have furnished us with an argumentum
ad hominem, had we been disposed to avail ourselves of it. But
we have felt that the matter in hand was of too grave and weighty
an import to be thus managed.
We invite the attention of our readers, in the next place, to Mr.
Finney's views of the nature of sin, depravity and regeneration.
He contends that all sin consists in acts, and assures us that
those who teach otherwise are guilty of "tempting the Holy
Ghost," and of a "stupid, not to say wilful perversion of the Word
of God." He deems it absurd beyond expression to suppose that
there can be a sinful disposition prior to sinful acts; nay, he
solemnly affirms that "millions upon millions have gone down to
hell," in consequence of the doctrine of what he is pleased to
call "physical depravity" having been so extensively taught. He
seldom approaches this subject without breaking out in some such
paroxysm as the following: "O the darkness and confusion, and
utter nonsense of that view of depravity which exhibits it as some-
thing lying back, and the cause of all actual transgression !"
Our readers will soon be able to judge for themselves whether
Mr. Finney has cleared away any of the darkness which rests
upon this subject.
In the prosecution of our inquiries into the nature of sin, two
questions very naturally present themselves for decision; first,
whether there can exist anything like what has been called dispo-
sition, distinct from mental acts; and secondly, whether, if such
an attribute of mind can and does exist, it may be said to possess
any moral character. Mr. Finney, with much convulsive violence
of language, continually denies that there can be any such thing as
a mental disposition, in the sense in which we have used the word.
He employs the term, it is true, but he says he means by it a
mental act, and that it is nonsensical to attach to it any other mean-
ing. His arguments against the possibility of the existence of mental
dispositions, apart from mental acts, may be briefly despatched; for
we do not reckon among the arguments his violent outcries of dark-
ness, confusion, absurdity, nonsense, doctrine of devils, &c., nor
86
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
his assertions that God himself cannot lead the sinner to repentance
without first dispossessing him of the erroneous notion that his
nature as well as his conduct needs to be changed. All the
arguments on the point now before us, that lie scattered through
his many pages, may be reduced to two. It is impossible, he
contends, to conceive of the existence of a disposition of mind; and
again, if there be a disposition distinct from the faculties and acts.
of the mind, it must form a part of the substance of the mind, and
hence follow physical depravity and physical regeneration with
all their horrid train of evils. When he asserts the impossibility
of conceiving of a disposition of mind, we suppose he means that
it is impossible to frame an image of it, or form a picture in which
this disposition shall stand visible to the mind's eye. It is only
in this sense that his assertion is true. It is true that we cannot
form such a conception of a mental disposition, but we will not
insult the common sense of our readers by attempting to prove
that this is no argument against its existence.
The other argument on which Mr. Finney relies to prove the
non-existence of any disposition of mind, is that if there be any
such thing it must form a part of the substance of the mind, it must
be incorporated with the very substance of our being, with many other
phrases of like import. Hence he charges those who teach that there
are such dispositions, and that they possess a moral character, with
teaching physical depravity, and representing "God as an infinite
tyrant." He avers, in a great variety of forms, that their preaching
has a direct and legitimate tendency to lull the sinner in his secur-
ity, to make men of sense turn away in disgust from such absurd
exhibitions of the Gospel, and to people hell with inhabitants.
These are grave charges; and as, if substantiated, they would affect
the fair fame and destroy the usefulness of nine-tenths of the minis-
ters of the church to which Mr. Finney belongs, so, if groundless,
Mr. Finney must be regarded as a slanderer of his brethren, guilty
and odious in proportion to the enormity of the unsustained charges
against them. In one respect at least Mr. Finney is guilty of bring-
ing false accusations against his brethren. He continually repre-
sents them as holding and teaching all his own inferences from their
doctrines. This is more than uncharitable; it is calumnious. He
has a perfect right to develope the absurdities of what he calls
physical depravity, and present them as so many reasons for re-
jecting any doctrine which can be proved to result in such conse-
quences; but he has no right to endeavour to cast the reproach of
teaching these inferred absurdities upon men who have uniformly,
and if more decently yet not less strongly than himself, disclaimed
them. But we contend that these absurdities do not lawfully flow
from the doctrine that the mind has tastes and dispositions distinct
from its faculties and acts. It is easy to show, in contradiction to
Mr. Finney, that it may possess such attributes, which nevertheless
will not form any part of the substance of the mind. Nay, we can
make Mr. Finney himself prove it. In one of his sermons, where
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
87
he has lost sight for a brief space of physical depravity, he speaks
on this wise: "Love, when existing in the form of volition, is a
simple preference of the mind for God and the things of religion
to everything else. This preference may and often does exist in
the mind, so entirely separate from what is termed emotion or
feeling, that we may be entirely insensible to its existence. But
although its existence may not be a matter of consciousness by
being felt, yet its influence over our conduct will be such, as that
the fact of its existence will in this way be made manifest." Here
is a state of mind recognised which Mr. Finney, with an utter
confusion of the proprieties of language, chooses to call love ex-
isting in the form of volition, but which we call a disposition. But
by whatever name or phrase it may be designated, it is not a
faculty of the mind; it is not the object of consciousness, has no
sensible existence, and cannot therefore in any proper sense be
called an act of the mind, nor yet does it form any part of the
substance of the mind. It is not without an object (what it is will
be presently seen) that Mr. Finney makes so queer a use of the
term volition in the above quotation; but the insertion of this word
does not alter the bearing of the passage upon the point now in
question. His subsequent qualifications show that he is describing
something different from an act of the mind: and the single ques-
tion now before us is, whether there can be in the mind any dis-
position distinct from its acts, and comprising within it tendencies
and influences towards a certain course of action, which yet does
not form a part of the substance of the mind. The passage quoted is
clear and explicit, as far as this question is concerned. Let us
hope, then, that we shall hear no more from Mr. Finney on the sub-
ject of physical depravity; or at least that when he next chooses
to harangue his people on this favourite topic, he will have the
candour, the plain, homespun honesty, to tell them that there is not
a single ininister in the Presbyterian church who teaches the odious
doctrine, or anything that legitimately leads to it, but that he has
brought this man of straw before them to show them how quickly
he can demolish it. We have a great aversion to this Nero-like
way of tying up Christians in the skins of wild beasts that the dogs
may devour them.
But it will be said, that the dispositions which have been shown
to exist in the mind are formed by the mind itself, in the voluntary
exercise of its powers; such would not be the case with a disposi-
tion existing prior to all action. This is true, but it is not of the
least moment in settling the question of the physical character of
the disposition. If a disposition may be produced by the mind
itself, which so far from being itself an act makes its existence
known only by its influence, and which yet is not incorporated
with the substance of our being, nor entitled to the epithet physical,
then such a disposition might inhere in the mind prior to all mental
action, without possessing a physical character. There is not the
least relevancy or force, therefore, in the argument commonly and
88
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
chiefly relied upon, that if there be such an antecedent disposition,
it must be physical. The only plausible argument that can be urged
here, is, that experience shows us what is the formative law of our
dispositions, that these are always generated by the mind's own
action; and it is absurd therefore to suppose that any disposition
can exist in the mind anterior to all action. The conclusion to
which this argument arrives is wider than the premises. Its fal-
lacy, and it is an obvious one, lies in extending a law, generalized
from observation upon the mind's action, to a case in which by
hypothesis the mind has never yet acted, and to which, of course,
the law can have no application. There is here a fallacy of the
same nature as would be involved in a process of reasoning like
this:-All our observation proves to us that no tree can be pro-
duced but by calling into action the germinative power of its seed.
The seed must be planted in a fitting soil, and be subjected to a
certain class of influences;-it must decay and then send forth the
tender shrub, which, in its turn, must be sustained by appropriate
nourishment; and years must elapse before the tree will lift its tall
head to the skies. No man has ever seen a tree produced by any
other means, and the nature of things is such that a tree cannot be
produced in any other way. Therefore, no tree could have origi-
nally come into being but through the same process. The error
in reasoning is here apparent, nor is it less so in the case which
this was intended to illustrate.
Here again it will be urged, and at first sight the objection may
seem to gather force from the illustration we have just employed,
that if there be any such antecedent disposition as we are contend-
ing for, formed previous to any action of the mind, it must be the
direct effect of creative power; and if it possess any moral cha-
racter, as we shall offer some reasons for believing it does, then
God is the immediate author of sin. This is the form in which
this objection is always put by Mr. Finney and others, and we
have therefore adopted it, although it assumes what has been
shown to be untrue, that a disposition of mind, in the sense in
which we use the term, implies the idea either of a physical entity
or a spiritual substance. It does not and cannot include any such
idea, and can in no case be considered, therefore, as the effect of
creative power. But does it follow that a primitive disposition,
such as we speak of, must be the direct product of the agency of
the Deity? Is it not evident, on the contrary, that this is only one
out of an infinite number of modes in which it may possibly have
been produced?-The first tree might have been called into being
by the power of God, and sprung up in an instant, complete in all
its proportions; but it might also have been produced in an end-
less number of ways, through the operation of some law, different,
of course, from the existing law of vegetable production, but re-
quiring as much time for the completion of its process, and remov-
ing its final result to any assignable distance from the direct inter-
ference of divine agency. So is it possible too, that a primitive
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
89
disposition of mind may be produced in an infinite number of ways;
and the mode of its formation may be such that it cannot be con-
sidered the effect of the divine power in any other sense than that
in which all the movements and actions both of matter and mind
throughout the universe, are said to be of God.
We think we have now shown that there are such states of
mind as have been designated by the term disposition; that a dis-
position of mind may exist anterior to all mental action; that this
disposition does not form any part of the substance of the mind;
and that it is not necessary to suppose that God is the author of it,
in any other sense than that in which He is the author of all we
fee' and do.
We come now to discuss the question of the moral character of
mental dispositions. Mr. Finney, with his accustomed violence
and lavish abuse of those who teach a different doctrine, denies
that a disposition of mind, granting its existence, could possess any
moral character. Most of his arguments on this point have been
already despatched by our preliminary discussion. If it be true
that a disposition is sinful, then sin is a substance, instead of a
quality of action :-then, too, God is the author of sin, and He is
an infinite tyrant, since he damns man for being what He made
him. This sentence comprises within it the substance of most that
wears the semblance of argument in what Mr. Finney has said on
this subject; and how perfectly futile this is has been made suffi-
ciently apparent.
He argues from the text, "Sin is a transgression of the law,"
that sin attaches only to acts, and cannot be predicated of a dispo-
sition. As well might he argue from the assertion, man is a crea-
ture of sensation, that he possessed no powers of reflection. Until
he can show, what indeed he has asserted very dogmatically, but
of which he has offered no proof, that this text was meant to be a
strict definition of sin, it will not serve his purpose.
The only other arguments worthy of notice, which Mr. Finney
adduces in support of his position, that all sin consists in acts, are
drawn from the considerations that "voluntariness is indispensable
to moral character."
There is undoubtedly a sense in which it is true, that nothing
can be sinful which is not voluntary. And in this sense of the word
all our dispositions are voluntary. There are two meanings at-
tached to the word will. It sometimes denotes the single faculty
of mind, called will; and sometimes all the active powers of the
mind, all its desires, inclinations and affections. This double mean-
ing has proved a great snare to Mr. Finney. He either never
made the distinction, or perpetually loses sight of it, and hence is
often inconsistent with himself. In seeking to exhibit the meaning
which he prevalently attaches to the words will, voluntary, &c.,
we shall have occasion to present to our readers a very singular
theory of morals. "Nothing," he says, "can be sinful or holy,
which is not directly or indirectly under the control of the will.”
90
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
But over our emotions "the will has no direct influence, and can
only bring them into existence through the medium of the atten-
tion. Feelings or emotions are dependent upon thought, and arise
spontaneously in the mind when the thoughts are intensely occu-
pied with their corresponding objects. Thought is under the di-
rect control of the will. We can direct our attention and medita-
tions to any subject, and the corresponding emotions will sponta-
neously arise in the mind. Thus our feelings are only indirectly
under the control of the will. They are sinful or holy only as they
are thus indirectly bidden into existence by the will. Men often
complain that they cannot control their feelings; they form over-
whelming attachments which they say they cannot control. They
receive injuries, their anger rises, they profess they cannot help it.
Now while the attention is occupied with dwelling upon the be-
loved object in the one case, the emotions of which they complain
will exist of course; and if the emotion be disapproved by the
judgment and conscience, the subject must be dismissed from the
thoughts, and the attention directed to some other subject, as the
only possible way of ridding themselves of the emotion. So in
the other case, the subject of the injury must be dismissed, and
their thoughts occupied with other considerations, or emotions of
hatred will continue to fester and rankle in their minds." Again,
in another place, he says, "If a man voluntarily place himself un-
der such circumstances as to call wicked emotions into exercise, he
is entirely responsible for them. If he place himself under cir-
cumstances where virtuous emotions are called forth, he is praise-
worthy in the exercise of them, precisely in proportion to his vo-
luntariness in bringing his mind into circumstances to cause their
existence." Again, he says, "If he (a real Christian) has volunta-
rily placed himself under these circumstances of temptation, he is
responsible for these emotions of opposition to God rankling in
his heart." We might quote pages of similar remarks.
These passages would afford ground for comment on Mr. Fin-
ney's philosophy. He shows himself here, as on all occasions
when he ventures upon the field of mental science, a perfect novice.
But we are chiefly concerned with the theological bearings of the
passages quoted. It is evident that Mr. Finney here uses the
words will, voluntarily, &c., in their restricted sense; and hence we
have the dangerous theory of morals, that nothing can possess a
moral character which is not under the control of the volitions of
the mind. But our emotions cannot be thus controlled. They rise
spontaneously in the mind, they must exist when the thoughts are
occupied with the objects appropriate to their production. Hence
all our emotions, affections and passions, according to Mr. Finney,
possess a moral character only in consequence of the power which
the mind has, by an act of will, to change the object of thought,
and thus introduce a different class of feelings. Now, we might
object to this view of the matter, that the will does not possess the
power here attributed to it. Our trains of thought are in some de-
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
91
gree subject to our volitions; but the will has by no means an ab-
solute control over the attention of the mind. Attention is gene-
rally indeed but another name for the interesting character of the
idea to which the mind is attending, and is no more directly sub-
ject therefore to the bidding of the will, than is the state of mind
which imparts its interest to the present object of thought. The
grounds and the force of this objection will be evident to any one
who will reflect upon states of mind which he has been in, when
his whole soul was so absorbed in the contemplation of some sub-
ject, that all his efforts to break away from the scenes which riveted
his attention, only served to break for a moment their fascinating
power. But we will wave this objection, not because it is not suf-
ficiently strong to be fatal to Mr. Finney's theory, but because it
lies aside from our present course.
A still more serious objection is, that upon this theory it is im-
possible that our emotions should possess any moral character. If
they are moral, "only as they are indirectly bidden into existence
by the will," then they cannot be moral at all. If it is necessary
to go back to the act of will which introduced the object, in view
of which these emotions necessarily arise, to find their moral cha-
racter, then upon no just grounds can morality be predicated of
them. If a man has put out his eyes, he cannot justly be account-
ed guilty for not being able to read, nor for any of the consequen-
ces which result from his blindness. These consequences, if he
could have foreseen them, do indeed accumulate the greater guilt
upon the act of putting out his eyes; but that act is all for which
he is fairly responsible. So in the other case, it is upon the act of
the will which brought the mind into contact with the objects, which
of necessity awakened its emotions, that we must charge all the
responsibility. All the virtue and vice, the holiness and sin of
which we are capable, must lie solely in the manner of managing
the power of attention. He is a perfect man whose mind is so
trained that it takes up whatever subject of meditation the will
enjoins; and he is a sinful man, whose mind, without a direct voli-
tion to that effect, reverts, as if by instinct, to holy themes and
heavenly meditations, and adheres to them even though the will
should endeavour to force it away. All the foundations of moral-
ity and religion are virtually swept away by this theory. If its
assumptions be true, we should discard all the motives and means
now employed to promote virtue. As it makes all moral excel-
lence reside in the readiness and skill with which the power of at-
tention is managed, the most efficient means for the promotion of
virtue, beyond all comparison, would be the study of the mathema-
tics. Such are the ridiculous extremes to which Mr. Finney is driv-
en in carrying out his doctrine, that all sin consists in acts. It can
hardly be maintained that we have caricatured his doctrine, or run
it out beyond its intrinsic tendency. For if, as he says, a man is
praiseworthy or blamable in the exercise of his emotions, only
because he has placed himself under circumstances where these
92
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
emotions are called forth, then it is plainly unjust to charge respon-
sibility upon anything else than the act of placing himself under
the circumstances.
But without charging upon his theory anything beyond what
he has developed as its admitted consequences, who does not see
upon the face of his own statements absurdity enough to condemn
any doctrine which necessarily involves it? A man is responsible
for his emotions, he says, only when he has voluntarily brought
himself under such circumstances as to call them into existence.
Let us suppose then, two men, brought without any direct agency
of their own under the same set of circumstances. We will ima-
gine them taken by force and placed in a grog shop, filled with
tipplers quaffing the maddening drink, and uttering blasphemies
that might make "the cheek of darkness pale." Emotions are at
once awakened in both the spectators. The desires of the one go
forth over the scene; he takes pleasure in those who do such
things; he longs to drink and curse with them; he knows that
this is wrong, and endeavours to change the subject of meditation,
but his sympathy with the scene before him is so strong that his
thoughts will not be torn away from it, and his mind continues
filled with emotions partaking of its hideous character.
heart of the other instantly' revolts at the scene. Every time
he hears the name of God blasphemed, he thinks of the goodness
and glory of the Being thus dishonoured, and while wondering that
others can be blind to his excellency, the liveliest feelings of ado-
ration and gratitude are awakened in his heart. Now, according
to Mr. Finney, there is no moral difference between these men;
they are not responsible for emotions thus awakened. The one
has not sinned, nor is the other praiseworthy. This is no conse-
quence deduced from something else that he has said. It is a case
put in strict accordance with his explicit statements. Such is
the monstrous absurdity to which he is driven, by denying that
the state of mind which would, under the circumstances above
supposed, have disposed one of the spectators to descend and
mingle in the filth and wickedness of the scene, and the other, to
rise from it to heaven in his holy desires and emotions, does of
itself possess a moral character.
The
Another illustration of the absurdities in which he has involved
himself, is furnished by his declaration, that man is praiseworthy
in the exercise of his emotions, "precisely in proportion to his vo-
luntariness in bringing his mind into circumstances to cause their
existence." Mr. Finney's common method of expressing the incom-
prehensibility of anything is by saying, "It is all algebra;" and we
must really doubt whether he knows the meaning of the term propor-
tion. For upon his principles, the ratio between the merit or the
demerit of any two actions whatever, must be a ratio of equality.
Voluntariness, in his sense of the word, does not admit of degrees.
The will either acts or it does not, to bring the man under the pe-
culiar circumstances. There are no degrees in its consent or refu-
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
93
sal; and of course there can be no degrees in moral worth, or in
guilt. If two men have each received the same injury, and each
by an act of will directed the attention of the mind to the injury
and him who committed it, then they are equally guilty for their
feelings of hatred, however much those feelings may differ in
strength. There can be no difference of degree in the moral de-
merit of their emotions, although the one should hate his adversary
enough to work him some slight injury in return, and the other hate
him so much that nothing less than the murder of his victim will
satisfy his thirst for vengeance. The two men were equally volun-
tary in bringing their minds under the circumstances which awak-
en their emotions, and must of necessity, according to Mr. Finney's
canon of morality, be equally guilty.
There is indeed another class of passages in Mr. Finney's writ-
ings, in which he brings forward a further criterion of morality.
He says,
"When the will is decided by the voice of conscience, or
a regard to right, its decisions are virtuous." The change of
pre-
ference, or the decision of the will, which takes place in regenera-
tion, must be made, “because to act thus is right." The will must
decide "to obey God, to serve him, to honour him, and promote
his glory, because it is reasonable, and right, and just." "It is the
rightness of the duty that must influence the mind if it would act
virtuously." And again, "When a man is fully determined to
obey God, because it is right that he should obey God, I call that
principle." In these passages, and there are many more like them,
he seems to resolve all virtue into rectitude. It is evident why he
does so, for he is thus enabled to require a mental decision, an act
of the mind, in relation to the rectitude of any emotion or action,
in order to constitute it virtuous; and thus defend his position that
morality can attach only to acts. He has here fallen into the mis-
take, however, of making the invariable quality of an action the
motive to its performance. It is true that all virtuous actions are
right, but it does not follow from this that their rectitude must be
the motive to the performance of them. If this be so, then the
child, who in all things honours his parent, does not act virtuously
unless each act of obedience is preceded by a mental decision that
it is right for him to obey. Mr. Finney desired to take ground
which would enable him to deny that there is anything of the na-
ture of holiness in the Christian's emotions of love to God, when
prompted by his disposition to love him; but he has evidently as-
sumed an untenable position.
We could easily bring forward more errors into which he has
been betrayed in carrying out his false doctrine, that morality can
be predicated only of acts. But we have surely presented enough.
And this exposure renders it unnecessary that we should repeat
what have been so often produced and never refuted, the positive
arguments for believing that our dispositions, or states of heart, in-
cluding the original disposition by which we are biassed to evil,
possess a moral character, and are the proximate sources of all the
94
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
good and evil in our conduct. Some of Mr. Finney's pretended
arguments against this opinion we have not answered, simply be-
cause they are so puerile, that, though we made the effort, we
could not condescend to notice them. All of them that had the
least plausibility we have shown to be without any real force.
And if any man can reject this opinion on account of the difficul-
ties with which it is still encumbered, and adopt the monstrosities.
connected with Mr. Finney's rival doctrine, we must think that he
strains at a gnat and swallows a camel.
As might have been expected from what has already been said,
Mr. Finney denies that there is any such thing as natural depravity.
His views on this subject are easily exhibited. We might describe
them all, indeed, in a single phrase, by saying, that they are neither
more nor less than the old Pelagian notions. "This state of mind,"
he says, describing the commencement of sin in a child, "is entire-
ly the result of temptation to selfishness, arising out of the circum-
stances under which the child comes into being." "If it be asked
how it happens that children universally adopt the principle of sel-
fishness, unless their nature is sinful? I answer, that they adopt
this principle of self-gratification, or selfishness, because they pos-
sess human nature, and come into being under the peculiar circum-
stances in which all the children of Adam are born since the fall.”
"The cause of outbreaking sin is not to be found in a sinful con-
stitution or nature, but in a wrong original choice."
"The only
sense in which sin is natural to man is, that it is natural for
the mind to be influenced in its individual exercises by a supreme
preference or choice of any object." On reading this last extra-
ordinary declaration, the text of an inspired apostle came to mind,
in which he assures us, that we are "by nature children of wrath."
If both those declarations be true, we have the curious result that
we are children of wrath, not because we are sinners, but because
we are so made as to be influenced by a supreme choice! But
texts of Scripture are as nothing in Mr. Finney's way. He makes
them mean more or less, stretches or curtails them, just as occasion
requires. His system is a perfect Procrustean bed, to which the
Bible, no less than all things else, must be fitted. An illustration
of this is found in his manner of dealing with the passage, "I was
shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." This
text would seem, at first sight, to present a very serious obstacle to
his views. And what does he do with it? He first gravely proves
that it does not mean "the substance of a conceived fœtus is sin !”
He then jumps to the conclusion, "All that can be possibly meant
by this and similar passages is, that we were always sinners from
the commencement of our moral existence, from the earliest mo-
ment of the exercise of moral agency." That is, when David and
the other sacred writers make these strong assertions, they only
mean to inform us, that the moment we adopt the principle of su-
preme selfishness as our rule of action, we do wrong; or, in other
words, that just as soon as we begin to sin, we sin! May we not
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
95
well say, that he has a marvellous faculty for making a text mean
anything, or nothing, as suits his purpose ? Another illustra-
tion of this is furnished by his interpretation of the text, "The
carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to
the law of God, neither indeed can be." The carnal mind, he
says, means a minding of the flesh, a voluntary action of the mind,
a choice that is supremely selfish. While men act upon the prin-
ciple of supreme selfishness, obedience is impossible. This, he
says, is the reason why the carnal mind, or the minding of the
flesh, is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Wonderful discovery! So the apostle, in this passage, meant
nothing more than the stale truism, that a man cannot be sinful and
holy at the same time, that he cannot, in the same act, transgress
the law and render obedience to it.
Pelagians have always found a difficulty in reconciling their
theory with the salvation of infants by the grace of Jesus Christ.
Pelagius himself was sorely pressed on this point. Infants are in
no way answerable for the sin of Adam, or otherwise evilly
affected by it than that it brings them into circumstances of temp-
tation, and they have no sin of nature; how then can they be sub-
jects of pardon? What interest can they have in the atonement of
the Saviour? Let us see how Mr. Finney disposes of this diffi-
culty. "Had it not been for the contemplated atonement, Adam
and Eve would have been sent to hell at once, and never have had
any posterity. The race could never have existed. . . . Now
every infant owes its very existence to the grace of God in Jesus
Christ; and if it dies previous to actual transgression, it is just as
absolutely indebted to Christ for eternal life as if it had been the
greatest sinner on earth.” We have no words to express our
aversion to this egregious trifling with sacred subjects. The Bible
teaches us that all of our race who are saved are redeemed from
sin; that they are saved, not born, by virtue of the atonement of
Jesus Christ. And when we ask Mr. Finney how this can be re-
conciled with his theory that there is nothing connected with
infants that can be atoned for, he very gravely tells us that they
owe their BIRTH to the grace of God!
He does not tell us why he baptizes infants. We do not know,
indeed, whether he ever administers this ordinance to children
previous to the supposed commencement of moral action. Cer-
tainly, upon his principles, it could have no meaning. He rejects,
with utter scorn and ridicule, the idea that in regeneration and
sanctification there takes place anything that can be properly
symbolized by "the washing off of some defilement." The water
of baptism then, to whomsoever this rite be applied, cannot have
any emblematical meaning; and the apostle committed a rhetori-
cal error, to say the least of it, when he wrote,
"But ye are
washed, but ye are sanctified." But with what propriety this ordi-
nance can be administered to children, who, having never actually
transgressed, are not sinners, who are just what they ought to be,
96
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
we cannot conceive. Surely consistency requires Mr. Finney to
assign to infant baptism a place among those hated abominations,
upon which he so much dwells, that the "traditions of the elders"
have introduced into the church.
We shall not undertake to show in detail the inadequacy of Mr.
Finney's theory to account for the sin there is in the world. This
has often been done. And it still remains perfectly inexplicable
why, if men come into the world with just such a nature as they
ought to have, prone no more to evil than to good, and are sur-
rounded at the same time with "infinite motives" to holiness, and
"circumstances" that tempt them to sin, that they should all, with
one accord, obey the force of the finite circumstances rather than
the infinite motives. If this be the state of the case, we might
naturally expect all mankind to become holy, excepting here and
there some luckless one, who, not having sufficient skill so to
manage the attention of his mind as to keep before it the infinite
motives to holiness, would fall into sin. Here too we might ask,
what has become of the doctrine that God has done all that he
could to prevent the present degree of sin? If he can so influence
some men, after their hearts are set in them to do evil, that they
shall become holy, could he not have induced them, at the first, to
choose holiness instead of sin?
We cannot pass from this part of our subject without developing
one of the many singular results afforded by the comparison of
different parts of Mr. Finney's writings. The one we are now
about to present is so very peculiar that we solicit for it special
attention. He rejects the common doctrine of depravity, because
it makes man a sinner by necessity-it makes God the author of
sin-it is a constitutional or physical depravity, and leads to physi-
cal regeneration, &c. He frequently blows off the superfluous
excitement produced in his mind by this view of depravity, in sen-
tences like the following: "That God has made men sinners,
incapable of serving him-suspended their salvation upon impossi-
ble conditions-made it indispensable that they should have a
physical regeneration, and then damns them for being sinners, and
for not complying with these impossible conditions-monstrous!
blasphemous! Believe this who can!" Now let us see how he
gets rid of this physical necessity, which he falsely but uniformly
charges upon the common opinions respecting depravity. Accord-
ing to his theory, the cause of men becoming sinners is to be found
in their possessing human nature, and coming into being under cir-
cumstances of temptation-in the adaptation between certain.
motives which tempt to undue self-gratification, and the innocent
constitutional propensities of human nature. But in one of his
lectures, where he is endeavouring to persuade his hearers to use.
the appropriate means for promoting a revival, and presenting on
that account such truths and in such forms as seem to him most
stirring, he says: "Probably the law connecting cause and effect
is more undeviating in spiritual than in natural things, and so there
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
97
are fewer exceptions, as I have before said. The paramount im-
-portance of spiritual things makes it reasonable that it should be
so."
In the use of means for promoting revivals, he says again :
"The effect is more certain to follow," than in the use of means to
raise a crop of grain. Now, upon his system, the efficiency of all
means for promoting revivals may be traced up ultimately to the
tendency of eternal motives to influence the mind. We have here,
then, the position, distinctly involved, that motives, when properly
presented, when so presented as to produce their appropriate effect,
operate by a surer law than any of the physical laws of matter.
The effect of the proper presentation of a motive to the mind is
more certain, and of course more inevitable, than that the blade of
wheat should spring from the planted seed, or a heavy body fall to
the ground. Now he will not deny that the motives to sin, which
meet man soon after his entrance into the world, are thus ade-
quately presented; for the sad proof of it is found in the uniform
production of their effect. That effect must of course be inevita-
ble, beyond any idea of necessity that we can form from the opera-
tion of physical laws.
From the parts of his scheme already presented, our readers
will be able to anticipate Mr. Finney's theory of regeneration.
The change which takes place in regeneration he, of course,
represents as a change in the mind's method of acting. As it
originally chose sin instead of holiness, so a new habit consists in
choosing holiness instead of sin. The idea that there is imparted
to the heart a new relish for spiritual objects, or that any new
principle is implanted, he rejects; to teach this, he says, is to
teach a physical religion, which has been the great source of
infidelity in the church. "It is true," he says, "the constitution of
We
the mind must be suited to the nature of the outward influence
or motive; and there must be such an adaptation of the mind to
the motive, and of the motive to the mind, as is calculated to
produce any desired action of the mind. But it is absurd to say
that this constitutional adaptation must be a holy principle, or taste,
or craving after obedience to God. All holiness in God, angels,
or men, must be voluntary, or it is not holiness. To call anything
that is a part of the mind or body, holy-to speak of a holy sub-
stance, unless in a figurative sense, is to talk nonsense.
remark here, in passing, that this is the uniform style in which Mr.
Finney caricatures the opinions from which he dissents. From one
form of statement he habitually passes to another, as completely
synonymous, which has not the remotest resemblance to it. He
assumes here that a principle, or taste, cannot be voluntary, whereas
it cannot but be voluntary, in the only sense in which voluntariness
is essential to moral character; and also that it must be a substance,
or form a part of the mind or body-an assumption than which
nothing can be more groundless and absurd. He adds, "The
necessary adaptation of the outward motive to the mind, and the
mind to the motive, lies in the powers of moral agency, which every
7
98
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
human being possesses." Understanding, conscience, and the
power of choice, he supposes, are all that is needful to enable man
to receive the truth of God, and act under its influence. There is
nothing new in all this. It is at least as old as the fifth century.
It has been broached repeatedly since the days of Pelagius, and as
often shown, by arguments that have not yet been refuted, to be
utterly inadequate to account for the facts of the case. We have
indeed its radical unsoundness fully exposed to us by the apostle
Paul, where he declares, “The natural man receiveth not the things
of the Spirit of God; neither can he know them, for they are spiri-
tually discerned." This passage of Scripture will bear no inter-
pretation which does not place it in irreconcilable contradiction
with Mr. Finney's theory. He generally asserts that the sinner
knows all the truth that is necessary to induce him to make to him-
self a new heart, and that the only reason why it fails to produce
this effect is because he will not consider the truth. We say gene-
rally, because here, as in everything else, Mr. Finney is inconsis-
tent with himself. At one time he talks thus: "It is indeed the
pressing of truth upon the sinner's consideration that induces him.
to turn. But it is not true that he is ignorant of these truths before
he thus considers them. He knows that he must die-that he is a
sinner-that God is right, and he is wrong," &c. But again, when
he is seeking to make an impression upon the sinner, he assures us
that "the idea that the careless sinner is an intellectual believer is
absurd—the man that does not feel, nor act at all, on the subject
of religion, is an infidel, let his professions be what they may." But
we will leave him to explain how an infidel can be said to know
that to be true, which he does not believe to be true. The uniform
tenor of his representations, when treating of the subject of regene-
ration, is that the sinner wilfully refuses to consider known truths,
and, on that account alone, has not a new heart. The apostle, on
the contrary, declares the natural man receiveth not the things of
the Spirit of God, neither can he know them. We presume that
no one but Mr. Finney himself can doubt to which of these author-
ities we should bow. If the testimony of the apostle needed any
confirmation, we might find it abundantly in human experience.
Every man knows that his perception of moral truths depends upon
the state of his heart. It is a matter of familiar experience, that
truths which sometimes affect us scarcely at all, will, at another
time, act so powerfully as to break up all the fountains of feeling
within us. And this difference is not owing to the greater or less.
degree of consideration bestowed upon the truth; we may think
of it as profoundly in the one case as in the other. Who has not
felt that a familiar truth, occurring to the mind in the same terms
with which it has often before been clothed, will suddenly display
a hitherto unseen richness of meaning, which at once wakes up
all the feelings of the heart? What is it that can thus modify our
powers of moral perception but the state of the mind? And how
can we expect, then, that the spiritual truths of God's holy word
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
99
says
should produce their appropriate effect upon the mind of the sinner,
who is destitute not only of any fellowship with those truths, but
of the disposition of heart by which their meaning is discerned?
We cannot understand how the unrenewed heart, if as Mr. Finney
"it hates God with mortal hatred," can even understand the
real meaning of the truth, God is love; or feel that this truth is a
motive for subduing its hatred. Nor are we able to see how any
of those considerations most frequently presented in the sacred
Scriptures can prevail with the sinner, and produce upon him their
appropriate effect, unless his mind be illuminated, his heart renew-
ed, by the influences of the Holy Spirit.
Mr. Finney's own pages will furnish us with evidence that he
himself considers the mind as needing some further adaptation to
the motives of the Bible, than the powers of moral agency. This
evidence is found in the fact that the motives which he most fre-
quently and importunately urges, are not those which are commonly
employed in the sacred Scriptures. He seems to have a kind of instinct
of the insufficiency of the considerations presented by the inspired
writers, to answer his purpose. The most common form in which
he sets forth the change that takes place in regeneration, is that of
a change in the choice of a Supreme Ruler. He divides the
world into two great political parties, the one with God, the other
with Satan, at its head. When a man makes for himself a new
heart, he changes sides in politics-he gives up the service of
Satan, and submits to the government of God. The great duty
which he urges upon the sinner is unconditional submission to God.
This duty, as presented by him, is very rarely intended to include
submission to the terms of salvation revealed in the gospel-it is a
submission to God as the great creator and ruler of the world—
the God of providence rather than of grace. Now it will at once
occur to every reader of the Bible, that this is not the duty which
the sacred writers most frequently urge upon the sinner. They
call upon men to repent, and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
But Mr. Finney says, "It is generally in point, and a safe and
suitable direction to tell a sinner to repent." Marvellous! that he
should consider it generally, but not always safe to tell a sinner to
do that which the apostles, with great uniformity, tell him to do.
The other part of the apostolic exhortation to sinners, " Believe in
the Lord Jesus Christ," he seems to think, should no longer be
given in any case save where an individual is unwilling to admit
that Christ is the Messiah of God. This exhortation he considers
as exclusively suitable to the days of the apostles, "when the
minds of the people were agitated mainly on the question, whether
Jesus was the true Messiah.” "They bore down," he says, "on
this point, because here was where the Spirit of God was striving
with them, and consequently, this would probably be the first thing
a person would do on submitting to God." He does indeed
number among the directions to be given to sinners, that "they
should be told to believe the gospel ;" but he explains this to mean
100
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
nothing more than "that trust or confidence in the Scriptures that
leads the individual to act as if they were true." Of that specific
act of faith in which the soul apprehends the Lord Jesus as its
Saviour, and receives pardon and justification, he seems not to
have the least idea. The sole value of repentance or faith, he finds
in the manifestation which they afford of the heart's willingness to
submit to the authority of God. "Whatever point," he says, "is
taken hold of between God and the sinner, when he yields that he
is converted. When he yields one point to God's authority, he
yields all." This is evidently another gospel. The apostles urge
all men to believe in the Saviour because faith is in itself a proper
and a most important duty-but Mr. Finney deems it of no import-
ance, save as it manifests submission to the authority of the Great
Ruler, and thinks it unsuitable to urge it upon any sinner therefore,
unless it be one whose heart has assumed a hostile attitude towards
the claims of Jesus Christ to be the true Messiah. How widely,
indeed, does this differ from the gospel revealed to us from heaven,
which places faith at the head of human duties, teaching us that it
is the instrumental cause of our forgiveness, that it unites us to the
Lord Jesus Christ, and is the mediate source of all our spiritual
strength!
As the duty presented by Mr. Finney to the sinner's mind is
different from that commonly urged in the Bible, so does he employ
different motives to induce compliance. The chief motive upon
which he relies is, that it is right to acknowledge God and submit
to him as our Great Ruler. We can now see another reason why
he assumed the strange position upon which we have already
commented, that "It is the rightness of a duty that must influence
the mind if it would act virtuously." Man in his natural state can
be made to see that it is right for him to submit to God, but he
cannot be made to perceive His moral glory, or to feel that His
character is lovely. As he cannot receive the things of the Spirit
of God, Mr. Finney is therefore driven to the necessity of seeking
other things which he can receive. He endeavours, by developing
the useful tendency of the principles of the divine government in
contrast with the injurious influence of selfishness, to produce a
conviction in the sinner's mind that it is right for God to reign;
and upon this conviction he relies to induce the sinner to change his
voluntary preference, and submit to the righteous rule of his
Creator. In one of his sermons, after describing to the sinner how
he must change his heart, he goes through a kind of rehearsal
of the performance. He begs the sinner to give him his attention
while he places before him "such considerations as are best
calculated to induce the state of mind which constitutes a
change of heart." In presenting these best considerations, he dwells
upon "the unreasonableness and hatefulness of selfishness," "the
reasonableness and utility of benevolence," "the reasons why God
should govern the universe," &c. His remarks upon these topics
are protracted through ten or twelve octavo pages, in the whole
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
101
of which, about as many lines are devoted to a frigid allusion to
the justice and mercy displayed in the atonement of Jesus Christ.
"The offer of
In a previous passage of the same sermon he says,
reconciliation annihilates the influence of despair, and gives to
conscience its utmost power." He seems here to limit the
efficacy of the gospel, to its opening the way for the operation
of existing motives upon the heart of man. And his practice is
The con-
certainly consistent with this low view of the gospel.
siderations which he brings forward, as best adapted to induce
the sinner to change his heart, are almost exclusively such as
are furnished by natural religion. We hear next to nothing of the
grace and glory of God as they shine in the face of Jesus Christ,
of the wondrous love of a dying Saviour, of the demerit of sin
as illustrated by His death, or of the guilt of the sinner in remain-
ing insensible to the motives which address him from Calvary
Our Saviour intimates that all other sin is comparatively lost in the
sin of rejecting Him; and the apostles refer to the neglect of the
"great salvation" provided for man, as presenting the most odious
form of human guilt. To the life and death of Jesus Christ, indeed,
do they continually recur for the illustration and enforcement of
all human duties. They make known nothing save Jesus Christ,
and Him crucified. This is the great central source of light and
heat. Whatever may be the point of departure, how uniformly do
they carry us to the Cross, and bid us thence look at the character
of God, and the duty of man. But when Mr. Finney professedly
addresses himself to the task of presenting the considerations best
adapted to move the heart of the sinner, he thinks he can find a
better point of view. He takes his stand amidst the wonders of
creation; he finds in the character there developed, and the rela-
tions there established between man and his Maker, the right and
the duty of God to govern and man's obligations to obey-" the
reasonableness and utility of virtue-the unreasonableness, guilt, and
evil of sin :"—hence he charges the sinner with having "set his
unsanctified feet upon the principles of eternal righteousness, lifted
up his hands against the throne of the Almighty, set at naught the
authority of God and the rights of man!" We do not deny the
validity of these considerations, upon which he chiefly dwells; but
we do deny that the truths involved in them are the peculiar truths
of the gospel, or that they are those which the apostles deemed
best adapted to become "the wisdom of God and the power of
God unto salvation." Throughout his whole system indeed, it is
painful to see how small a space is allotted to the Cross of Christ.
Often where it might be expected to stand forth conspicuous, it
seems to be, of set design, excluded. In this same sermon, when
defending the reasonableness of the "conditions of the gospel,"
he tells the sinner that faith is reasonable, because "nothing but
faith in what God tells him, can influence him to take the path
that leads to heaven." The faith of which he here speaks is a
"condition of the gospel," and yet he represents it in no other
102
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
light than as a general belief in the truth of God's word; and
justifies its requirement solely on the ground of its tendency to
make man holy. There is no hint of that faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ, so often mentioned in the Scriptures, by which the soul
commits itself to Him as its Saviour, and becomes a partaker of the
benefits of his redemption-no allusion to the reasonableness of this
condition, on the ground of its rendering to God all the glory of
our salvation. We see not how any pious mind, accustomed to
look to Jesus Christ for all its strength and joy and giory can pass
through this new system, without being constrained at every step
to cry out, "Ye have taken away my Lord, and I know not where
ye have laid Him."
Another illustration, trifling it is true, when compared with the
one we have just presented, but yet worthy of notice, of the diffi-
culty under which Mr. Finney labours, in carrying out his views
of regeneration, is found in the necessity which is laid upon him of
violating the established meaning of words. A new heart is a new
act. In regeneration no principle is implanted in the mind, but the
beginning and end of the process is in a new act; and consequently
the process of the divine life in the soul of man is a series of acts
there is no growth of anything which lays the foundation of those acts
and disposes to the performance of them. He not only believes this
to be true, but thinks it vastly important that others should be con-
vinced of its truth. The world has hitherto been ignorant of the true
nature of religion and the method of its progress in the heart. He
expresses his doubt whether one professor of religion out of ten in the
city of New York, if asked what sanctification is, could give a
right answer. They would speak of it," as if it were a sort of
washing off of some defilement," or they would represent it as
the growth of some principle, or germ, or seed, or sprout, implanted
in the soul. "But sanctification," he says, "is obedience." Of
course, to sanctify must mean to obey; and to be sanctified is to
be obeyed. Now we charitably hope that Mr. Finney has under-
rated the number of those who could give a right answer to
this question; for we presume that more than nine out of ten of
the professors of religion in New York have been at school, and
can read a dictionary, if not the Bible and the catechisms of their
church, and surely not one, thus qualified, could ever think of giv-
ing his definition of sanctification.
We have already exposed the insufficiency of Mr. Finney's the-
ory; and in testimony thereof have adduced his own departure, in
carrying out his theory, from the instructions and motives deve-
loped in the gospel. He thus evidently betrays his own convic-
tion that the duties which the apostles commonly urge upon the
impenitent are not consistent with his scheme; and that the mo-
tives they present are of such a nature as to require a correspond-
ing disposition of heart. The force of the objections we have
brought forward, is not at all diminished by the different form in
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
103
66
which he sometimes states his doctrine of the new heart. He has
a class of passages in which he represents the spiritual heart, as
"That deep-seated, but voluntary preference of the mind which
lies back of all its other voluntary affections and emotions, and
from which they take their character." If by " preference," be
meant such an inclination as he has elsewhere described under
that name, which is not an object of consciousness, and makes
itself known only by its influence over our acts; and by its being
deep-seated," that is, seated in the will itself, using the term in its
larger sense, and for that reason entitled to the epithet
" volun-
tary,” we should have no objection to this account of the matter.
This is precisely our idea of a disposition. But this is not his
meaning. The preference which he here intends, is a conscious
act of the mind. It still remains then for him to show how the
mind can be induced to prefer the glory of God, as the supreme
end of pursuit, when it is blind to that glory, and if we may credit
the apostle, in such a state, that until renewed, it cannot know it.
Another difficulty, too, is started by the passage we have just
quoted from him. It seems that we are to look back from every
other voluntary affection and emotion of mind to this" deep-seated
preference," to find their moral character. But as this preference
is itself but a voluntary exercise of mind, and differs from its other
voluntary exercises only by being more deep-seated, it would
seem that we ought to look back to something else for its moral
character. It is impossible for us to imagine how one voluntary
exercise of mind can possess a moral character, independent of the
subjective motives which prompted it, while all other affections
and emotions are good or evil only through their connexion with
this one.
Is it not wonderful that with such beams in his own eye,
he should be endeavouring to pluck out motes from the eyes of
others !
Mr. Finney asserts the perfect, unqualified ability of man to
regenerate himself. It is easier, indeed, he says, for him to com-
ply with the commands of God than to reject them. He tells his
congregation that they "might with much more propriety ask,
when the meeting is dismissed, how they should go home, than to
ask how they should change their hearts." He declares that they
who teach the sinner that he is unable to repent, and believe with-
out the aid of the Holy Spirit, insult his understanding and mock
his hopes they utter a libel upon Almighty God-they make God
an infinite tyrant-they lead the sinner very consistently to justify
himself-if what they say is true, the sinner ought to hate God,
and so should all other beings hate him-as some have humor-
ously and truly said, they preach, "You can and you can't, you
shall and you shan't, you will and you won't, you'll be damn'd if
you do, you'll be damn'd if you don't." It has been reserved, we
imagine, for the refined and delicate taste of Mr. Finney to dis-
cover the humour of this miserable doggerel. He is obviously
much delighted with it, and, like all his other good things, has
104
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
worked it up more than once. We hope the next compiler of the
beauties of American poetry will pay a due deference to his com-
mendation, and assign a conspicuous place to this precious morceau.
Most professors of religion, he says, pray for sinners, that God
would enable them to repent. Such prayers he declares to be an
insult to God. He thinks it a great error to tell the sinner to pray
for a new heart, or to pray for the Holy Ghost to show him his sins.
"Some persons," he says, "seem to suppose that the Spirit is
employed to give the sinner power,-that he is unable to obey
God without the Spirit's agency. I confess I am alarmed when I hear
such declarations as these; and were it not that I suppose there
is a sense in which a man's heart may be better than his head, I
should feel bound to maintain that persons holding this sentiment
were not Christians at all." We have certainly never met with a
more singularly extravagant and unfortunate declaration than the
one last quoted. Who are the persons who have held and taught
this sentiment, so inconsistent with Christianity? Why, at the
head of the list stand our Saviour and his apostles. "No man,”
said Christ, “can come to me except the Father which hath sent
me draw him." And the apostles refer continually to the abso-
lute dependence of man upon God for the necessary strength to
perform his duties aright. Not one of those holy men felt that he
was of himself "sufficient for these things." Their uniform feel-
ing seems to have been, "I can do all things through Christ, who
strengtheneth me." Mr. Finney not only believes that we can do
all things without any strength from Christ, but he makes this one
of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. The apostles ex-
horted men to be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and
they prayed for those to whom they wrote, that the Lord would
strengthen them with might by his Spirit,-that He would make
them perfect, establish, strengthen, settle them. But Mr. Finney
says, to pray that God would help the sinner to repent, is an insult
to God; as if God had commanded the sinner to do what he can-
not do. Now the Christian has at least as much ability to be per-
fectly holy as the sinner has to repent. God commands Christians
to be perfect, and of course, when the apostles prayed that the
Lord would strengthen them and make them perfect, they prayed
if God had commanded the Christian to do what he cannot
do." These prayers, then, uttered under the inspiration of the
Holy Ghost, must have been "an insult to God!" Mr. Finney
cannot relieve the character of his reckless, irreverent assertions,
by saying that the sacred writers meant to represent nothing more
than the unwillingness of the sinner to do his duty. Beyond all
dispute they represent this unwillingness under the form of an ina-
bility, and it is against those who describe it by precisely equiva-
lent terms that Mr. F. raves with such infuriate bitterness. There
is a question here, not between him and us, but between him and
the apostles, whether they employed proper and safe language in
describing the moral condition of man and the nature of his de-
66 as
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
105
pendence on divine aid. He may perhaps say that the language
employed by the apostles was perfectly proper at that time, but as
their statements have been perverted and become the source of
ruinous errors, it is now necessary to employ more explicit and
guarded language. We suppose this will be the nature of his de-
fence, as he distinctly takes the ground that it will not answer to
preach the same class of truths, or to exhibit them in the same
manner, in any two ages of the Church, or in any two places. At
each time and place the sinner is entrenched behind his own pecu-
liar errors, and the preacher must be careful not to present any
truth which he can so pervert as to fortify himself in his refuges of
lies. But is it true that any such change can take place, from age
to age, in the natural character or the accidental circumstances of
man, as to call for any important change in the matter or manner
of religious instruction? What error has ever existed that does
not find its refutation in some revealed truth? It is a very dan-
gerous principle to admit, that we are at liberty to omit such truths
of the Bible as we deem unsuitable to existing emergencies, and
to exhibit others in a very different light from that in which they
are left by inspired writers. It virtually suspends the whole of the
divine revelation upon the discretion and wisdom of man. But if
true, it has no application to the case now before us. There is no
evidence that the perversion of the truth which Mr. F. thinks can
only be met by varying the manner in which the apostles repre-
sent man's dependence, is a modern error. On the contrary, it is
undeniable that this very error prevailed in the days of the apos-
tles. Paul met with the same objections that are now current,
drawn from the divine sovereignty and human dependence; and
how does he refute them? By a flat denial that man is unable of
himself to do his duty? Or by a modification, a softening down
of his previous statements? No-he re-asserts the perverted doc-
trines in the face of the objections raised against them. He does
not, nor does any one of the sacred writers, affirm in a single
instance that the sinner is able to obey the divine commands. Not
a text of Scripture can be found in which this is declared, while a
multitude can be produced which explicitly and in so many words
deny it. Will Mr. F. say that the apostles urged upon men obe-
dience to the divine commands, and thus virtually declared their
ability to obey? Then why does he not declare it in the same vir-
tual manner? The same reasons existed then as now for a direct
assertion of the sinner's ability, and yet it was in no case made.
Why, then, should he make it now, and dwell upon it, and magnify
it into an important, nay, an essential part of the Gospel, so that
he who disbelieves it cannot be a Christian at all?
But it is not true that in urging the commands of God, the sacred
writers teach the entire and independent ability of man to obey.
Mr. Finney does not pretend to bring forward a single passage of
Scripture in which his doctrine is directly taught; he finds it prov-
ed in no other way than by his own inferences from such com-
106
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
pro-
mands as,
"Make to yourself a new heart," "My son, give me
thy heart." His brief argument for human ability is, God com-
mands man to obey, therefore he can obey. He does not even
allude to the distinction often taken between natural and moral
ability. He teaches broadly without any qualification whatever,
that a divine command implies the possession of all the ability
necessary to obedience. Obligation and ability, he says, must be
commensurate. And how does he prove the truth of this last
position? In no other way than by repeating, times without num-
ber, that to teach otherwise makes God an infinite tyrant. But
the Bible does not inform us that there is any tyranny in God's
commanding men to do what they cannot do. It teaches us direct-
ly the contrary, by making known the duty of man to receive the
things of the Spirit of God, while it at the same time declares, that
without divine assistance he cannot receive or know them. He
must refer, then, for the truth of this maxim, to our natural sense
of justice. We might object to this reference of a case already so
clearly decided by a higher authority; but we have no fear that
there will be found here any discrepance between the teachings of
revelation and the testimony of man's conscience, if the latter be
rightly interpreted. Our natural sense of justice does indeed teach
us that no obligation can rest upon man to perform any duty for
which he has not the necessary faculties; and that he is not
responsible for failure in anything which he was willing to do, but
was hindered in the execution by causes beyond his control. When
applied to such cases as these, there is a self-evidence belonging to
the maxim in question which places its truth beyond all dispute.
Mr. Finney's mistake lies in extending it to cases which lie altoge-
ther beyond the limits within which it was generalized. We deny
that the common sense of mankind has ever required that we should
possess the ability to change our inclinations, as the condition of
our responsibility for their exercise. To illustrate this, let us sup-
pose the case of a man under the influence of any dominant pas-
sion. Before he has long indulged this passion, it would be com-
paratively easy for him to relinquish it. As he gives way to its
impulses, however, its power over him increases, until at length it
binds in complete subjection to itself all the other affections of his
nature. At each step of its progress the difficulty of subduing it is
increased; and yet who will deny that the sin of cherishing is
accurately proportioned to this difficulty? The law of continuity,
which has place in moral reasoning, as well as in that " algebra"
which is to Mr. F. the symbol of incomprehensibility, would teach
us hence to infer that the guilt is greatest when the difficulty is
greatest, and that the former has its highest form of aggravation
in the insurmountable character of the latter. The language of
the whole world is framed in recognition of this truth. We speak
familiarly of the difficulty which men find in changing their incli-
nations, without ever conceiving that we thereby lessen their obli-
gation; nay, we consider the cup of their guilt full to the brim,
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
107
when they have so destroyed their ability to become virtuous, that
we may properly say of them, "They cannot cease to do evil,
and learn to do well." When a paramount inclination, like a strong
man armed, has taken possession of the heart, and, with a despot-
ism peculiar to itself, banished all but its own ideas and emotions,
how can it be dispossessed? Will it yield to a volition of the
mind? We all know it will not, and Mr. Finney himself admits
it. He says that our affections will not obey the bidding of the
This ad-
will-we cannot summon or dismiss them by a volition.
mission is fatal to him. The mind, he says, can operate upon its
inclinations and affections only by changing the object of thought;
and this change it certainly cannot effect in a moment.
When any
strong inclination is in exercise, the mind has an attraction for
those ideas and considerations which tend to sustain and increase
its present emotions, while it repels all others to an unseen distance,
and some little time at least is necessary before it can succeed in
calling up and keeping before it those objects of thought which
may introduce a different class of feelings. Upon his own ac-
count of the matter, no man can, in an instant, change a strong
inclination. And yet if that inclination be an evil one, the
obligation to an immediate change is evident. What, then,
has become of the maxim that obligation and ability are
commensurate? The sinner who perceives the opposition of the
divine government to his selfish plans, and whose heart is on that
account filled with emotions of hatred towards God, cannot
instantly, if at all, turn his mind to such views of the divine cha-
racter as will inspire him with love. And yet the duty of imme-
diate, instant submission is very evident. We see, then, that power
is not the exact measure of obligation. One instance of the fail-
ure of the truth of this maxim is as good as a thousand, since one
is enough to destroy its generality, and leave the arguments for
the inability of the sinner standing in all their force, unless they
can be overthrown by considerations drawn from other sources.
We do utterly deny that the sinner is able, in the sense which Mr.
Finney contends for, to obey the divine commands. In proof of
this we say that he is dead in trespasses and in sins, and as the
dead man is insensible to all things, so is he to those objects which,
if rightly perceived, would be adapted to kindle within him holy
desires and affections. Until renewed, he cannot know the things
which he must know before he can discharge his duty. And the
arguments which we urge from reason and Scripture in defence
of these views, are not touched by the assertion that obligation
and ability must be commensurate with each other. We have
already produced one instance in which, upon Mr. Finney's own
admission, this maxim fails to be true: and we are now about to
bring forward another, in which he virtually confesses that it is
never true when the affections and inclinations of the heart are in
question. In explaining why there can be no repentance in hell,
he says, when a man's "reputation is so completely gone that he
1
108
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
has no hope of retrieving it, in this state of despair there is no
possibility of reclaiming him; no motive can reach him and call
forth an effort to redeem his character." Now, in view of this
admission, let it be true that obligation and ability are commensu-
rate, and what is the consequence? Why, that when a man has
become so vicious as to ruin his reputation-when he has reached
such a confirmed state of iniquity that he himself and all others
despair of his ever becoming virtuous-when he has severed the
last link that bound him to humanity, and is floating loose from
his species, a demon or a brute-then is he released from all ac-
countability Mr. Finney adds, that in hell "the sinner will be
in despair, and while in despair it is a moral impossibility to turn
his heart to God." But will he deny that the sinner in hell is under
any less obligation to love God, on account of this admitted im-
possibility of loving Him? Betraying, as he here does, his know-
ledge of the limitations to which his favourite standard of obliga-
tion is subject, we should suspect him of a set design to deceive,
when he uses it so often in its broad, unqualified sense, and takes
his stand upon it to thunder out his furious anathemas against
others, had he not furnished us, through all his writings, with such
abundant evidence of his incapacity to take into view more than
a very small part of one subject at the same time. With the ex-
posure of the error involved in his position, that God cannot con-
sistently command man to do that which he cannot perform, we
shall take our leave of this part of the subject, for he has not
brought forward the semblance of an argument in favour of the
sinner's ability to regenerate himself, which does not directly
involve the universal truth of this erroneous maxim.*
We have already occupied so much space, that we cannot ex-
hibit as fully as we would wish, Mr. Finney's views of the doc-
trine of divine influence. His theory on this subject is expressed
in the following extract. "The work of the Holy Spirit
does not consist merely in giving instruction, but in compelling
him to consider truths which he already knows-to think upon his
ways and turn to the Lord. He urges upon his attention and con-
sideration those motives which he hates to consider and feel the
weight of." Again he says "It is indeed the pressing of truth
upon the sinner's consideration that induces him to turn." It will
be at once perceived that he limits the agency of the Holy Spirit,
in the regeneration of the sinner, to the simple presentation of truth
to the mind. Said we not truly, that the influence of the Holy
Spirit comes in here only by the way? It is strictly parenthetical,
and has about as much fitness and meaning, in connexion with the
rest of his scheme, as "the grace of God" has in the REX, Dei
GRATIA, on the disk of a Spanish dollar. He maintains that
the truth of God, if adequately considered, would convert the
* For a full discussion of the "Inability of the Sinner," see Biblical Repertory
for 1831, p. 360, or "Princeton Essays," Series First.
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
109
sinner; and that he has a perfect and independent power to keep
that truth before his mind. Surely, then, the agency of the
Spirit is superfluous. It is a new cause introduced to account
for the production of an effect for which we already have an
adequate cause. But though he has, inconsistently we think,
retained the doctrine of divine influence, he has so modified it that
it has but few, if any, points of resemblance with the scriptural
representations of this subject. His common method of illustrat-
ing the nature of the Spirit's agency is by a reference to the man-
ner in which a lawyer persuades a jury, or an orator sways his
audience. The Spirit merely presents the truth, and the moral
suasion of the truth regenerates the sinner, or rather induces him
to regenerate himself. It is not thus that the Scriptures represent
it. What mind can read his frequent illustration of an advocate
persuading his hearers, and then pass to the scriptural one, of a
power that raises from death unto life, without feeling that the agen-
cies which can be properly set forth under such dissimilar symbols
must be specifically and widely different from each other? If he
has given us the correct account of the divine agency exerted in
the salvation of man, then it cannot be denied that the language of
the sacred writers, on this subject, is most delusively extravagant.
He does sometimes describe the Spirit as forcing the truth home
with tremendous power,-pouring the expostulation home-keep-
ing the truth in warm contact with the mind-gathering up a
world of motive, and pouring it in upon the soul in a focal blaze.
Of these and similar expressions, the "warm contact," and the
"focal blaze," seem to be his favourites, as he has most frequently
repeated them. They are but the rays with which he seeks to
conceal from his own view and that of others, his meagre skeleton
of a Scriptural truth. He seems to resort to these expressions
because he feels the inaptness and poverty of his plain statements.
But it is as bad to lose one's self in a fog of metaphor, as in that
fog of metaphysics" which he so much dreads. His "close con-
tact," and "warm contact," and "focal blaze," and "pouring home,"
mean nothing more than that the Spirit presents the truth to the
mind. However the form of expression may be varied, this ex-
hausts the subject of his interference. He does nothing to awak-
en the attention any further than the truth which he offers awakens
it; nothing to arouse the feelings-nothing to make the scales fall
from the eye of the mind that it may perceive the truth—nothing
to change the disposition of the heart so that it may love the truth
and feel its constraining influence. Mr. Finney expressly and
warmly excludes any direct operation of the Spirit upon the mind or
heart. To suppose any such agency, he says with an irreverence of
which we hope but few could be guilty, is to suppose a "physical
scuffling" between the Holy Spirit and the sinner! As the Spirit
awakens no inclination of the heart to go forth and embrace the
truth, the warm contact with the mind, into which he brings it, can
refer only to its continuous presentation. When the truth is placed
66
110
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
before the mind, and the attention is fixed, the contact is complete,
and cannot be rendered any closer or warmer but by the instru-
mentality of the affections, upon which Mr. F. asserts the Spirit
exerts no agency. We have already shown the uiter inadequacy
of this account of the mode of regeneration. Whether the truth
remains for a short or a long time, in cold or in warm contact with
the unrenewed heart, it will feel in the considerations before it no
sufficient motive for loving God.
It will be seen from Mr. F.'s account of the Spirit's influence,
that the agency which He exerts in the regeneration of the sinner
is the same in kind as that exerted by the preacher. Both call his
attention to the truth, and neither of them does anything beyond
this. If you go to a drunkard, and urge upon him the motives.
which should induce him to abandon his cups, you have done for
him precisely what the Holy Spirit does for the sinner in his
regeneration. The preacher, upon this scheme, has the same right
that God has to assume to himself the glory of the sinner's salva-
tion. Indeed Mr. F. fully admits this in answering the objection
that his view of the subject "takes the work out of God's hands,
and robs him of his glory." His defence is, that the glory belongs
to God, inasmuch as he caused the sinner to act. And mark the
meaning and force of his illustration: "If a man," he says, "had
made up his mind to take his own life, and you should, by taking
the greatest pains and at great expense, prevail upon him to desist,
would you deserve no credit for the influences you exerted in the
case?" Is it not amazing that any man with the Bible in his hands,
and professing to love its sacred truths, could divide, as this pas-
sage fully does, the glory of the sinner's salvation between God
and man, ascribing the work in the same sense to the Holy Spirit
and the preacher, and distributing to each a similar meed of praise!
Mr. Finney seems to have a great objection to the preaching of
the doctrine of divine influence in any manner. There was a tract
published in New York entitled "Regeneration is the effect of
Divine Power." He twice declares that, "The very title to this
tract is a stumbling block." He says that, "While the sinner's
attention is directed to the subject of the Spirit's influences, his sub-
mission is impossible;" and that if the apostles on the day of Pen-
tecost had gone off to drag in such subjects as dependence upon
the Holy Spirit, it is manifest that not one of their hearers would
have been converted. "The doctrine of election and divine sove-
reignty," he asserts, "has nothing to do with the sinner's duty-it
belongs to the government of God." And in another place he says,
"To preach doctrines in an abstract way, and not in reference to
practice, is absurd." As the doctrine of divine sovereignty then
has nothing to do with the sinner's duty, we suppose that he in-
tends that it should not be preached at all. Thus does he distort,
thus would he conceal from view, a doctrine which runs through
the whole Bible, is incorporated with all its revelations, and is the
basement principle of so many emotions and actions!
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
111
to say:
It is obvious why he is thus hostile to divine sovereignty. This
doctrine he thinks is calculated to keep men easy in their sins. If
they are dependent upon God, they will be led to wait for his ac-
tion upon them before they begin to act. No doubt the truth may
be thus perverted. But is not his doctrine greatly more liable to
perversion? He teaches the sinner that he has all the requisite
power to convert himself. What more natural than for the sinner
I love my sins, and therefore as I can at any moment for-
sake them and make myself holy, I will continue to indulge myself?
It is worthy of remark, that when Mr. Finney is exposing, in one
of his most moving paragraphs, the unfitness of a deathbed as a
place for repentance, he alludes only to the difficulty of thinking
and keeping the mind in warm and distressing contact with the
truth, during the agonies of dissolution. He does not refer in the
most distant manner to the danger that the sinner, justly abandoned
of God, may be unable on that account to change his heart. Is
there no danger, too, that the sinner, so repeatedly assured that
God would be an infinite tyrant if he had commanded him to do
what he cannot do, should find in his own experience that he can-
not of himself make a new heart, and thus be led to condemn the
justice of the divine requirements? May he not also very consist-
ently say to his instructer, It is at least as easy for you to be per-
fectly holy as it is for me to repent-I retort upon you your charges
that I am a wicked rebel, and that my heart has been case-hardened
in the fires of hell-physician, heal thyself. If it is easier for me
to love God than to hate him, it is easier for you to be perfect than
to remain imperfect. It is easier indeed for you to be holy, even
as your Father in heaven is holy, than it is for you to walk home;
to do the latter requires that you should both be willing and exert
the proper muscular action, but to do the former only requires you
to be willing. You must be the wickedest being in the universe,
then, to refuse to perform a duty so obvious and so easy.
We here dismiss this subject for the present. As we have occu-
pied ourselves with Mr. Finney's doctrines, we have been led to
seek them chiefly in his Sermons, from which most of our extracts
have been taken. We propose in our next number to examine his
Lectures more particularly, and develope the measures and the
spirit of this new system. As we have shown that its doctrines
are not those of the Bible, so will it be seen that its spirit is any-
thing rather than the spirit of Christianity.
We have not shown the discrepances between Mr. Finney's
doctrines, and the standards of the church to which he belongs.
This would be holding a light to the sun. It is too evident to need
elucidation, that on all the subjects which we have gone over, his
opinions are diametrically opposed to the standards of the Presby-
terian church, which he has solemnly adopted. Many of the very
expressions and forms of stating these doctrines upon which he
pours out his profane ridicule, are found in the Confession of Faith.
Why then does he remain in the church? He will hold up to the de-
112
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
testation of his people a man who refuses to pay his subscription to
the Oneida Institute, because he conscientiously believes that insti-
tution is doing more harm than good, asserting that he is not honest,
and more than insinuating that he cannot go to heaven. And can
he see no moral dishonesty in remaining in a church, whose stand-
ards of faith he has adopted, only to deny and ridicule them? It
is a remarkable fact that this man, thus incorrect in his doctrinal
views, thus dishonest in his continuance in a church whose stand-
ards he disbelieves and contemns, should have been appointed a
professor of theology, to assist in training up ministers for our
churches. The trustees of Oberlin Institute had, to be sure, a per-
fect right to appoint him; but it seems to us very remarkable that
they should have selected him, and rather more so that he should
have felt willing to undertake the office of an instructer in theology.
We suppose, however, that his object was to show the church the
way in which her ministers should be trained. We give him credit
for his good intentions. He declares it to be a solemn fact, that
there is a great defect in the present mode of educating ministers,
and that the training they receive in our colleges and seminaries
does not fit them for their work. He assures his readers that all
the professors in our theological seminaries are unfit for their office;
some of them are getting back towards second childhood, and ought
to resign; and none of them are such men as are needed in these
days. Now is it not very kind in Mr. Finney, when the church is
thus destitute of men who can adequately instruct her ministers,
to step forward and take the office upon himself? No doubt the
whole Presbyterian church ought to break forth in rejoicings. But
we confess we would rather he should make the experiment of his
ability in this line out of our church. He will, doubtless, think this
very unkind and ungrateful, but we cannot help it. We tender
him our thanks for the substantial service he has done the church
by exposing the naked deformities of the New Divinity. He can
render her still another, and in rendering it perform only his plain
duty, by leaving her communion, and finding one within which he
can preach and publish his opinions without making war upon the
standards in which he has solemnly professed his faith.
SECOND ARTICLE.
WE proceed to exhibit to our readers the measures recommended
and the spirit displayed in Mr. Finney's Lectures on Revivals. We
do this at the known hazard of being denounced as enemies to
revivals, and friends of Satan. But it is a very small thing with us.
that we should be judged of Mr. Finney's judgment. We, in com-
mon with all the friends of pure and undefiled religion, have a
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
113
sacred duty to discharge in relation to this subject, from which no
considerations of fear or favour should deter us. Mr. Finney, and
his followers, have shown a resolute determination to persevere in
their course. It is surely then the duty of those who believe that
course to be detrimental to the best interests of religion, to proclaim
their dissent. We believe, therefore will we speak.
Our first remark is upon the disingenuousness of which Mr.
Finney is guilty, in stating the question of New Measures. These
measures, he says, are opposed "on the ground that they are in-
novations." Now he knows perfectly well, and all the world
knows, that this is not the ground on which they are opposed. Of
the many testimonies against them, which have been published, we
defy him to point to a single one in which their novelty is made the
cause of their condemnation. And yet he seeks continually to
make upon his reader the impression, that naught has been or can
be said against them, save that they are new. Who, but himself,
ever supposed that they were new? Who does not know that he
has picked up his measures, as well as his theology, among the
castaway rubbish of past times? The only novelty in the matter
is, that these measures should be employed in the Presbyterian
church, in combination with a false theology and a fanatical spirit.
Why then, when Mr. Finney is professedly defending his course
from the objections which have been urged against it, does he con-
fine himself so exclusively to the single ground of opposition, that
his measures are new? Why, if he felt himself equal to the task,
did he not fairly and honestly meet the real objections which have
been urged against him? Such disingenuous evasions always
injure the cause in defence of which they are employed.
66
A similar artifice may be detected in his enumeration of New
Measures. They are Anxious Meetings, Protracted Meetings,
and the Anxious Seat." He must have known, while uttering this
sentence, that the public estimation has never ranked these three
things together; and we very much doubt whether he has ever
heard the term New Measures applied to the Inquiry Meeting or
the Protracted Meeting. Meetings* of the kind thus designated
*We are aware that the Editor of the New York Evangelist has said that "before
Mr. Finney arose, Mr. Nettleton was much blamed for his irregularities and impru-
dence." This piece of information it seems came to Mr Leavitt, all the way round
by St. Louis. Such statements are intended to cast over Mr Finney the broad man-
tle of Mr Nettleton's reputation; or possibly the design may be to make Mr. N.
jointly responsible for the evils which are now seen to be pouring in upon the
church, through the flood-gates which the modern reformers have hoisted What-
ever may be the object, it is exceedingly unfair and dishonourable to attempt to
associate the name of Mr. Nettleton with a class of men, of whom we know, and
they too, he has ever said, "Oh, my soul, come not thou into their secret !" Would
it not be well for the Rev. Editor, before putting forth statements which reach him
by such a circuitous route, to make some inquiry as to their truth nearer home?
Mr. Nettleton's life has been spent chiefly in New England, and we challenge Mr.
Leavitt to produce, as authority for his statement, the opinion of any settled minister
in New England, of the denomination to which Mr. N. belongs, who was not an
avowed enemy to all revivals.
8
114
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
have been held in all parts of our church, and when wisely insti-
tuted and controlled, have never within our knowledge met with
any opposition. Why then should he place the Anxious Seat in
the same category with these institutions, unless it were furtively
to borrow for it a portion of their admitted respectability? Doubt-
less he intended that his triumphant vindication of things which no
one has opposed, should leave a general impression on the reader's
mind, of which the Anxious Seat might receive the benefit. But
does he not know, that while there are some who will be imposed
upon by such chicanery, there are others who will penetrate the
flimsy deception, and turn with disgust from a cause thus advocat-
ed? Or does he take it for granted, that among his "fit audience,"
would that we could add, "though few," there will be no discrimi-
nation of mind?
6
'
In his formal defence of his peculiar measures, Mr. Finney un-
dertakes to establish the position, "that our present forms of public
worship, and every thing, so far as measures are concerned, have
been arrived at by degrees, and by a succession of New Measures."
His remarks under this head are so curious that we are sure they
would amaze our readers. We wish we could quote them all.
He descants with most admirable perspicacity and force upon
cocked-hats, fur caps, bands, silk gowns, stocks, cravats, wigs, and
small-clothes. He then passes on to the discussion of Psalm Books,
lining the hymns, choirs, pitch-pipes, whistles, and fiddles. In the
course of his profound and edifying remarks upon these topics, he
relates several stories, of which the following may be taken as a
specimen: "I have been told that some years ago, in New Eng-
land, a certain elderly clergyman was so opposed to the new mea-
sure of a minister's wearing pantaloons that he would on no
account allow them in his pulpit. A young man was going to
preach for him who had no small-clothes, and the old minister
would not let him officiate in pantaloons. Why,' said he, my
people would think I had brought a fop into the pulpit, to see a
man there with pantaloons on, and it would produce an excitement
among them.' And so, finally, the young man was obliged to
borrow a pair of the old gentleman's small-clothes, and they were
too short for him, and made a ridiculous figure enough. But any-
thing was better than such a terrible innovation as preaching in
pantaloons." Again, he says: "I remember one minister who,
though quite a young man, used to wear an enormous white wig.
And the people talked as if there was a divine right about it, and
it was as hard to give it up, almost, as to give up the Bible itself."
We dare not reproach him for these instructive little stories in
which he abounds, since he is a strenuous advocate for the pro-
priety, nay, the necessity, of telling such stories from the pulpit.
"Truths, not thus illustrated," he says, "are generally just as well
calculated to convert sinnners as a mathematical demonstration."
But as, besides himself, "there are very few ministers who dare
to use these stories," he calls upon them to "do it, and let
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
115
fools reproach them as story-telling ministers." Speaking, too, of
such as contend for the dignity of the pulpit, he cries out," Dignity,
indeed! Just the language of the devil." We do not pretend to be
as well acquainted as Mr. Finney seems to be with the language
of the devil; but knowing who it is that has said, "Whosoever
shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire," we would
rather abide the consequences of the malediction against those who
censure" story-telling ministers," than stand in the predicament
of him who uttered it. Fool" and "devil" are in truth very
hard names, but we will not be angry with Mr. Finney for employ-
ing them; we can bear them from him, and it would be cruel to
deny him the use of his most effective weapons. We trust that
we may be excused, however, from attempting to reply to such
arguments. Nor can it be reasonably expected that we should
answer his stories about cocked-hats, wigs, whistles, &c.; or
controvert the important truths they were intended to illustrate.
Indeed, so far are we from wishing to controvert them, that we
will furnish him with an additional truth of like kind, and one
of such vital moment, that we can only wonder how it escaped
his penetrating survey. It is unquestionably true that the minis-
ters in New England, within the last half century, were very
generally in the habit of wearing long queues, and riding on
switch-tailed horses; and if he will apply to us, we can furnish
him with some instructive stories to illustrate this truth. We shall
leave to him, however, the duty of explaining how the "new
measure" of cutting off the queues, carried through like that of
wearing pantaloons, black stocks, and round hats, in the face of
persecution and danger, was made instrumental in promoting the
purity and power of revivals of religion. We should be glad if he
would inform us too, whether the men, who in the spirit of mar-
tyrs introduced these innovations, regarded conformity to them as
the only credible evidence of true piety. Did any of these wor-
thies ever say of" wearing pantaloons instead of small-clothes," as
he has said of the "Anxious Seat," that it occupied the precise
place that baptism did with the apostles? Or has the signal
honour been reserved for him of discovering and introducing a
measure co-equal in importance with a divine institution?
The object of Mr. Finney, in this miserable farrago, is to produce
the impression that the objections which have been brought against
his measures are as trivial and ridiculous as those which were
urged against the innovations of which he here speaks. Whether
he has succeeded, however, in making any other impression than
that of pity for the man who can thus ineptly trifle with a serious
subject we leave our readers to judge.
It has often been objected against the modern reformers, that
granting the beneficial tendency of their measures, they unduly
magnify their importance. This charge they have denied, and
have maintained that they considered them important, but yet
unessential, circumstances, attending and favouring the exhibition
116
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
*
of truth. We rejoice that evasion of this kind is no longer possible.
Mr. Finney throughout his Lectures insinuates, and often directly
asserts the paramount importance, nay, the indispensable necessity
of the new measures. "The object of the ministry," he says,
using that "Saxon colloquialism" which his reporter so much
admires" is to get all the people to feel that the devil has no
right to rule this world, but that they ought all to give themselves
to God, and vote in the Lord Jesus Christ as the governor of the
universe. Now what shall be done? What measures shall we
take? Says one, Be sure and have nothing that is new.'
Strange! The object of our measures is to gain attention, and you
must have something new. As sure as the effect of a measure
becomes stereotyped, it ceases to gain attention, and you must try
something new.” In the exercise of a wise economy" of our new
things," he thinks public attention "may be kept awake to the
great subject of religion for a long series of years, until our present
measures will by and by have sufficient novelty in them again to
attract and fix the public attention. And so we shall never want
for something new." All this would be abundantly unintelligible,
if interpreted by the light of Mr. F.'s own definitions. On the
page preceding that from which it is taken, he says, "building
houses for worship, and visiting from house to house, &c., are all
* measures,' the object of which is to get the attention of the people
to the gospel." And in another Lecture from which we have
made some extracts, he dignifies with the name of "measures" the
several.articles of the clergyman's dress, the chorister's pitch-pipe,
and various other like things. As "building houses for worship"
is a Ca
measure," it must, according to his theory, soon cease
to produce its effect; and the gospel cannot gain attention then
unless we "try something new," such for instance as preach-
ing in tents instead of our present church edifices. In the revolv-
ing cycle of these "measures," too, the time will come when the
cocked hat, small clothes, and wig, must be restored to their former
honours, or the truth cannot make any impression upon the minds
of men. Will Mr. Finney calculate the length of this cycle, that
the public may know when they will be favoured with the oppor-
tunity for observing the impulse which will be given to the spread
of the truth by the return of these ancient observances? Admit-
ting the truth of Mr. Finney's favourite maxim that “ obligation
and ability are commensurate," he cannot perhaps be considered
bound to write with anything like logical precision or consistency.
But we have a right to expect honesty. We are entitled to de-
mand that he shall not use terms in one sense, when seeking to
relieve his system from odium, and then artfully change the mean-
ing to subserve his purpose. This he has evidently done in the
passage above quoted. Let us assign, however, to the term
measures," in this extract, the signification which it was intended
here to bear, and yet how revolting is the doctrine taught! Ac-
cording to this theory, the gospel, which its divine author left
66
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
117
complete in all its parts and proportions, and most admirably
adapted to secure its destined ends, must utterly fail of its effect
unless there be added to it a set of machinery of man's invention.
A great, if not the chief part of ministerial wisdom is made to con-
sist "in devising and carrying forward measures" for exciting
public attention. The very perfection of Christian wisdom, the
height of religious prosperity, are to be sought in that state of
things in which "we shall never want for something that is new."
How is the temple of God dishonoured by this alleged necessity
for a continual shifting of its services, like the scenes of some
raree-show, to attract the vulgar gaze! How is the Gospel de-
graded by being thus made dependent for its effect upon a kind of
jugglery which shall be studiously adapted to surprise and startle
beholders, and thus "attract their attention !"
It is the very
nature of truth to be severely simple; and in this simplicity she
delights to go forth to win her victories. She leaves to error the
use of stratagem and guile.
The quotation we have made is not a solitary passage in which
the writer, in an unguarded moment, has claimed for his new
measures a degree of importance, which, in his more sober moods,
he would rather disavow. Deliberately and often does he assert
the unqualified necessity of these new measures, to the success of
the Gospel. "Without new measures," he says, "it is impossible
that the church should succeed in gaining the attention of the
world to the subject of religion." And again, " But new measures,
we must have." It will be seen in the sèquel, that this is only one
illustration of Mr. Finney's disposition to claim infallibility and
supreme importance for all his own opinions, even when the
smallest matters are in question. His argument, in the paragraph
from which the sentences last quoted are taken, may certainly
claim the merit of originality. "There are so many exciting sub-
jects constantly brought before the public mind, such a running to
and fro, so many that cry 'Lo here,' and 'Lo there,' that the
church cannot maintain her ground, cannot command attention,
without very exciting preaching, and sufficient novelty in measures
to get the public ear." He then proceeds to explain what these
"exciting subjects" are, which call upon the church to institute
specific measures for producing a counteracting excitement.
They are such as "the measures of politicians, of infidels and
heretics, the scrambling after wealth, the increase of luxury," &c.
It should seem, then, that the church must vary the method of
celebrating divine worship, and modify all the arrangements for
presenting religious truth to the minds of men, according to the
dainties of their tables and the elegance of their furniture and
equipage, the degree of commercial enterprise among them, or the
extent of infidel machinations, the number of railroads and canals.
in progress, and of Presidential candidates in the field. The mea-
sures we must use are some determinate function of all these vari-
able quantities; and its form should be, in each case, most care-
118
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
fully calculated. Every change in the state of speculation, trade,
or politics, must call for such a change of measures as will be "cal-
culated to get the attention of men to the gospel of Christ," under
these new circumstances. Religion must descend from her vantage
ground, and on the level with all this world's concerns and by
kindred arts, must she bustle, contrive, and intrigue "to get the
public ear." To make use of one of Mr. Finney's own illustrations,
because "the politicians get up meetings, circulate handbills and
pamphlets, blaze away in the newspapers, send their ships about the
streets on wheels with flags and sailors, send coaches all over town
with handbills to bring people up to the polls, all to gain attention to
their cause and elect their candidate," the church is bound to imitate
their wisdom, and institute a similar system of manœuvres.
Where
then is the contrast which Paul so often draws between the wea-
pons of our warfare, and those with which the world contends?
How widely do these ad captandum measures differ from the direct,
single-hearted course of the apostles! They evidently relied upon
the truth, as the only instrument they could lawfully employ in the
accomplishment of their errand. Their miracles were not intended,
like the glaring show-bill of some exhibition, to attract the atten-
tion of the public; their object was to convince, not to amaze the
people. They felt that they were the heralds of God, commis-
sioned to bear a weighty message to the children of men; and
while to their miracles they appealed for the proof of their com-
mission, upon the intrinsic overwhelming importance of their mes-
sage they founded their claim to the public attention. If we may
credit their own statements, they "renounced the hidden things of
dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God
deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth, commending them-
selves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." They seem
to have had no idea that they must set in operation some prelimi-
nary mechanism to awaken the attention of conscience to the truth.
If this complicated and ever-shifting system of "exciting mea-
sures" is necessary to the success of the Gospel, why do we find
no trace of it in their practice, and not a syllable of it in their writ-
ings? If, as Mr. F. says, new measures are necessary from time
to time to awaken attention, and bring the Gospel to bear upon
the public mind," why has it been left for him to reveal to us these
necessary means for the propagation of the Gospel?
66
Mr. Finney refers distinctly to the character of the present age
as furnishing a special argument for the use of new measures in
religion, and as determining the kind of measures to be employed.
The substance of his argument is, that this is an age of great excite-
ment, and therefore the same kind of preaching and of measures,
which did very well in the days of our fathers, will not answer
now; we must have something more exciting, or religion cannot
obtain a hearing. From the same premises, we should arrive at a
very different conclusion. This is, indeed, an age of extraordinary
excitement. The great improvements in the mechanic arts, and
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
119
the wide diffusion of knowledge, have given a strong impulse to the
popular mind; and everywhere the social mass is seen to be in
such a state of agitation, that the lightest breath may make it heave
and foam. This being the case, should religion fall in with this
excitement, and institute measures for fostering it up to a certain
point, that she may gain a favourable moment for presenting her
claims? We had thought that one great object of religion was to
allay this undue excitement of the human mind; to check its fever-
ish outgoings towards earthly objects, and to teach it without
hurry or distraction, in self-collectedness, to put forth its energies
in a proper direction, and to their best advantage. This self-
possession being included in the final result at which religion aims,
can it be wise to commence the attempt to produce it, by exaspe-
rating the contrary state of mind? Paul was once placed among
a people who were proverbial for their excitability. Their feelings
would kindle and flame with the lightest spark, and, like all persons
of this mercurial temperament, they delighted in excitement, and
were continually seeking its procuring causes. For all the Athe-
nians and strangers which were there, spent their time in nothing
else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing." Here, then,
according to Mr. Finney's theory, was the very people upon whom
it would be necessary to play off some preparatory measures to
excite them, and gain their attention to the Word. But the apostle
appears to have felt that nothing was necessary beyond the simple
declaration of the Word. He looked upon the truth, declared by
his lips, and prospered in its course by the energy of the Holy
Spirit, as amply sufficient to secure the needful attention, and
accomplish the purpose whereunto it was sent. Nay, so desirous
was he to prevent the surprise of novelty, that he represents him-
self as aiming, by the truth which he exhibits, merely to supply a
chasm in their knowledge which they had themselves discovered.
He presents Jehovah to them as the God of an altar already exist-
ing, and declared to them Him, whom they had ignorantly wor-
shipped. Nor did this apostle ever vary his course to suit the
latitude of the place he was in, or the temperament of the people
around him. Among the pains-taking and thrifty Jews; the learn-
ed and witty Athenians; the dissolute Corinthians; the more
phlegmatic and martial Romans, he employed but one measure, the
declaration of the truth. Will it be said that, in his day, the Gos-
pel was so novel, its truths so surprising, that the necessity for
other measures was superseded, but that now, when men have
become familiar with the revelations of the Gospel, something else
than the "thrice-told tale" must be employed to awaken public
attention? And is it conceivable, then, that the Great Head of the
Church, foreseeing that the time would come when the preaching
of the Gospel would lose its effect, and other means become neces-
sary for its propagation, should leave human reason to grope in
the dark for these additional measures? Such imperfection does,
indeed, often mark the ways and proceedings of man, but may not
120
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
be attributed unto Him, "whose thoughts are not as our thoughts,
nor his ways as our ways."
We have assumed, thus far, that the new measures cannot be
defended under the pretext that they are only a particular mode of
preaching the Gospel, or of exhibiting the truth, and are therefore
virtually comprised in the appointed means for the promotion of
religion. The measures for which Mr. Finney pleads are something
distinct from the truth, aside from it, and intended to exert a sepa-
rate influence. He plainly presents them as the precursors of the
Gospel, to prepare the way for its coming. It is surely incumbent
on him, therefore, to explain why the Scriptures make no allusion
to these indispensable appendages, or rather prefixes, of the
Gospel.
Pressed with this difficulty, and unable to work a miracle in
confirmation of his right to supply the deficiencies of the revela-
tion already made, will he yield the position that these new mea-
sures are necessary, and content himself with maintaining, that as
they tend to favour the impression of the truth, and it is our duty
to preach the truth in its most efficient form, it is both expedient
and right to make use of them? Upon this ground some of Mr.
Finney's fellow labourers have rested their cause, and have con-
structed for it a much better defence than he has made. The
principle is here assumed, that it is the right and the duty of every
man to make use of any measures for promoting religion that seem
to him well adapted to co-operate with the truth and aid in its
work; and this principle is, within certain limits, both just and
safe, but when pressed beyond them it is false and dangerous. If
there be no restraint upon the application of this principle, then
are the means for the diffusion of Christianity left, as before, at the
mercy of human discretion. Each minister should, in this case, be
keen as a Metternich in foreseeing the final effect of the machi-
nery he puts in operation; and the most eagle-eyed would often
find themselves mistaken. Hence experiment after experiment
must be made to try the efficacy of different measures; and the
house of God becomes transformed into a kind of religious labora-
tory. Upon this same principle the Roman Catholic church has
introduced the worship of images and pictures, and overlaid the
simplicity of the Gospel with the tinsel and glare of her pompous
ritual. She has cast upon religion such a profusion of ornaments
wherewith to deck herself, that she has expired beneath the bur-
den. The measures of the Catholic church, though adopted with
the honest design of favouring the operation of the truth, are rea-
dily condemned by all Protestants. We might imagine, too, many
other measures which would temporarily assist the impression of
the truth, and which would yet meet with universal condemnation.
It was Domitian, we believe, who invited some of his senators, on
a certain occasion, to sup with him, and when they arrived at his
palace, they were ushered into a room hung with black, and against
the walls of which were placed coffins, each one, by the dim, blue
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
121
light of a sulphur lamp placed within it, showing the name of one
of the horror-stricken guests. At a signal from the emperor, execu-
tioners rushed into the room, each with a drawn sword in his hand.
There can be no doubt, that a homily on death, delivered just then,
would have produced a wonderful effect upon the audience. But
would any one recommend such measures for giving effect to the
truth of man's mortality? Or would any one, save the preacher
and the trumpeter who are said to have actually tried the trick,
approve of stationing a man in the belfry of the church to give
emphasis, by a blast from his horn, to the preacher's account of
the blowing of the archangel's trump? Phosphoric paintings
might be drawn upon the walls of the church, which being ren-
dered suddenly visible by the extinguishment of the lights, at the
proper point in the preacher's discourse, would most powerfully
aid the impression of the truth he was delivering. A thousand
devices equally effective, and equally objectionable, might be
invented by the exercise of a little ingenuity. Where then shall
we draw the line between what is right and what is wrong? If
compelled to run this boundary line, we should make it divide
between those measures which might be considered vehicles
of the truth, or intended simply to provide for the exhibition
of the truth, and those which are designed of themselves to
produce an effect. There are various methods in which the
truth may be presented, such as from the pulpit, in Bible
classes, or Sunday-schools, and in private conversation. Of
all such measures, if measures they must be called, those are best
which are best adapted to make the truth effective. Means must
also be provided for the proper exhibition of truth, such as build-
ing convenient houses for public worship, collecting children in
Sunday-schools, visiting from house to house, forming Bible and
other benevolent societies. To this class may be referred also pro-
tracted meetings and inquiry meetings. The design of these
meetings is simply to collect the people together that they may
hear such truths as are deemed suitable to their state of mind.
was never intended that the mere institution of such a meeting, or
the act of going to attend upon it, should produce any religious
effect. Such arrangements as these may undoubtedly be made if
they are fitted to favour the operation of the truth. And this limi-
tation will be found to include the condition that the measures
themselves, the bare mechanism of the arrangements for the pre-
sentation of the truth, instead of being constructed with the design
and the tendency to surprise and captivate the attention, should be
so ordered as to attract no notice. The perfection of pulpit elo-
quence is when the manner of the preacher attracts no attention,
and the truth is left to work its unimpeded effect upon the hearer;
and so those are the best measures which themselves pass unre-
garded, and suffer the mind to be entirely occupied with the truth.
The measures which are peculiar to Mr. Finney and his followers
are of a very different class. The anxious seat, for instance, is
It
122
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
intended to produce an effect of its own. Its object is not simply
to collect in one place those who are in a particular state of mind,
that they may be suitably instructed and advised. No, there is
supposed to be some wonder-working power in the person's rising
before the congregation and taking the assigned place. This mea-
sure then, and all that resemble it in its tendency to occupy and
excite the mind, we should condemn on scriptural grounds as inex-
pedient and unauthorized.
The distinction we have here made we think is just and impor-
tant and we could urge many reasons why it should be taken as
the dividing line between right and wrong measures for promoting
religion. But this position might be contested by some, and we
are anxious here to reason from premises universally conceded.
There are many cases where right and wrong run into each other,
and the bounding line between them, like that between neighbour-
ing states, is involved in dispute and doubt. We will grant there-
fore, to save all cavil, the universal truth of the principle that it is
right to make use of any measures in our efforts to promote religion
that are adapted to aid the truth in its operation upon the minds of
Here then we are called upon to examine the tendency of
the particular measures proposed and insisted-upon by Mr. Finney;
and when he shall have worn out these, and, in accordance with
his Athenian notion that we must continually find something new,
introduced others, we shall be under the necessity of testing them
in like manner.
men.
For reasons already given we shall throw out of consideration
inquiry meetings and protracted meetings. We shall first consider
what Mr. F. calls the anxious seat. His formal definition of this
measure is, "the appointment of some particular seat in the place
of meeting, where the anxious may come and be addressed parti-
cularly, and be made subjects of prayer and sometimes conversed
with individually." Let this definition be well marked. It points.
out with sufficient distinctness the nature and design of this mea-
sure. What then will be the surprise of the reader to learn, that
on the same page he implicitly admits that the real design is totally
different from the avowed one! In defending this measure from
objection, he says, "the design of the anxious seat is undoubtedly
philosophical and according to the laws of mind :-it has two bear-
ings." These two bearings are, that "it gets the individual (who
is seriously troubled in mind), willing to have the fact known to
others ;" and secondly," it uncovers the delusion of the human heart
and prevents a great many spurious conversions, by showing those
who might otherwise imagine themselves willing to do anything
for Christ that in fact they are willing to do nothing." In defend-
ing this measure, who would not have supposed that his arguments
would have been drawn from the importance of having those who
were troubled in mind collected together that they might "be ad-
dressed particularly," &c.? But there is not one word of his defence
that has the remotest connexion with the avowed object of this mea-
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
123
sure. He was evidently thrown off his guard; and the plainness
with which he thus incautiously reveals the true in distinction from
the professed design is only a new instance to illustrate the diffi-
culty of maintaining a consistent system of deception. We have
understood from the beginning the guileful character of this measure,
and it has constituted in our minds a strong objection against it;
but we had not expected to find so distinct an acknowledgment of
it in Mr. Finney's defence. Can any measures, thus marked by
insidiousness, be lawfully employed in the promotion of religion ?
How careful is the Apostle Paul to inform us that he did "not
walk in craftiness;" and when some of his enemies at Corinth
charged him with having "caught them with guile," how prompt-
ly did he repel the odious accusation! We are told too that in
the Saviour's lips, "there was found no guile;" but that his ene-
mies used crafty measures to ensnare him. Christian wisdom be-
comes worldly cunning the moment that it ceases to be united with
the artlessness and simplicity of the dove. But we need not
multiply arguments to prove that deception can never be lawfully
employed in the support and furtherance of the truth. The only
difficulty heretofore has been to substantiate the charge of guile
against the new measures, and Mr. Finney has saved us all further
trouble on this score.
1
Deception may seem, for a time, to aid the progress of truth, but
its ultimate effects must always be injurious. In the case now un-
der examination, it is easy to foresee the evil. Many will doubt-
less go to the anxious seat, and finding that no counsels or prayers
are offered on their behalf, which might not have been delivered
with as much propriety and effect while they occupied their
former seats, will perceive that the apparent and professed de-
sign of this measure was intended merely as a lure to draw them
within the sphere of its real operation. They will feel that they
have been deceived, and there is nothing which the mind more in-
stinctively and quickly resents than the least approach to fraud or
imposition upon itself-nothing which more surely awakens its un-
friendly and hostile feelings. A still larger class will see at once
the deception of this measure, and will turn away in disgust from
a cause which calls in the aid of such fantastic trickery-a disgust
which we should not hesitate to pronounce reasonable, if the con-
duct which excites it were lawful and right. The best cause
imaginable, on trial before a jury, would be prejudiced and probably
lost, by any appearance of fraud in the matter or management of
it. What impression then must be made respecting religion, when
her friends employ such measures, and represent them as essential
to the success of the Gospel! What multitudes will conclude, and
conclude justly, if the sayings and doings of these reformers are
true and right, that the cause itself thus supported, must be a bad
one! The character of religion is known to the world chiefly
from the conduct of its professed friends; and they cannot be too
careful, therefore, to pursue such an open and honest course, as
124
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
will plainly show, that, in the strong consciousness of the merits of
their cause, they reject with disdain the tortuous policy and in-
triguing arts of worldly men.
The substance of Mr. Finney's first argument in defence of the
anxious seat is comprised in the following extract. "When a
person is seriously troubled in mind, everybody knows that there
is a powerful tendency to try to keep it private that he is so, and
it is a great thing to get the individual willing to have the fact
known to others. And as soon as you can get him willing to make
known his feelings you have accomplished a great deal." The
anxious seat he supposes will produce this willingness, will " get
him to break away from the chains of pride," and thus "gain an
important point towards his conversion.' It is true that there is
often found the tendency, here spoken of, to conceal the state of
the feelings from public observation. But this is not always the
effect of pride. However strange and inconceivable it may be to
Mr. Finney, there can be no doubt that there is such a thing as a
diffidence, which has its origin in modesty rather than pride.
There are those, and they form perhaps a much larger class than
he supposes, whose minds shrink from everything like a parade,
or public display of feeling. Every refined mind possesses more
or less of this retiring delicacy. Its tenderest, most cherished
feelings are those which are least exposed save to the objects of
them; it feels indeed, that its affections would be profaned by being
laid open to the stare of vulgar curiosity. It is easy to see how
such a mind will be affected by the anxious seat. In proportion
ordinarily to the intenseness of the feelings awakened within a man of
this mood, will be his aversion to make the public exhibition of them,
which is demanded. He knows that there is, in every community, a
circle of religious gossips, who are always found among the earliest
and warmest patrons of the anxious seat, and who attend continu-
ally upon it, to satisfy their prurient curiosity, and gather materials
for conversation from the disclosures there made of the feelings of
their neighbours. And he cannot bear the thought that his most pri-
vate and sacred emotions should be thus idly bruited about. After
a severe struggle of mind, he will decide not to go to the anxious
seat, and, as he has been taught to consider this step necessary to
his conversion, there is much reason to fear that his decision not to
take it will put an end to his seriousness. The spark, which, pro-
perly fostered, might have been kindled into a bright and ever-dur-
ing flame, is thus quenched by a kind of rude and harsh dealing for
which the word of God affords no warrant. There are others, in
whom the unwillingness to make known their religious concern
proceeds from the dread of ridicule. This dread has a place in
most minds, and with some men it constitutes one of the strongest
feelings of their nature. There are many young men who could
better brave almost any danger than endure the laugh or face the
sneer of their thoughtless companions. The religious anxiety of
such must become deep and strong, before it will drive them to
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
125
break through the restraints which this fear imposes upon them.
Can it be deemed wise or safe then to expose them unnecessarily to
so severe a trial as the anxious seat? This trial may in some cases
effect, so far as this is concerned, the desired result, but there is a
dreadful risk incurred of repelling some, upon whom the truth had
taken hold, to their former state of thoughtless unconcern. And
what is the counterbalancing advantage to warrant this risk?
Why, the anxious seat, argues Mr. Finney, "gets the individual,
who is seriously troubled in mind, willing to have the fact known
to others; and as soon as you can get him willing to make known
his feelings, you have accomplished a great deal." The true state
of the question is here very artfully concealed from view. The
real operation of the anxious seat is not to make the individual
upon whom it takes effect, willing to have his feelings known to
"others;" it is to make him willing to display them before the
whole congregation. And this is so far from being "an important
point gained towards his conversion," that it should be deprecated
as fraught with almost certain evil. It is important that some one
or more should be made acquainted with his state of mind, that he
may receive the instructions adapted to his case; but it is highly
undesirable that the whole community should know it, lest the
thought that he is the object of general observation and remark
should turn away his mind from the contemplation of the truth, and
call up an antagonist influence, which shall prevail over that which
had begun to work within him. The risk, then, which is involved
in the use of this measure, is incurred for the attainment of an end,
which is of itself a positive and serious disadvantage.
In this connexion, too, we would remark, that the tendency of
the anxious seat, and of the whole system of public pledging, vot-
ing, &c., or, as Mr. Finney calls it in his Saxon English, "of speak-
ing right out in the meeting," is to obstruct the operation of the truth.
They distract the mind and divert it from the truth, by producing
a distinct and separate excitement. Suppose an individual, listen-
ing to the message of God, feels the truth manifested to his con-
science. As the preacher proceeds, the truth takes deeper hold
upon him, the penitential tear starts from his eye, and he resolves
that he will begin to seek the Lord. When the sermon is closed,
his heart still meditates upon the truth he has heard, and his feel-
ing of anxious concern becomes each moment more intense.
But
now comes the call to the anxious seat. He hears himself exhorted in
the most impassioned manner, to exchange the seat he now occupies
for another designated one; and the vehemence with which this
measure is urged upon him, and the motives and illustrations em-
ployed to enforce it, seem to imply that the salvation of his soul
depends upon his taking this step. Here is a new subject present-
ed to his mind, and one of a very agitating nature. The divine truth,
which was but now occupying his mind, is forced away, while he
revolves the questions, Shall I go or not? Who else will go?
What will they say of me? The excitement thus produced, oblite-
126
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
rates the impressions which the truth had made, and, but for the
consideration we are now about to present, it would then be a
matter of small moment whether he went to the anxious seat
or not.
66
The consideration just alluded to, is the tendency of the anxious
seat to form and cherish delusive hopes. Mr. Finney has, in-
deed, assigned as his second argument, and the only additional one
to that already examined, in favour of this measure, that its
bearing is "to detect deception and delusion, and thus prevent
false hopes." This argument would have astonished us beyond
measure, had we not ceased to be startled by anything which
Mr. Finney can say or do. He has worn out all our suscepti-
bilities of this kind, and no measures from him, in argument or
action, however new, could now surprise us. This case is but one
out of several similar ones, in which Mr. F. resorts to the forlorn
hope of reversing what he knows and feels to be the most formi-
dable objections against him, and changing them into argu-
ments in his favour. As might have been anticipated in every at-
tempt of this kind, he has utterly failed. He supposes that the
anxious seat operates as a test of character. Preach," he says
"to him (the awakened sinner) and at the moment he thinks he is
willing to do anything, but bring him to the test, call on him to
do one thing, to take one step, that shall identify him with the peo-
ple of God, or cross his pride-his pride comes up, and he refuses;
his delusion is brought out, and he finds himself a lost sinner still;
whereas, if you had not done it he might have gone away flatter-
ing himself that he was a Christian." This argument involves the
capital error that no sinner who is truly awakened can refrain from
obeying the call to the anxious seat. It assumes that to go to
the anxious seat is "to do something for Christ," and that it is im-
possible for him who refuses to go, to be a Christian. It supposes
that these things are true, and that every awakened sinner is igno-
rant or undiscerning enough to believe them true. Some test of
this kind, he says, the church has always found it necessary to
have. "In the days of the Apostles, baptism answered this pur-
pose. It held the precise place that the anxious seat does now, as
a public manifestation of their (the people's) determination to be
Christians." So it appears that baptism, like all other measures,
wears itself out, and must be replaced by something new. Will
Mr. Finney inform the church how long we must wait before this
measure will be again fitted to accomplish the purpose for which
the Saviour intended it? Though he supposes that the anxious.
seat occupies "the precise place" that baptism did, we can by no
means consent to receive it as an equivalent. Baptism was,
indeed, a test of character, since obedience or disobedience was
exercised in view of a divine command; but the anxious seat cannot
operate thus, except by arrogating to itself a similar authority.
We trust that this may be deemed a sufficient answer to Mr. F.'s
argument for the anxious seat as a test of character.
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
127
The tendency of this measure to foster delusion and create false
hopes is very evident. There are some persons who are fond of
notoriety, and ever ready to thrust themselves forward on any
occasion, or in any manner which will attract to them the notice
of others. To such the anxious seat holds out a powerful tempta-
tion. This measure, if used at all, must be used without discrimi-
nation. It applies the same treatment to all, and does not permit
us, according to the apostolic direction, to make a difference," hav-
ing compassion on some," "and pulling others out of the fire."
While it unduly discourages, and in many cases overwhelms with
despair, the timid and diffident, it invites forward the noisy and
bustling, who need to be repressed. Others again will go to the
anxious seat, who are not properly awakened, upon whom, indeed,
the truth has produced no effect; but they go because they have
been persuaded that to do so is "to do something for Christ," and
that it will be an important point gained towards their conver-
sion." Mr. Finney agrees with us in supposing that such public
manifestations will often be made by persons who have not the feel-
ings indicated; for however irrational a man's theories may be, he
cannot refrain, sometimes, out of connexion with them, from talking
common sense. On one occasion, when he is out of his controver-
sial attitude, he says to his congregation, "perhaps if I should put
it to you now, you would all rise up and vote that you were agreed
in desiring a revival, and agreed to have it now;" and he then goes
on to prove to them, that nevertheless they are not agreed. Doubt-
less it would be so, and in like manner will many go to the anxious
seat, who are not " anxious." And the great majority of all who
go will go under the influence of erroneous impressions and wrong
excitement. Whatever may be the theory of the anxious seat, in
practice it is not used for the purpose of making visible and thus
rendering permanent the impressions made by the truth, nor is such
its effect. This is most fully disclosed by Mr. Finney. Those
who have been affected by the truth, and who obey the summons
to the anxious seat, will not go with the view of making known
their state of mind to their spiritual adviser. They will ordinarily
make this pilgrimage to Mecca,' because they have been deceived
into the belief that it is a necessary step towards their salvation ;
and that they are rendering to Christ an acceptable service by thus
attending upon an institution which is as good as baptism, or per-
haps a little better. The excitement which draws persons of these
different classes to the anxious seats, not being produced by the
truth, and yet partaking of a religious character, must tend
to conduct the mind to error and delusion. Some, no doubt,
who, in the heat of the moment, have taken this step before
so many witnesses, will feel that they are committed, and
rather than be talked of as apostates through the whole congre-
gation, they will be induced to counterfeit a change which they
have not experienced. We have not been surprised, therefore,
to learn, what is an unquestionable fact, that where this measure
128
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
has been most used, many hypocrites have been introduced into
the church—men professing godliness, but living in the practice
of secret wickedness. And a still greater number, through the
operation of the same influence, have been led to cherish false
hopes. In the mind of an individual who has gone to the anxious
seat, an important place will be filled by the desire to come out
well in the estimation of the multitude who have looked upon this
declaration of his seriousness; and, already too much disposed to
judge favourably of himself, he will be thus still more inclined to
rest satisfied with insufficient evidences of a gracious change.
Every extraneous influence of this kind, which is brought to bear
upon a mind engaged in the delicate business of forming an esti-
mate of itself, must tend to mislead and delude it.
The anxious seat, no matter how judiciously managed, is liable
to the objection here advanced. It excites the mind and thus
urges it forward, at the same time that it thrusts aside the truth,
the attractive power of which is alone sufficient to draw it into its
proper orbit. But the intrinsic tendency of this measure to lead
the mind astray is very greatly enhanced by the manner in which
it is conducted by Mr. Finney and his imitators. The ordinary
course of proceeding with those who come forward to occupy the
anxious seat is on this wise. They are exhorted to submit to God
during the course of the prayer which the preacher is about to
offer. They are told that this is a work which they can perform
of themselves. They have only to summon up all their energies,
and put forth one Herculean determination of will, and the work
is done. A strong pull, as in the case of a dislocated limb, will
jerk the heart straight, and all will be well. At the conclusion of
the prayer, they are called upon to testify whether they have sub-
mitted. All who make this profession, without any further exami-
nation, are at once numbered and announced as converts. Some-
times a room, or some separate place, is provided to which they
are directed to repair. Those who remain are upbraided for their
rebellion, and again urged to energize the submitting volition dur-
ing another prayer. And this process is continued as long as there
is a prospect of its yielding any fruit. Does it need any argument
or illustration to show, that the anxious seat, thus managed, must
be a very hot-bed of delusion? The duty here urged upon the
sinner is not, as we have shown in our former article, the duty
which the Bible urges. We are at no loss to understand why Mr.
Finney presents the sinner's duty in this form. Submission seems
to be more comprised than some other duties within a single men-
tal act, and more capable of instant performance. Were the
sinner directed to repent, it might seem to imply that he should
take some little time to think of his sins, and of the Being whom
he has offended; or if told to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,
he might be led to suppose that he could not exercise this faith
until he had called up before his mind the considerations proper to
show him his lost condition, and the suitableness of the offered
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
129
Saviour. Repentance and faith, therefore, will not so well answer
his purpose. But with submission, he can move the sinner to the
instant performance of the duty involved, or, as he says in his
Saxon way, can "break him down," "break him down on the
spot,
"melt him right down clear to the ground, so that he can
neither stand nor go." In the mental darkness, consequent upon
this unscriptural exhibition of his duty, and while flurried and be-
wildered by the excitement of the scene, the sinner is to perform
the double duty of submitting, and of deciding that he has submitted.
Who can doubt that, under these circumstances, multitudes have
been led to put forth a mental act, and say to themselves, "There,
it is done," and then hold up the hand to tell the preacher they
have submitted. while their hearts remain as before, except, indeed,
that now the mists of religious delusion are gathering over them?
Had this system been designed to lead the sinner, in some plausi-
ble way, to self-deception, in what important respect could it have
been better adapted than it now is to this purpose?
The test-question propounded to the occupant of the anxious
seat is not always made as definite as we have represented.
Sometimes it is proposed in as loose and vague a form as this:
"Would you not be willing to vote that God should be the Supreme
Ruler?" and an affirmative answer to this question has been
deemed and proclaimed adequate evidence of submission, and the
assenting individual filed off among the "new converts." So
unbecoming and foreign from the true nature of religion have
been the attempts often made by these preachers to produce an
excitement; so indecent the anxiety manifested to force upon the
anxious sinner some expression or sign which might authorize them
to make use of his name to swell their list of converts, that we
can liken it only to the manner in which the recruiting serjeant, by
the display of drum and fife and banner, and if this will not an-
swer, by the intoxication of his dupe, persuades him to accept a
piece of the king's money, and thus binds him to the service and
increases his own reward. The chief difference is, that the enlist-
ed soldier soon perceives that he has been caught with guile, and
bitterly deplores the consequences of his delusion, but the deceived
sinner will, in many instances, remain deceived until he learns his
mistake at the bar of his Judge.
Lest the proclamation, upon the most slight and insufficient
grounds, that the anxious sinner is a convert, should not act with
sufficient power upon his sense of character to make him counter-
feit a Christian deportment, or deceive himself into the belief that
he is a true disciple of Christ, there is provided an additional new
measure, the immediate admission to the Lord's Supper of all who
profess themselves converts. It will be at once seen how this mea-
sure plays into the rest of the system, and assists the operation of
the whole. Mr. Finney, to perfect his system, has but to take one
further step, and maintain that no church has the right to discipline
any of its members who have been thrown in by the operation of
9
+
130
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
the new measures. This is evidently wanting to complete his plan,
which ought to provide some method for retaining his converts in
the church, as well as for their easy introduction into it. And
why should he hesitate to make this small addition? It is surely
more defensible than many other parts of his system. We should
not be surprised to find a denial that the "set of old, stiff, dry, cold
elders," that have crept into our churches, have any authority to
discipline his converts, figuring at large in the neat pattern-card
which he issues, of the newest fashion in measures. Mr. Finney
endeavours to show that it is the duty of the young convert to
apply immediately for admission to the Church, and the duty of the
church to yield to this application. In Chatham-street Chapel, it
seems, their practice is to propound applicants for a whole month,
but the reason of this long delay is, that in a city many strangers
will apply, and it is necessary for the session to have opportunity
to inquire respecting them. In the country, however, the church
will "sin and grieve the Holy Spirit," by debarring from the com-
munion any who apply, "if they are sufficiently instructed on the
subject of religion to know what they are doing, and if their gene-
ral character is such that they can be trusted as to their sincerity
and honesty in making a profession." "Great evil," he says, "has
been done by this practice of keeping persons out of the church a
long time to see if they were Christians." No doubt great evil
has been done to the credit of his system, wherever the converts
made by it have been thus tried, but this is the only evil that we
have ever known to result from the practice. Under the ordinary
ministrations of the Gospel there is much that springs up having
the semblance of piety, but without root, so that it soon withers
away. And it cannot be doubted that much more than the usual
number of these fair-looking but rootless plants will start up in
Mr. Finney's forcing-bed. Surely, then, the voice of wisdom and
of duty calls upon the church to wait until the blossom, if not the
fruit, shall have appeared. When the seeming but deceived con-
vert has been once admitted within the pale of the church, the
motives and means of continued self-deception are so greatly mul-
tiplied, as to leave but little ground for hope that he will ever be
awakened from his false security until the dawning light of another
world breaks in upon him. The church also owes a duty to her-
self in this matter. The addition of unworthy members to her
communion, by rendering frequent acts of discipline necessary,
will expose her to distraction within, and to scandal without. But
these weighty considerations, plainly involving the eternal welfare
of individuals and the true prosperity of the church, must all give
way to provide for the effectual working of Mr. Finney's sys-
tem. Better that the church should be filled with the hypocriti-
cal and the deluded, than that the new measures should lose their
credit.
Many of Mr. F.'s opinions tend to this same point, to provide
for smuggling his converts into the church, before they themselves,
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
131
or the session to whom they apply, can have had full opportunity
to judge whether they have undergone a change of heart.
"There
is no need," says he, "of young converts having or expressing
doubts as to their conversion. There is no more need of a person's
doubting whether he is now in favour of God's government, than
there is for a man to doubt whether he is in favour of one
government or another. It is, in fact, on the face of it, absurd
for a person to talk of doubting on such a point, if he is intelligent
and understands what he is talking about." Though it might
perplex a man of plain understanding to conceive how such
instruction as this could be reconciled with the scriptural account
of the deceitfulness of man's heart, yet its meaning and drift are
perfectly intelligible. Its tendency, and it would hardly be
uncharitable to say, its design, is to form a bold, swaggering. Peter-
like confidence, which may preserve the fresh convert from mis-
givings of mind during the brief interval of a few hours, or at most
days, which must elapse between his professed submission and his
reception into the church. The next thing is to impress him with
the belief that it is his duty to apply at once for admission to the
Lord's Supper, and this is most fully done. He is told that if he
waits," he will probably go halting and stumbling along through
life." No, there must be no waiting-drive on, or the tempestuous
gust will die away. Then the church must be taught to throw
open her doors, and this she is told to do under the pains and
penalties of "grieving the Holy Spirit" if she refuse. Some
examination, however, must be held, and the result of this might
be to show that many of the applicants had been insufficiently or
erroneously instructed in the plan of salvation. And see how
beautifully Mr. Finney provides for this difficulty. "In examining
young converts for admission to the church, their consciences
should not be ensnared by examining them too extensively or
minutely on doctrinal points." The meaning of the phrase, "too
extensively or minutely," may be readily understood from the
exposition we have given of Mr. Finney's theological system.
The church session who should ask of one of these converts, what
is the ground of your hope of salvation? might receive for an
answer, "My submission to God:-the world is divided into two
great political parties, the one with Satan, the other with God at
its head; and I have energized a mighty volition, and resolved to
join the latter and vote in the Lord Jesus Christ as governor of
the universe." Suppose the examination to proceed a little further
-Have you been led to see the depravity of your heart? "I
know nothing of a depraved heart. All I know on this subject is,
that ever since Adam sinned, every person begins to sin when he
becomes a moral agent."-But does not David say, I was shapen
in sin? 66 Yes, but the substance of a conceived fœtus cannot be
sin, and David only meant that he sinned, when he sinned." Have
you any reason to believe that your soul has been washed in the
fountain set open for the remission of sin? "I know nothing of
132
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
any such operation. I have been taught that it is a great error
introduced into the church by the accursed traditions of the elders,
to speak as though in religion there occurred anything like the
washing off of some defilement."-Upon whom do you rely for
strength in the conflict which is before you? "Upon the might
of my own arm."-Do you not pray to God to strengthen you and
enable you to discharge your duties? "No, it would be an insult
to God to pray thus, as though he had commanded me to do what
I am not able to perform."-Do you believe that God is all-power-
ful? “Yes; that is, I believe he can do some things, and others
too, if his creatures will not oppose him."-Can he preserve and
promote the prosperity of the church? Yes, by taking advan-
tage of excitements." The session, somewhat dissatisfied, we may
suppose, with this examination, resolve to question the candidate
more closely on some of these points. But--Hold, hold, cries Mr.
Finney, take care how you ensnare the conscience of this young
convert by examining him too extensively or minutely on doctrinal
points.
66
The way is thus laid perfectly open for the entrance of his con-
verts into the church. But how shall they be kept there? There
are two new measures proposed by him that might seem to aim at
this end, but both of them inadequate. The first is, that they shall
be kept in ignorance of the standards of the church they have
entered. Young converts, he says, ought to be indoctrinated, but
he avowedly excludes from the means of indoctrination, "teaching
the catechism." This would answer if he could only keep in the
first ones, until he had introduced a majority into every church
who should know nothing of the catechism or confession of faith.
The other measure proposed is, that his converts should not be
made to "file in behind the old, stiff, dry, cold members and elders."
No doubt, if they could be permitted to take the lead and manage
all things in their own way, there would be no difficulty. But
there is reason to apprehend, that age, combined with Christian
experience and clothed with official pre-eminence, will still insist.
upon its right to direct the young and inexperienced.
Nothing can be more evident than that these new measures are
remarkably adapted to form and propagate a false religion. Indeed,
we have little doubt that the whole system has originated in a total
misconception of the true nature of religion. This charge* was, in
* See a pamphlet, published in 1828, entitled "Letters of the Rev. Dr. Beecher
and Rev. Mr. Nettleton on the New Measures in promoting Revivals of Religion."
This pamphlet contains a masterly discussion of the subject Though it was written
before the new measures had as fully disclosed themselves as now, its allegations
have been more than sustained, and all its prophecies of evil time has already con-
verted into history. We fear that the continued press of new publications has crowd-
ed this pamphlet out of sight. It deserves more than an ephemeral existence, and
we shall be glad if this notice has, in any degree, the effect of calling attention to it.
It has never been answered. Mr. Finney, we are told, makes it his rule never to
reply to any attacks upon him,-it should have been added, save by bitter vitupera-
tions from the pulpit. A very convenient principle this.
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
133
substance, alleged against Mr. Finney several years since, and sub-
stantiated from the only production which he had then given to the
public. It was fully made out, to the conviction, we imagine, of
every candid mind that examined the evidences, but its only effect
upon Mr. Finney, so far as we can perceive, has been to induce
him to throw in an unintelligible paragraph upon the difference
between emotion and principle. "One of the first things," he says,
"young converts should be taught, is to distinguish between
emotion and principle in religion..... By emotion I mean, that
state of mind of which we are conscious, and which we call feeling,
an involuntary state of mind that arises of course when we are in
certain circumstances, or under certain influences. But these
emotions should be carefully distinguished from religious principle.
By principle. I do not mean any substance or root or seed or
sprout implanted in the soul. But I mean the voluntary decision
of the mind, the firm determination to act our duty and to obey
the will of God, by which a Christian should always be governed.'
Does he intend here, by maintaining that our emotions are invo-
luntary, to deny them any moral character? Does he mean to
tell us, that the emotion of complacency towards holiness is not an
adequate or proper motive for the cultivation of holiness in our-
selves? Are all those actions which are prompted by our emo-
tions divested of morality, or, if moral, are they sinful? And,
then, what a definition of a principle, as distinguished from an
emotion? A voluntary decision of mind? A man decides to do
some act because he thinks it right. His decision is a principle.
He has stumbled into this arrant nonsense, over his dislike to mental
dispositions. But we will not puzzle ourselves or our readers in
the attempt further to analyse this mysterious paragraph. What-
ever may be its meaning or design, it will not turn aside the charge
that the general tendency of Mr. Finney's representations is to give
an undue predominance to the imaginative emotions in religion.
We are susceptible of two very different classes of emotion,-the
one connected with the imagination, the other with the moral sense;
the one awakened by objects that are grand, terrible, &c., the
other called into exercise by the perception of moral qualities.
These two kinds of emotion produce widely different effects upon
the animal frame. Let a predominant emotion of terror fill the
mind and it will fever the blood, quicken the pulse, blanch the cheek,
and agitate the whole frame. Each moment that the emotion
becomes more intense, the bodily excitement increases, and it may
be heightened until life is destroyed by it. But let the mind be
occupied with disapprobation of moral evil, and in the intensest
degree of this emotion, how feeble in comparison is its effect upon
the powers and functions of animal life? This close sympathy of
the imaginative emotions with the bodily frame gives them a dan-
gerous pre-eminence. The same object often calls into simultane-
ous action emotions belonging to both these classes. The contem-
plation of his sinful life may call up at once in the mind of a man.
134
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
abhorrence of sin and dread of its evil consequences, and there is
reason to fear that, without great care, the latter feeling will absorb
the former. Now, it is just here that we think Mr. Finney has erred,
and gone over into the regions of enthusiastic excitement. He is
evidently possessed of an ardent temperament, and the calm and
gentle excitement attending the exercise of the moral emotions,
disconnected with the imaginative, has not sufficient relish for him.
It is comparatively tame and tasteless. For the same reason, he
discards as "animal excitement," all the gentler feelings; such as,
like the "soft and plaintive music of an Eolian harp," spread them-
selves through the soul and dissolve it in tender sadness or pity.
He turns from these to the stronger and more boisterous emotions,
which, stirring both soul and body like the sound of the trumpet,
can yield the luxurious play and revel of intense sensation. When
a feeling of this character is awakened by religious objects, though
it should swallow up the accompanying emotion inspired by con-
science, yet the imaginative mind entertains no doubt of the religious
character of the passion which fills and moves it. It is in this region,
where prevails the awakening din of the storm and tempest of pious
passion, that Mr. Finney, as it appears to us, has constructed the
chief dwelling-place of religion. For the proof of this, we appeal
to the general tone of swelling extravagance which marks all his
sentiments, and to the habitual tenor of his illustrations and instruc-
tions. He teaches in various places and ways, that the progress
of religion in the heart cannot properly be set forth under the
symbol of the growth of "any root or sprout or seed, implanted
in the mind." Now it so happens that one of these figures,
the growth of a seed, was employed for this very purpose, on
more than one occasion, by our Lord himself, and by his apostles.
And it must be acknowledged that this is a very fit and instruc-
tive emblem, if the progress of religion be dependent on the
growth of principle-that is, of that which is the beginning, or
which lays the ground for a series of actions, and determines them
to be what they are; but inappropriate and deceptive, as he repre-
sents it to be, if religion has its origin in a " deep-seated" act of
the mind, and for its increase depends on the fitful gusts of pas-
sionate fervour. To the same effect are the many representations
which he puts forth, of the repugnance which the Christian will
feel when brought into contact with a fellow Christian who is more
spiritual than himself. This electric repulsion will take place only
when their minds are under the dominion of the imaginative emo-
tions. The Christian, whose religion is the offspring of principle,
and has its range among the emotions of the moral sense, will love
Christian excellence, and be attracted by it in proportion to its
purity and brightness. The effect of greater holiness than his
own, whether seen in men, in angels, or in God, will be to increase
his admiration and draw him onward in the divine life. This re-
pellent effect of the exhibition of greater piety, Mr. Finney sup-
poses, will take place only in those who are considerably below it.
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
135
If those around are anywhere "near the mark," it will "kindle
and burn" among them, until it has warmed them all up to its own
temperature. Hence, in a prayer meeting, if a spiritual man leads,
who is "far ahead" of the rest, "his prayer will repel them ;" but
it "will awaken them if they are not so far behind as to revolt at
it and resist it." And again he says, "In the midst of the warm
expressions that are flowing forth, let an individual come in who
is cold, and pour his cold breath out, like the damp of death, and
it will make every Christian that has any feeling, want to get out
of the meeting." A precise account this of the operation of a
kind of religion which has cut loose from principle and conscience,
and surrendered itself to the emotions of the imagination. And
in accommodation to this species of religion must all the arrange-
ments of the prayer meeting be ordered. "There should be," he
says, "but one definite object before the meeting." Forgetful,-
perhaps we ought to say, reckless,-of the model our Saviour has
given us, in which there are as many objects brought before the mind
as it contains sentences, he censures and ridicules every prayer
which is not confined to a single point. Unless some short pas-
sage of scripture can be found which bears upon this specific
point, he says, no portion of the Bible should be read at the meet-
ing. "Do not drag in the word of God to make up a part of the
meeting as a mere matter of form,—this is an insult to God."
There must be no "joyful singing." When singing is introduced
in a prayer meeting, the hymns should be short, and so selected as
to bring out something solemn, some striking words." There
must be no adoration of the Deity. Yes, incredible as it may ap-
pear, Mr. Finney proscribes and burlesques that sublimest, holiest
exercise of the human mind, in which it rises to the contemplation
of Infinite Excellence, and prostrates itself before it, rehearsing the
perfections which it feels it cannot worthily celebrate. "Some
men," he says, "will spin out a long prayer in telling God who
and what he is!" The tendency of all this is easily perceived.
We have mentioned the correspondence which always takes place
between the movements of imaginative emotions and of the ani-
mal frame. Mr. Finney contends that the spirit of prayer is, in its
very nature and essence, a spirit of agony; and he mentions with
commendation a state of mind in which "there is but one way to
keep from groaning, and that is by resisting the Holy Ghost."
Nay, he brings forward, with very special praise, the case of a
man "who prayed until he bled at the nose!!" Another pattern
is afforded by a woman, "who got into such a state of mind that
she could not live without prayer. She could not rest, day nor
night, unless there was somebody praying. Then she would be at
ease; but if they ceased, she would shriek with agony." Of himself
he says, "Brethren, in my present state of health, I find it impossible
to pray as much as I have been in the habit of doing, and continue
to preach. Now will not you, who are in health, throw your-
selves into this work, and bear this burden, and lay yourselves out
. . .
136
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
in prayer?" Again, it is well known that persons who are un-
der the dominion of imagination soon become a prey to delusion.
All their inward impressions are projected into the form of exter-
nal realities. Their forebodings of mind are to them the shadows
of coming events, and they assume the character and authority of
prophets. This peculiarity is fully endorsed by Mr. Finney,
under the name of " spiritual discernment." There was a woman,
in a certain place-almost all his stories of this kind are about
women-who "became anxious about sinners, and went to pray-
ing for them-and she finally came to her minister and talked with
him, and asked him to appoint an anxious meeting, for she felt that
one was needed. The minister put her off, for he felt nothing of
it. The next week she came again, and besought him to appoint
an anxious meeting; she knew there would be somebody to come,
for she felt as if God was going to pour out his Spirit. He put
her off again. And finally she said to him, 'If you don't appoint
an anxious meeting I shall die, for there is certainly going to be a
revival.' The next Sabbath he appointed a meeting." The result
of course was, as in all other published predictions of this kind,
that the oracle was fulfilled. He had several other stories to the
same effect; and the expectation of these women, founded on no
evidence save that of individual feeling, he calls "spiritual dis-
cernment;" and gives warrant to those who possess it to arraign
their ministers and elders, and fellow members of the church, as
“blind" and "sleepy." Devoted, praying Christians," he says,
"often see these things so clearly, and look so far ahead, as greatly
to stumble others. They sometimes almost seem to prophesy."
They do indeed not only almost, but altogether, seem to prophesy,
and so has many an enthusiast before them. This disposition to
put faith in spectral illusions is indeed a very common mark of
enthusiasm, and the reason of it is well understood by all who are
acquainted with the philosophy of the human feelings.
66
În like contradiction to the true nature of religion, but in perfect
keeping with the false notion of it which we suppose Mr. Finney
to have adopted, are his opinions respecting the absolute necessity
of excitement to the general prosperity of religion in the world,
and to its growth in the Christian's heart. "The state of the
world is still such, and probably will be till the millennium is fully
come, that religion must be mainly promoted by these excitements."
His professed theory on this subject is that there must be an alter-
nation of excitement and decline-that after a great religious stir
among the people, they will decline and keep on declining "till
God can have time so to speak, to shape the course of events so as
to produce another excitement," then comes another decline, and
so on. He represents this same spasmodic action as taking place.
in each Christian's experience. It is impossible, he thinks, to keep
a Christian in such a state as not to do injury to a revival, unless
he pass through the process of " breaking down" every few days.
"I have never laboured," he says, "in revivals in company with
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
137
6
any one who could keep in the work and be fit to manage a
revival continually, who did not pass through this process of break-
ing down as often as once in two or three weeks." He adds, “I
was surprised to find a few years since that the phrase 'break-
ing down' was a stumbling block to certain ministers and professors
of religion-they laid themselves open to the rebuke administered
to Nicodemus, Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these
things?" We are surprised that any one should have been igno-
rant of the meaning of this "breaking down." It is very intelligi-
ble. In consequence of the law to which we have several times
referred, when the imaginative emotions are strongly excited the
bodily frame sympathizes powerfully with the excitement, and all
the chords of the system are so tensely strung that they cannot
long bear it. Hence follows reaction, exhaustion, "breaking down."
If religion be founded in principle, if its peculiar and cherished
emotions be those of the conscience, then can there be no call for
this breaking down and jumping up-this cicadic movement. But
we have dwelt at sufficient length upon this point. We were anx-
ious to present as complete evidence of the truth of our position
as our limits would permit; for we do believe that Mr. Finney's
mistaken views of the nature of religion lie at the bottom of his
measures, and have given to them their character and form; and
that these measures, therefore, wherever used, will tend to propa-
gate a false form of religion.
These measures might have had their origin in the "New Divi-
nity," for they are in harmony with the theology as well as the
religion of the system. Historical facts, however, have guided us
in assigning their origin to erroneous views of religion. The new
measures, we believe were in full action before the theology of New
Haven shed its light upon the world. We recollect that it was
matter of surprise to many when the conjunction took place be-
tween the coarse, bustling fanaticism of the New Measures, and the
refined, intellectual abstractions of the New Divinity. It was a
union between Mars and Minerva—unnatural, and boding no good
to the church. But our readers will have observed that there is a
close and logical connexion between Mr. Finney's theology and
his measures. The demand created for the one by the other, and
the mutual assistance which they render, are so evident, that we
will spend no time in the explanation of them.
There is one argument of Mr. Finney in favour of the new
measures which we have not noticed, and to which we should not
now allude, but for a purpose which will soon disclose itself. This
argument is, in true importance, on a perfect level with that drawn
from the small-clothes, wigs, and fur caps. It consists in pro-
ducing the names of a great number of wise and eminent men who
have been prominent in introducing innovations. All this has
nothing to do with the question-it is perfectly puerile indeed to
introduce it—unless these men introduced such innovations as he
contends for. Among these new-measure men he introduces the
138
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
name of President Edwards. And on several occasions he makes
such a use of the name of this great man, as is calculated to leave
upon the reader's mind the impression that Edwards had sanction-
ed his proceedings. He has no right thus to slander the dead, or
impose upon the living. It is well known that Davenport, against
whose extravagant fanaticism Edwards wrote at length, is redivivus
in Mr. Finney, and that the same scenes over which he grieved
and wept have 'been re-acted in our day under Mr. Finney's
auspices. For one of his measures, lay exhortation, he does dis-
tinctly claim the authority of Edwards. "So much opposition,"
he says, 66
was made to this practice nearly a hundred years ago
that President Edwards actually had to take up the subject, and
write a laboured defence of the rights and duties of laymen."
We were not surprised by Mr. Finney's ignorance in confounding
Mary, Queen of Scots, with "bloody Queen Mary" of England;
we do not demand from him historical accuracy; we do not look
indeed for anything like a thorough knowledge of any one subject,
for, should he obtain it, it would surely pine away and die for want
of company. But we were not quite prepared for such ignorance
of Edwards's opinions and writings. Can it be ignorance? Charity
would dispose us to think so, but we cannot. In the same work
from which Mr. Finney has taken long extracts, and to which he
often refers, as if familiar with its contents, Edwards makes known
with all plainness his opposition to lay exhortation. He expressly
condemns all lay teaching which is not " in the way of conversa-
tion." He censures the layman "when in a set speech, of design,
he directs himself to a multitude, as looking that they should com-
pose themselves to attend to what he has to say. . and more still,
when meetings are appointed on purpose to hear lay persons ex-
hort, and they take it as their business to be speakers." In a pub-
lished letter of his to a friend, who had erred in this matter, he
tells him, "You have lately gone out of the way of your duty, and
done that which did not belong to you, in exhorting a public con-
gregation; .... you ought to do what good you can by private,
brotherly, humble admonitions and counsels; but 'tis too much for
you to exhort public congregations, or solemnly to set yourself by
a set speech, to counsel a room full of people, unless it be children
or those that are much your inferiors." These are the sentiments
of Edwards, and it is hardly possible that Mr. Finney should have
been unacquainted with them. Whence then this bold misrepre-
sentation? This is one illustration of that unscrupulousness in the
use of means for the attainment of his ends, which he too often
manifests. With perfect nonchalance, he will make figures, facts,
scripture, everything, bend to the purpose he has in hand. We
have often been reminded, while reading his pages, of the calcula-
tor who, being applied to, to make some computations, asked his
employer with perfect gravity, "On which side, sir, do you wish
the balance to come out ?" Another illustration of Mr. F.'s pecu-
liar facility in this way is at hand, and we will give it. In one of
•
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
139
his Lectures, when endeavouring to persuade the people not to
contradict the truth preached, by their lives, and, as usual, inflating
every sentiment to the utmost degree for the accomplishment of
his purpose, he says, "If Jesus Christ were to come and preach,
and the church contradict it, it would fail-it has been tried once."
But in another Lecture, where he is labouring might and main
to prove that every minister will be successful in exact propor-
tion to the amount of wisdom he employs in his ministration, he
is met with the objection that Jesus Christ was not successful
in his ministry. But, reader, you do not know the man if you
imagine that this difficulty staggers him at all. Not in the
least. In disposing of it he begins by showing that "his ministry
was vastly more successful than is generally supposed," and ends
by proving that "in fact, he was eminently successful." And no
doubt, if his argument required it, he could prove that Christ was
neither successful nor unsuccessful. This unscrupulous use of any
means that seem to offer present help, whether for the attainment
of their objects within the camp or without, was early noted as a
peculiar mark of the new-measure men. Dr. Beecher says, in a
letter written eight years since, "I do know, as incident to these
new measures, there is a spirit of the most marvellous duplicity
and double-dealing and lying, surpassing anything which has come
up in my day.' And the heaviness of this accusation will not be
much lightened by any one who has been an attentive observer of
their movements since.
99*
There only remains to be noticed, the argument for the new
measures which Mr. Finney draws from their success. We shall
not stop to dispute with him the position which he assumes, that
the success of any measure demonstrates its wisdom and excel-
This letter was addressed to the Editor of the Christian Spectator. It seems
that there had been some symptoms of a disposition on the part of this Editor, to
compromise with the new measures, from a desire to promote the circulation of his
work in those regions where these measures were then burning in all their fury.
Dr. B. immediately writes this letter of strong remonstrance, in which in the most
rousing strain, he exhorts to firm, open and decided resistance. "The more tho-
roughly we do the work," he says, "of entire demolition of these new measures, the
sooner and safer we can conciliate." His opinion of Mr. Finney, at that time, may
be gathered from the following extract. "Now, that such a man as he (Mr.
Nettleton) should be traduced, and exposed to all manner of evil falsely, in order to
save from deserved reprehension such a man as Finney (who, whatever talents or
piety he may possess, is as far removed from the talent, wisdom, and judgment, and
experience of Nettleton, as any corporal in the French army was removed from the
talent and generalship of Bonaparte), is what neither my reason, nor my conscience,
nor my heart will endure." These were Dr. Beecher's sentiments in 1827. Since
that time he is understood to have patronised the Corporal, when he visited Boston;
and but lately he delivered a high eulogy upon him at the West, in the course of
which he says, "I have felt the beating of his great, warm heart before God," and
professes to have heard more truth from him than from any other man in the same
space of time. Dr. B.'s opinions, expressed in the letter from which we have
quoted, profess to have been formed from the most full and accurate acquaintance
with facts. Dr. Beecher has an undoubted right to change any of his opinions, but
he cannot expect the public to give him their confidence if he makes such changes
as this, without rendering a more satisfactory account of them than he has yet given
of this one.
140
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
lence. No man can maintain the ground which he takes upon
this subject, without denying that it forms any part of the plan of
God in the government of the world, to bring good out of evil.
But there is no need of discussing this matter now.
We will grant
him the benefit of the criterion. It is too late in the day for the
effect of this appeal to success.
The time was when an argument
of this nature might have been plausibly maintained. Appearances
were somewhat in favour of the new measures. At least wher-
ever they were carried, converts were multiplied, and though the
churches were distracted ministers unsettled, and various evils
wrought, yet it might have been contended that, on the whole, the
balance was in their favour. But it is too late now for Mr. Fin-
ney to appeal, in defence of his measures, to the number of con-
verts made by them, to the flourishing state of religion in the west-
ern part of New York, where they have been most used, and to
the few trivial evils which have been incident to them. Indeed, he
seems to have a suspicion that the public possess more information
on this subject than they did a few years since, and he pours out
his wrathful effusions on the informers. He is animated with a most
special dislike to letter-writing. "Some men," he says, "in high
standing in the church, have circulated letters which never were
printed. Others have had their letters printed and circulated.
There seems to have been a system of letter-writing about the
country." "If Christians in the United States expect revivals to
spread, they must give up writing letters," &c. "If the Church
will do all her duty, the millennium may come in this country in three
years; but if this writing of letters is to be kept up, &c. .
the curse of God will be on this nation, and that before long."
"Go
forward. Who would leave such a work and go to writing letters?"
"If others choose to publish their slang and stuff, let the Lord's
servants keep to their work." Who will not feel thankful that
Jack Cade's day is gone, and a man cannot now be hung" with
pen and ink-horn around his neck," for being able to write his name?
But thanks to these much abused letter-writers, we have received
their testimony, and neither Mr. Finney's assertions nor his ravings.
will shake the public confidence in it. It is now generally under-
stood that the numerous converts of the new measures have been, in
most cases, like the morning cloud and the early dew. In some
places, not a half, a fifth, or even a tenth part of them remain. They
have early"broken down," and have never got up again. And
of those that yet remain, how many are found revelling in the
excesses of enthusiastic excitement, ready to start after every new
vagary that offers, and mistaking the looming appearances, the
"fata morgana" of the falsely refracting atmosphere in which they
dwell, for splendid realities! How many more, the chief part of
whose religion consists in censuring the established order of things
around them, in seeking to innovate upon the decent and orderly
solemnities of divine worship, and in condemning as unconverted,
or cold and dead, the ministers, elders, and church-members, who
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
141
refuse to join them! From the very nature of these measures
they must encounter the conscientious and decided opposition of
many devout Christians, and hence wherever they have been intro-
duced, the churches have been distracted by internal dissensions,
and in many cases rent asunder. Ministers who have opposed
them have been forced to abandon their charges; and those who
have yielded to them have been unsettled by their inability to sti-
mulate sufficiently the seared surface of the public mind; so that
it is now a difficult matter among the western churches of New
York to find a pastor who has been with his present flock more
than two or three years. Change and confusion are the order of the
day. New ministers and new measures must be tried, to heighten
an excitement already too great to admit of increase, or to pro-
duce one where the sensibility has been previously worn out by
overaction. Rash and reckless men have everywhere rushed in
and pushed matters to extremes, which the originators of these
measures did not at first contemplate. Trickery of the most dis-
gusting and revolting character has been employed in the conduct
of religious assemblies; and the blasphemous boasts of the revival
preachers have been rife throughout the land. Mothers have
whipped their children with rods to make them submit to God;
and in this have done right, if there be truth in the theology, and
fitness in the measures of Mr. Finney. Men of taste and refine-
ment have been driven into scepticism by these frantic absurdities
of what claims to be the purest form of religion, or they have
sought refuge in other denominations from these disorderly scenes.
in ours.
Doctrinal errors and fanatical delusions of the wildest
kind have started into rank existence. The imposture of Matthias
and the Perfectionism of New Haven, are monster-growths, in
different directions, of this same monster-trunk.* And no one can
tell what new and yet more monstrous growths it will cast out.
No form of enthusiasm developes at once, or soon, all its latent ten-
dencies. Though its present course may be comparatively regu-
lar and near the truth, no mind can predict in what erratic wan-
derings it may be subsequently involved. The path of the comet
within the limits of the solar system can scarcely be distinguished,
by the nicest observations, from the regular orbit of the planet ;
but it ultimately rushes off into unknown fields of space: and the
course of enthusiasm while in sight, like that of the comet, will not
suffice to furnish us with the elements of its orbit. To what black-
* See the history of "Matthias and his Impostures," by Col. William L. Stone.
Col. Stone has rendered an important service to the public by the publication of this
work. It furnishes a train of facts which will astonish those who have looked upon
this noted imposture as a sudden and isolated freak of the human mind. It was our
purpose to make copious extracts from this work to illustrate the opinion of its
author, that the delusion of Matthias and of his victims "originated in the same
spirit of fanaticism which has transformed so many Christian communities in the
northern and western parts of New York, and states contiguous, into places of moral
waste and spiritual desolation." But we must content ourselves with this reference.
We hope the work will circulate widely. It furnishes a salutary lesson of warning
to all who can learn from the past.
142
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
ness of darkness it may finally rush, we know not. We might fill
a volume with describing evils already wrought by the new divi-
nity and new measure system, and then fill many more by collating
this system with history, and showing what evils are yet within.
the limits of its capabilities.
We would not be understood to mean that no good has been
produced under the preaching of the new divinity, and the opera-
tion of the new measures. They have, doubtless, in some cases,
been overruled for good, and been made instrumental in producing
true conversions. But we do maintain, for we fully believe it to
be true, that the tendency of this system, of all that is peculiar to
it as a system of doctrine and of action, is unredeemedly bad. We
have brought forward every argument which we could find in Mr.
Finney's pages, in favour of his reforms, and in canvassing them
have presented our own objections. And our readers must now
judge between us.
We have one more objection still to present, and it would alone
be sufficient to outweigh all the considerations which Mr. Finney
has presented in favour of his measures. We mean the spirit
which accompanies them. We shall be under the necessity of giv-
ing a much briefer development, and fewer illustrations of this
spirit than we had intended, but we shall succeed, we think, in
showing that it is the essential spirit of fanaticism.
66
The first feature of it to which we invite attention, is its coarse-
ness and severity. Mr. Finney's language is habitually low and
vulgar. He revels in such Saxonisms as these: "Let hell boil
over if it will, and spew out as many devils as there are stones in
the pavement." Look at that sensitive young lady; is she an
impenitent sinner? then she only needs to die to be as very a devil
as there is in hell." "Devil" and "hell" are, indeed, familiar to
him, "as household words." The young men in some of our theo-
logical seminaries, he says, "are taught to look upon new measures
as if they were the very inventions of the devil. So when they
come out, they look about and watch, and start, as if the devil
was there." We imagine that all the young men in our semina-
ries know that there are men who are equal to these things, with-
out any help from the devil. In condemning those who pray,
Lord, these sinners are seeking thee, sorrowing," he says, "It is a
LIE." The men who had promised to pay, each, a yearly sum to
the Oneida Institute, but who afterwards refused, on the ground,
as one of them assured us, that the pledge under which they sub-
scribed, that a thorough course of instruction should be established
in the institution, had been violated, are rated after this manner:
"Is this honest? Will such honesty as this get them admitted into
heaven? What! break your promise, and go up and carry a lie
in your right hand before God? If you refuse or neglect to fulfil
your promise, you are a liar, and if you persist in this you shall
have your part in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone."
He subsequently adds, "You cannot pray until you pay that
66
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
143
money." In dealing with impenitent sinners, he will allow no
symptoms of compassion or pity. The church, in all her conduct,
must show that she "blames them." We must at all times make
it plain, by our deportment, that we "take God's part against the
sinner." He thinks it a dreadful error even for us to make use of
our Saviour's language in praying for sinners, "Father, forgive
them, they know not what they do." Every sentence and every
term must be charged with fierce accusation against them. To
this harsh severity all the tender amenities of social intercourse,
and the still more tender charities of the domestic affections, must
be sacrificed. He maintains that parents can never pray for their
children "in such a way as to have their prayers answered, until
they feel that their children are rebels." And he narrates a story
to show that no mother can expect her son to be converted, “until
she is made to take strong ground against him as a rebel." Had
we space for comment here, we might easily show that no spirit
can claim fellowship with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which thus
runs rough-shod over all the tender sympathies and affections
of the human heart. But it is thoroughly consistent with the
fierceness of fanatical zeal, which has its play among the stronger
passions of our nature, and looks with contempt upon whatever is
kind, tender, gentle, or compassionate.
The next feature of Mr. Finney's spirit to which we turn, is its
extravagance. It is a peculiar mark of the fanatic that every dog-
ma, every little peculiarity to which he is attached, is made to be
infallibly certain, and infinitely important. Should he admit any-
thing less than this he would feel the ground sliding from under
him. To hold natural sentiments, and express them plainly, and
with proper limitations, would be to sink all his advantage
and bring himself down to a level with others. His own mind,
too, is often in an uneasy and self-doubting state which needs
confirmation. Hence for the double purpose of making a strong
impression on others, and of strengthening himself, every opinion
and sentiment are inflated entirely beyond their natural limits.
To quote all the illustrations of this disposition to extravagance
which Mr. Finney's lectures afford, would be to cite no inconsider-
able portion of the whole volume which contains them. The mi-
nutest things are made matters of indispensable necessity. Every
rag which he touches is henceforth endowed with the power of
working miracles. He is himself addicted to telling stories and
parables from the pulpit to illustrate the truth, and we have no
objection to this provided it is done as Mr. F. says the devil
wishes it done so as to comport with the proper dignity of the pul-
pit. We have known many preachers who excelled in this style
of preaching. But Mr. F. is not content with maintaining that
this is a good, and for some men, the best way of presenting and
enforcing the truth. No, nothing less will satisfy him than that
"truths not thus illustrated are generally just as well calculated to
convert sinners as a mathematical demonstration." Many excel-
144
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
lent men, who have no taste or turn for this illustrative method of
preaching, will be astonished and grieved to learn that to deliver a
plain, unvarnished statement of scriptural truth to their congrega-
tions, is as hopeless a means of doing good, as to prove to them
that two sides of a triangle are greater than the third side. Again,
Mr. Finney is given to extemporaneous preaching, and of course
this is not merely the best, it is the only way of preaching. He
can find no resting place for the sole of his foot but on the broad
ground that "we never can have the full meaning of the gospel
till we throw away our notes." We do not like forms of prayer,
not thinking them adapted to promote the spirit of prayer; and we
shall always oppose them, unless they should be found necessary
to protect us from such prayers as Mr. Finney is in the habit of
offering. But we can by no means agree with him in saying that
"forms of prayer are not only absurd in themselves, but they are
the very device of the devil." We have seen many a pious old
lady, when she had finished reading a portion of her Bible, placing
a piece of paper or a string, or perchance her spectacles, between
the leaves, that she might readily open to the place again, and it
certainly never occurred to us that this custom was any evidence
of want of piety. But Mr. Finney says to all such, "The fact that
you fold a leaf or put in a string demonstrates that you read rather
as a task than from love or reverence for the word of God." Of
the prayers of pious females, who have assembled by themselves.
without inviting impenitent sinners to be present, he says, "such
prayers will do no good—they insult God." To those who are in
the habit of praying with submission to the divine will, he says,
"You have no right to put in an if, and say, Lord, if it be thy will,
give us thy Holy Spirit; this is to insult God." Mr. Finney, like
all other fanatics, makes additions of his own to the scriptural code
of morals. Matthias forbade his disciples the use of pork. Mr.
Finney condemns tea, coffee and tobacco, evening parties, ribbons,
and many other things. He is just as confident in supporting his
false standard, as extravagant too in denouncing those who trans-
gress it, and in launching against them the thunderbolts of divine
vengeance, as if it had been communicated to him by express reve-
lation. He says, "if you are not doing these things"—among
which he has enumerated the disuse of tea, coffee and tobacco-
"and if your soul is not agonized for the poor, benighted heathen,
why are you such a hypocrite as to pretend to be a Christian?
Why, your profession is an insult to Jesus Christ." Again, he says,
"Perhaps he is looking upon it (the use of tobacco) as a small sin,'
and he then proceeds to prove that the sin is as gross as a mer-
chant's clerk would commit in robbing the money drawer. He
lifts up his hands in astonishment at an agent who is in the city
soliciting funds for some charitable purpose, and actually uses
all three of these abominations; and he enters his protest against
the Home Missionary Society for aiding churches in which the
members use tea, coffee, or tobacco. Again, speaking of the minis-
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
145
try as refusing to give up the use of coffee, he cries out, "Is this
Christianity? What business have you to use Christ's money for
such a purpose?" Matthias surely could not have raved in better
style over a delinquent caught in the horrible act of eating a piece
of pork. Of evening parties, even when none but "Christian friends
are invited, so as to have it a religious party," he says, "this is the
grand device of the devil." These social assemblies are often con-
cluded with prayer:-" now this," he says, "I regard as one of the
worst features about them." When there is to be a circle of such
parties in a congregation he advises them "to dismiss their minister
and let him go and preach where the people would be ready to
receive the word and profit by it, and not have him stay and be
distressed, and grieved, and killed, by attempting to promote reli-
gion among them while they are engaged heart and hand in the
service of the devil." To the young lady who wears "a gaudy
ribbon and ornaments upon her dress," he cries, “Take care. You
might just as well write on your clothes, No truth in religion."
And over this fondness for dress, tight-lacing, &c., he says, "Hea-
ven puts on the robes of mourning, and hell may hold a jubilee."
The man who stands aloof from the temperance cause has "his
hands all over red with blood," he who drinks cider, beer, or any-
thing else, until "you can smell his breath,” is a drunkard,—and no
slave holder can be a fit subject for Christian communion and fel-
lowship." We had marked some twenty other passages, many of
them worse than any we have given, but we suppose enough has
been furnished to satisfy our readers of Mr. Finney's extravagance.
We turn, then, to his spiritual pride and arrogance.
We have
not been able to find one sentence in his book which wears the sem-
blance of humility. But there is arrogance and assumption beyond
anything which it has ever been our fortune previously to encoun-
ter. Such a swelling, strutting consciousness of self-importance
looks forth from almost every page, that we have been com-
pelled again and again to turn from it, not in anger but in pity.
Any one who should read his book and believe it, would be led to
suppose that until he came forth in the plenitude of his wisdom
and goodness to instruct mankind, all had been darkness. The
Bible had been misunderstood, and its doctrines perverted: min-
isters had been preaching an endless train of fooleries;" the
pulpit had never" grappled with mind;"" very little common.
sense had been exercised about prayer meetings;" everything had
been managed in the most ignorant and bungling way. But he
comes and all things are set right, or at least would be, if his
measures were not opposed. All the wise and good, however,
fully agree with him. We encounter this arrogant and exclusive
spirit at the very outset. In his preface he says, " But whatever
may be the result of saying the truth as it respects some, I have
reason to believe that the great body of praying people will
receive and be benefited by what I have said." Speaking, in one
of his Lectures, of "ministers, who by their lives and preach-
66
10
146
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
ing give evidence to the church, that their object is to do good
and win souls to Christ," he says, "This class of ministers will
recognise the truth of all that I have said or wish to say." In
the full magnitude of a self-constituted bishop of all the churches,
fully entitled by his superior wisdom to rebuke with authority
all other ministers, he exclaims in another place, "I will never
spare ministers from the naked truth." "If the whole church,"
he says, "as a body had gone to work ten years ago, and con-
tinued it, as a few individuals, whom I could name, have done,
there would not now be an impenitent sinner in the land." The
greatest appearance of modest humility which we have seen in
him, is his refusing, on this occasion, to name himself at the head
of the "few individuals." He claims, in no guarded terms, the
exclusive approbation of God for his doctrines and measures.
"They" (the church) "see that the blessing of God is with those
that are thus accused of new measures and innovation." Desirous
as he is to monopolize the favour of Heaven, we do not wonder at
finding him, in another place, declaring, with great naïveté," I have
been pained to see that some men, in giving accounts of revivals,
have evidently felt themselves obliged to be particular in detail-
ing the measures used, to avoid the inference that new measures
were introduced." And if the accounts of all the revivals that
have occurred without any help from the new measures, were as
much noised abroad as those aided by them have been, he would
be still more "pained" by the more abundant evidence that the
symbol of the Divine presence does not shine exclusively upon his
camp. In presenting to his hearers "the consequences of not
being filled with the Spirit," he says to them, "You will be much
troubled with fears about fanaticism-you will be much disturbed
by the measures that are used in revivals; if any measures are
adopted that are decided and direct, you will think they are all
new, and will be stumbled at them just in proportion to your want
of spirituality: you will stand and cavil at them, because you are
so blind as not to see their adaptedness, while all heaven is
rejoicing in them." Again, of those that are opposed to new mea-
sures," to "this new-light preaching," and to "these evangelists.
who go about the country preaching," he says, "Such men will
sleep on till they are awakened by the judgment trumpet, without
any revival, unless they are willing that God should come in his
own way." This fanatical claim to the exclusive favour of God,
this arrogant identification of all his opinions and measures with
the Divine will, is very frequently put forth. After having proved
that his system has been greatly prospered, that it has been suc-
cessful beyond anything the world had yet seen, he says, "If a
measure is continually and usually blessed, let the man who thinks
he is wiser than God call it in question-take care how you find
fault with God." Of the Cedar-street church, in New York, which
had taken a decided stand against the new divinity and new mea-
sures, or, as Mr. Finney states it, had pursued a course "calculated
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
147
to excite an unreasonable and groundless suspicion against many
ministers who are labouring successfully to promote revivals," he
says, They may pretend to be mighty pious, and jealous for the
honour of God, but God will not believe they are sincere." Of
this same church he afterwards says, in allusion to their requiring
an assent to the Confession of Faith from all applicants for admis-
sion to the Lord's Supper, a step which would exclude his con-
verts, unless their consciences should be as elastic as their teacher's,
"No doubt Jesus Christ is angry with such a church, and he will
show his displeasure in a way that admits of no mistake, if
they do not repent." In the prospect of a rupture with France,
he tells his people, "No doubt"-it will be observed that he
never has any doubt about the divine feelings, when his measures
are in question-"No doubt God is holding the rod of war over
this nation; the nation is under His displeasure, because the
church has conducted in such a manner with respect to revivals."
The "dear fathers," who have the training of our young men for
the ministry, he thinks unfit for their office, and in this opinion he
is perfectly confident that he has "the mind of the Lord."
"Those dear fathers," he says, "will not, I suppose, see this; and
will perhaps think hard of me for saying it; but it is the cause of
Christ." But we have given specimens enough of this offensive
self-glorification.
In close connexion with this trait stands his censoriousness.
The passages we have already adduced, for other purposes, so far
illustrate this disposition, that it will not be necessary to produce
many in addition. Of those who have circulated what he calls
"slanderous reports of revival men and measures," he says, “It
is impossible, from the very laws of their mind, that they should
engage in this work of death, this mischief of hell, if they truly
loved the cause of Christ." "Hell" is with him nothing more nor
less than the state prison of his system, to which all are condemned
who dissent or doubt. Again he says, "No doubt the devil
laughs, if they can laugh in hell, to hear a man pretend to be very
much engaged in religion, and a great lover of revivals, and yet
all the while on the look-out for fear some new measures should
be introduced." And of prayers which ask "that sinners may
have more conviction," or "that sinners may go home, solemn and
tender, and take the subject into consideration," he says, "All such
prayers are just such prayers as the devil wants.” This is but a
common and very vulgar method of cursing. It contains no
argument. It would be very easy for his opponents to reply, that
the devil is thus exclusively busy among the adversaries to the
new opinions and measures, because he is aware that among their
friends his work is well enough done without him. And the argu-
ment would be as good in the one case as in the other. Mr. Fin-
ney has some mystical notions respecting the "prayer of faith,"-
notions in which none, we believe, out of his own coterie agree
148
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
with him. But here as elsewhere, he condemns without mercy
all dissentients. Having spoken of a public examination at a theo-
logical seminary, in the course of which his peculiar opinions on
this subject were controverted, he says, "Now, to teach such sen-
timents as these, is to trifle with the word of God." And he
declares, that all persons who have not known by experience the
truth of his enthusiastic views of this matter, "have great reason
to doubt their piety," and adds, "this is by no means uncharitable."
Everything which has, at any time, or in any quarter of the land,
been said or done that seems adapted to operate to the prejudice
of his measures, is dragged into the pulpit, and made the occasion
of denunciation against the transgressors. Some young men in
Princeton came out a few years ago with an essay on the evils of
revivals." We cannot see what necessity there was for Mr. Fin-
ney to tell the people of Chatham-street Chapel, that the young
men in Princeton, some years before, had published their opposi-
tion to the new measures. But he does tell them, and adds, "I
should like to know how many of those young men have enjoyed
revivals among their people, since they have been in the ministry;
and if any have, I should like to know whether they have not
repented of that piece about the evils of revivals?" We can
inform Mr. Finney, that that "piece" affords "no place for repent-
ance," though it should be sought "carefully with tears." He tells
his people again, that "one of the professors in a Presbyterian
theological seminary felt it his duty to write a series of letters to
Presbyterians, which were extensively circulated;" and in these
letters the new measures were condemned. This incident is made
the occasion of a tirade, in the course of which he breaks out with
the exclamation, it is a "shame and a sin that theological professors,
who preach but seldom, who are withdrawn from the active duties.
of the ministry, should sit in their studies, and write their letters,
advisory or dictatorial, to ministers and churches who are in the
field, and who are in circumstances to judge what needs to be done.”
And he says it is "dangerous and ridiculous for our theological
professors, who are withdrawn from the field of combat, to be
allowed to dictate in regard to the measures and movements of the
church." We shall see whether his theological professorship will
put a bridle on his tongue. It will be seen that no venerableness
of years or wisdom or Christian excellence can turn aside the ful-
minations of his displeasure. To disapprove of his measures, no
matter with what otherwise excellent qualities this disapproval may
be associated, is to give decisive evidence of wickedness, and not
It was our purpose, had our limits permitted, to notice at length his wild opi-
nions on this subject. We the less regret the necessary exclusion of our intended
remarks on this topic, as we are able to refer the reader to a very excellent discus-
sion of it, in two Lectures, lately published, from the pen of Dr. Richards, of the
Auburn Seminary. Since the publication of these Lectures, Mr. Finney no doubt
has another argument for proving that this venerable servant of Christ is not "such
a man as is needed for training our young ministers in these days of excitement and
: action."
1.
149
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
only to offend him, but to insult God. Nor is he ever startled by
the number of his victims. All, whether a few individuals or a
whole church, who will not fall down and worship the golden
image which he has set up, are doomed to the fiery furnace. The
General Assembly, a few years since, issued a Pastoral Letter, in
which the new measures were condemned. But neither Mr. Fin-
ney's modesty nor his tenderness is at all troubled by the array of
the whole church against him. When he saw their pastoral letter
he says, "My soul was sick, an unutterable feeling of distress came
over my mind, and I felt that God would visit the Presbyterian
church for conduct like this." How to the very life is the fanati-
cism of this sentence, this turning from general opposition to
solace and strengthen himself in the singular prerogative which he
enjoys of a back-door entrance into the court of Heaven, and of
unquestioned access to its magazines of wrath. In a like spirit he
says of the "Act and Testimony warfare," that "the blood of mil-
lions who will go to hell before the church will get over the shock,
will be found in the skirts of the men who have got up and carried
on this dreadful contention." And of the General Assembly, that
“No doubt there is a jubilee in hell every year about the time of
meeting of the General Assembly." Of all ministers, be they
few or many,
"who will not turn out of their tracks to do anything
new," he says, "they will grieve the Holy Spirit away, and God
will visit them with his curse." At the close of these extracts, for
we must put a period to them from other causes than lack of ma-
terials to furnish more like them, we would ask, was there ever a
fanatic who was more intelligible in his claim to a close relation-
ship of his own with the Most High, or more indiscriminate and
wholesale in his condemnation of those who refused submission to
his peculiar dogmas? Was there ever a Dominic who was more
exclusive or more fierce?
There remains one more feature of Mr. Finney's spirit to be
noticed, his irreverence and profaneness. This is a topic which we
would gladly have avoided. It is painful to us to contemplate this
trait of character, and we would not willingly shock the minds of
others, as we have been shocked by some of the passages which
we must quote under this head. But it is necessary to a correct
understanding of the spirit of the new measures, that this feature
should be exhibited. It has been seen all along that Mr. Finney's
theology is not a barren vine, and we trust it has at the same time
been seen, that its fruit is the grapes of Sodom and the clusters of
Gomorrah. We will now show what are the practical results of
his theory of the divine government; though for reasons just hint-
ed, we shall give no more illustrations under this allegation than
are necessary distinctly to sustain it. In urging the necessity of
new measures to the production of revivals, he says, "Perhaps it
is not too much to say, that it is impossible for God himself to
bring about reformations but by new measures.' Here we might
pause, for the man who is capable of uttering such a sentence as
150
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
this, is capable of almost any degree of profaneness. But lest it
might be urged that this may be a solitary instance of unpremedi-
tated rashness, we must furnish a few more. He says of a certain
class of people that "they seem determined to leave it to God
alone to convert the world, and say, If he wants the world con-
verted let him do it. They ought to know," he continues," that
this is impossible: so far as we know, neither God nor man can
convert the world without the co-operation of the church." Again,
when speaking of the duties of church members "in regard to
politics," he says, “God cannot sustain this free and blessed coun-
try, which we love and pray for, unless the church will take right
ground." In rebuking those who do not "exhibit their light," he
tells them, "God will not take the trouble to keep a light burning
that is hid." To cast ridicule upon a certain kind of prayers, he
says, that they who offer them pray in such a manner, that "every-
body wishes them to stop, and God wishes so too, undoubtedly."
And in reference to the subscribers to the New York Evangelist,
who have neglected to pay in their dues, he says, "Why, it would
be disgraceful to God to dwell and have communion with such per-
sons. We will close these extracts with two passages of a still
more extraordinary character. Speaking of the Saviour, he says,
"He was afraid he should die in the garden before he came
to the cross." And yet again, and more astounding still, he
says "Jesus Christ when he was praying in the garden, was in
such an agony that he sweat as it were great drops of blood, falling
down to the ground;-I have never known a person sweat blood,
but I have known a person pray till the blood started from the nose" ! !
Who that has ever dwelt in holy contemplation over the sacred
mysteries of his Saviour's sufferings, does not feel indignant at this
unhallowed, vulgar profanation of them? And what extremes
can appal the mind that could perpetrate this without shrinking?
a
Let it be noted that the spirit which we have here pictured, is
not the spirit of Mr. Finney alone. Had it belonged to the man,
we should not have troubled ourselves to exhibit it. But it is the
spirit of the system, and therefore deserves our careful notice.
And it is seen to be, as Dr. Beecher called it eight years ago,
spirit of fanaticism, of spiritual pride, censoriousness, and insubor-
dination to the order of the Gospel."* It is prurient, bustling and
revolutionary-harsh, intolerant and vindictive. Can the tree
which produces such frnit be good? The system from which it
springs is bad in all its parts, root, trunk, branches, and fruit. The
speculative error of its theology and religion is concrete in its
measures and spirit. Let it prevail through the church, and the
very name revival will be a by-word and a hissing. Already has
it produced, we fear, to some extent this deplorable result. Such
have already been its effects, that there can be no doubt, if it should
affect still larger masses, and be relieved from the opposing influ-
* See Dr. Beecher's Letter in the pamphlet on New Measures, before referred to.
ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION.
151
ences which have somewhat restrained its outbreakings, it will
spread desolation and ruin, and ages yet to come will deplore the
waste of God's heritage. To the firm opposition of the friends of
truth, in reliance upon the Great Head of the Church, and prayer
for His blessing, we look for protection from such disaster.
it"
We have spoken our minds plainly on this subject. We intended
from the beginning not to be misunderstood. It is high time that
all the friends of pure doctrine and of decent order, in the house of
God, should speak plainly. Mr. Finney was kindly and tenderly
expostulated with at the commencement of his career. Mr. Nettle-
ton, than whom no one living was better qualified or entitled to
give counsel on this subject, discharged fully his duty towards him.
Others did the same. But their advice was spurned, their coun-
sels were disregarded. To envy or blindness did he impute their
doubts of the propriety of his course. He had a light of his own,
and by it "he saw a hand they could not see." All the known
means of kindness and expostulation have been tried to induce him
to abandon his peculiarities, but without success. It is the clear
duty of the Church now to meet him and his co-reformers with
open and firm opposition. Let us not be deluded with the idea
that opposition will exasperate and do harm. Under cover of the
silence and inaction which this fear has already produced, this
fanaticism has spread, until now twelve thousand copies of such a
work as these Lectures on Revivals are called for by its cravings.
And there is danger that this spirit will spread still more exten-
sively. The elements of fanaticism exist in the breast of every
community, and may be easily called into action by causes which
we might be disposed to overlook as contemptible.
We conclude this article, as we did our former, by pointing out
to Mr. Finney his duty to leave our church. It is an instructive
illustration of the fact that fanaticism debilitates the conscience,
that this man can doubt the piety of any one who uses coffee ; and
call him a cheat, who sends a letter to another on his own business,
without paying the postage; while he remains, apparently without
remorse, with the sin of broken vows upon him. In this position
we leave him before the public. Nor will we withdraw our
charges against him until he goes out from among us, for he is
not of us.
ESSAY VI.
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.*
.
THIS work had its origin in the prosecution of Dr. Beecher upon
charges of heresy, before the presbytery, and subsequently before
the synod of Cincinnati. By both these bodies he was acquitted;
but the synod at the same time requested him to publish, at as early
a day as possible, "a concise statement of the argument and design
of his sermon on native depravity, and of his views of total
depravity, original sin, and regeneration, agreeably to his declara-
tion and explanation before the synod." In compliance with this
request, Dr. Beecher published his Views in Theology, which is an
enlarged and illustrated edition of the defence made upon his trial.
The opinions of a man so eminent in abilities and in station would
be matter of public interest, independent of the peculiar circum-
stances which in this case imparted to them additional importance;
and we intended, therefore, at the time when his work appeared,
to make it the subject of examination and remark. But this pur-
pose was then laid aside, for reasons with which it is not necessary
to trouble the public; and it is now resumed, because recent events
and discussions have again broken the silence which had begun to
prevail in relation to Dr. Beecher and his opinions, and rendered it
important to ascertain how much ground he has really given for
the doubts and suspicions which many seem to entertain. We have
therefore recurred to his Views in Theology, in contrast with his
other publications, and the result of this comparison we are about
to lay before our readers.
We cannot sympathize with Dr. Beecher in the complaints which
he makes that he should be called upon to defend his orthodoxy
before an ecclesiastical tribunal. He speaks of "the necessity of
explanation imposed on him by unfounded accusations;" and com-
pares himself with "an aged merchant of long-established reputa-
tion called upon to prove his honesty by the exhibition of his books;
or a physician of age and experience to repel the suspicion of
quackery by publishing an account of his cases and his practice."
*
Originally published in 1837, in review of "Views in Theology," by Lyman
Beecher, D.D., President of Lane Theological Seminary,
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
153
We must be permitted to say, without intending any disrespect
to Dr. Beecher, that his comparisons seem to us very inapposite.
In his analogous cases of hardship, the merchant and physician are
called upon to prove that they possess qualities which the public
estimation, founded on long observance of their conduct, has
assigned to them. But we are not aware that Dr. Beecher has
ever enjoyed the reputation of possessing views of theological
truth that were profound, well-defined, and carefully adjusted to
the standards of Presbyterian orthodoxy. A reputation he has
indeed had, and well has he earned it, of a man of commanding
intellect, of comprehensive grasp of mind, capable of seizing upon
the great features of any subject and holding them up, covered
with light, to the view of others. The reputation, too, he has had
of a zealous and successful preacher of the gospel. And who has
called in question his substantial merit in any of these respects?
Had he been arraigned for weakness of intellect, or accused in
relation to any of the matters upon which his public reputation
rests, we would have been ready to make common cause with him,
and lift up our voices higher even than his own, in outcry upon the
injustice and cruelty of the accusation. But no such charge has
been made no one within our knowledge has sought to detract
aught from the reputation which Dr. Beecher has acquired; or so
far questioned the justice of the public award on his behalf, as to
call upon him now at an advanced stage of life to prove that he is
entitled to it. His prosecution touched upon matters entirely
distinct from those excellences which public estimation has
assigned to him. So far was Dr. Beecher's reputation for ortho-
doxy from being extensively and firmly established, as in the case
of the merchant or physician which he brings forward, that, before
he left New England, many were the doubts and fears entertained
of him in this respect among those who had the best opportunities
for ascertaining his opinions. If the accusations against him are
so utterly groundless, if his defence of his orthodoxy be a mere
gratuity, forced from him only by the unreasonable prejudices of
others, it surely becomes him to explain the remarkable fact that
he should have been so grievously misunderstood, not only by Dr.
Wilson, but by Dr. Porter of Andover, and by many others in
New England, who must be supposed capable of understanding
even the subtlest discussions in theology, and who were under no
bias save one that would dispose them to judge favourably of Dr.
Beecher. The Doctor's writings are not ordinarily marked by
obscurity. On the contrary, we do not know any writer who, in
general, seizes more directly or illuminates more strongly any
subject which he undertakes to discuss. Why is it then that the
soundness of his views on the subjects of original sin, depravity,
and regeneration, were called in question before he left New
England by many of his brethren who were most intimately
associated with him? Had these doubts of his orthodoxy arisen in
some remote region, they might be supposed to have proceeded
154
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
from the misconstruction of some isolated passage in his writings,
or from the erroneous reports of others upon his opinions. If the
ignorant only had entertained them, we might suppose that they
had been merely alarmed by some new phraseology in which Dr.
Beecher was preaching familiar truths; or had they been found
only among his enemies, we might conclude that prejudice had led
them to torture his words into an unfavourable meaning. But
these misgivings had their origin in the sphere within which he
lived and laboured; among those who were most familiar with his
writings, and sermons, and conversation; among men who, having
been trained to theological investigation, would not be likely to
mistake an old truth merely because it was presented in a new dress;
and among men, too, who had been accustomed to respect and love
Dr. Beecher, and whose minds would be slow, therefore, in taking
up any opinion to his hurt. If he was misunderstood at the west
because his brethren there were not able to draw the distinction,
of which he is so fond, between a theological doctrine and the
philosophy of that doctrine, why was he misunderstood in New
England? He surely will not deny that there are men there, and
men, too, among those who have questioned or doubted his ortho-
doxy, who can dive with him into any of the depths of philosophy,
or ascend with him, pari passu, to any of its heights. Until Dr.
Beecher will condescend to give some rational explanation of the
origin of these doubts of his orthodoxy in New England, and
the subsequent and independent origin of similar doubts at the
west, we cannot but consider his complaint of "unfounded accu-
sations" as unbecoming and slanderous. The effect of this com-
plaint is to present his prosecutor as coming forward, in the
mere gratuity of mischief, to interrupt his labours, and to
distract the church with needless controversy and litigation;
and it throws upon all who have expressed their doubts of his
soundness, the odium of weakening that harmony and mutual
confidence which ought to exist between ministers of the same
church. We cannot, therefore, suffer the assertion that the
charges against him were groundless to pass unchallenged. We
cannot believe that so many men, as wise and good as Dr. Beecher,
would permit their confidence in him to be destroyed or weakened,
unless he had been imprudent enough to give them some cause for
it. And we are persuaded that Dr. Beecher would have added
to his reputation if, instead of bespeaking in a tone of arrogant
superiority the mercy of the court for his prosecutor,* and main-
taining his own entire blamelessness, he had frankly admitted, at
least, that he had made use on some occasions of incautious and
imprudent phraseology which had naturally given rise to misappre-
hension of his views. The blame of the interruption of ministerial
confidence, as far as he is concerned, would, to be sure, have been
fixed upon himself by this avowal; but there it must be fixed,
whether he be willing to receive it or not; there, if we mistake
* See Defence before the Presbytery, p. 80.
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
155
not, public estimation has already fixed it; and his frank assump-
tion of it would have done him good instead of harm.
So much ground has Dr. Beecher really given for misapprehen-
siou of his theological opinions, that it is no easy matter even now
to understand what he really believes. If we had only his Views
in Theology to consult, we could readily understand him; but
when we compare certain statements of doctrine in this work with
his previous writings we are perplexed beyond measure. We find
him at different times avowing directly contrary opinions on the
same subject. With an ordinary man, we should at once settle this
difficulty, by saying that he had doubtless seen good reason to
change his opinions, and that we must learn what his present sen-
timents are from the latest publication of them. But Dr. Beecher
cuts us off from this explanation in his own case by assuring us.
"that his doctrinal views have been unchanged from the beginning,"
“that he is in doctrine what he ever was;" and we are left there-
fore utterly at a loss in our conjectures, whether his earlier or his
later writings contain the true exposition of his present views.
There are statements in these writings, which no ingenuity of
explanation can reconcile—there are discrepances which no sophis-
try can bridge over-and the perception of these, in connexion with
his declaration that he has never changed his views, has involved
us in bewilderment and doubt.
That we may not be accused in our turn of bringing forward
"unfounded accusations," and thus imposing upon Dr. Beecher the
necessity of further explanations, we will proceed to adduce evi-
dence of the inconsistencies and contradictions to which we have
alluded. The first subject discussed in his Views in Theology is
Natural Ability; but we shall pass this topic for the present and
commence with the more important one of Original Sin. This
doctrine is universally admitted to be fundamental to the Calvinis-
tic system. He who denies this doctrine, as taught in our Confes-
sion of Faith, and in the writings of the Reformers, however good a
Christian he may be, cannot be a good Calvinist; a logical neces-
sity is laid upon him to abandon most of the distinctive peculiarities
of the Calvinistic system. If there is one doctrine which lies more
broadly than any other at the base of this system, this is that doc-
trine; and if this be removed, the whole structure must fall. It
might naturally be supposed, therefore, that every professed Cal-
vinist would have his opinions on this subject so well settled and
defined, that he would not be blown about by every wind of doc-
trine, or, when discussing it at different times, express himself in
contradictory terms. The Pelagian and Calvinistic views of the
effect of the fall of man upon the race, are so luminously distinct
from each other, and they touch, too, upon so many points of the
respective systems to which they belong, that he who makes it
doubtful which of these views is his own, cannot assuredly, escape
the just censure of paltering in a double sense, save under the plea
of incredible ignorance. How far any of these remarks apply to
156
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
the case before us, our readers will judge for themselves, after
reading the extracts which we are about to adduce.
99
We will first exhibit the opinions which Dr. Beecher held on
the subject of original sin, previous to his impeachment and trial.
In his second lecture on, "The Causes and Remedy of Scepticism,'
we find the following passage: "The points to which I allude, as
violated by a false philosophy, are the principles of personal
identity, by which the posterity of Adam are distinct from or
confounded with their ancestor, and the principles of personal
accountability and desert of punishment, as men are made account-
able and punished for his conduct, or become liable to misery as
a universal consequence. The nature of sin and holiness, con-
sidered as material qualities, or the substance of the soul, or as
instincts, or as the spontaneous action of mind under moral govern-
ment, in the full possession of all the elements of accountability."
It is very evident which of the opposite principles here stated, the
author adopts as his own. Any one who was acquainted with the
theological controversies on this subject, would be led to suppose,
in reading this passage, that Dr. Beecher meant to condemn, as
false philosophy, the opinion that men are in any sense held respon-
sible for the sin of Adam, or punished on account of it, and to
maintain in opposition to this philosophic dogma of the dark ages,
that all the sin and misery which men suffer is merely the conse-
quence of Adam's transgression. Now this true philosophy of
Dr. Beecher would not be objected to by most Pelagians. They
would admit that we are involved in misery by the fall of Adam
-one main hinge upon which the whole controversy turns, ist
whether this misery is punitive or not in its character. But pun-
ishment for Adam's sin, according to the apparent meaning of the
above extract, is a figment of that false philosophy which has been
employed for the exposition of the Calvinistic system, and which,
in Dr. Beecher's deliberate opinion, "has done more to obstruct
the march of Christianity, and to paralyse the saving power of
the gospel, and to raise up and organize around the church the
unnumbered multitude, to behold, and wonder, and despise, and
perish, than all other causes beside."
66
as
In the other sentence of the passage quoted, the false philosophy
of the nature of sin and holiness is that which considers them
material qualities, or the substance of the soul, or as instincts,"
and he admits no alternative to this view, save that which restricts
them to "the spontaneous action of mind under moral government."
This is the very language of the New Haven school. The mode
of stating the question leaves us in about as much doubt as to the
theology of the writer, as we should feel respecting the political
opinions of one who should assert that the parties to the contro-
versy which has been for some years waged in our country, were
the people on the one side, and the bank monster on the other.
Whenever we see a statement of the question touching the nature
of sin and holiness, which assumes that there is no intermediate
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
157
ground between the thoery that restricts them to acts, and that
which supposes them to be physical entities infused into the mind,
or created instincts of the soul, we are at no loss to name the
banner under which the writer, however disguised, is doing battle
upon the theological arena. It would be strange, indeed, if a Cal-
vinist, in enumerating the true and false theories upon this subject,
should omit the only one which is consistent with the doctrine of
our standards respecting the corrupt and sinful nature which we
inherit from our fallen parent; and not the less strange, if in giving
what he intended to be the orthodox account of this matter, he
should so broadly misrepresent and caricature it, as to make it
absurd and repulsive. If we were compelled to choose between
making sin a material property or adjunct of the soul, or limiting
it to the spontaneous action of the mind, we certainly would choose
the latter, since it is impossible to state the other opinion in terms
that are not self-contradictory; but we would choose it with the
distinct understanding, that it compelled us to abandon the Calvin-
istic system. It is not, in our view, more absurd to hold that sin
is a material substance, than to maintain that sin is confined to the
spontaneous action of the mind, and in connexion with this, that
man inherits a sinful nature. The first proposition is absurd,
because there is an essential opposition of meaning between sin
and substance; the other two in their conjunction, are no less
absurd, because a nature is not in any sense an act, and of course,
by the previous definition, cannot be sinful.
Is it wonderful then, when Dr. Beecher comes forward, lisping
the very shibboleth of the New Haven school, teaching that all
who do not restrict the nature of sin to spontaneous acts of the
mind, believe in physical depravity, that he should be considered
as having abandoned the Calvinistic doctrine of original sin?
Ought he to complain of his brethren because they were not wil-
ling to charge upon him the monstrous absurdity of believing that
a nature is an act, and may therefore be sinful? And what shall
be thought of the modesty of the man, who, having printed such
sentiments, has the face to declare to the world that the accusations
against him are groundless; and in the plenitude of his compassion,
to beg the court before which he is tried, that they will not punish
his
prosecutor as a slanderer?
Our next extracts shall be taken from Dr. Beecher's sermon on
the "Native Character of Man." In this sermon he makes the
following assertions: "Neither a holy nor a depraved nature are
possible without understanding, conscience, and choice. To say
of an accountable creature, that he is depraved by nature, is only
to say, that rendered capable by his Maker of obedience, he diso-
beys from the commencement of his accountability." "A depraved
nature can no more exist without voluntary agency and accounta-
bility, than a material nature can exist, without solidity and exten-
sion." If, therefore, man is depraved by nature, it is a voluntary
and accountable nature which is depraved, exercised in disobe-
158
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
dience to the law of God." "Native depravity, then, is a state of
the affections, in a voluntary accountable creature, at variance with
divine requirement, from the beginning of accountability."
“The
entireness of human depravity consists, therefore, in the constant,
voluntary refusal of man to love the Lord his God with supreme
complacency and good will." All this seems to be sufficiently
explicit. There is no obscurity to occasion a doubt as to the au-
thor's meaning. The terms used are such as are commonly em-
ployed in the discussion of this subject, and the statements are all
so clear and precise that no commentary is needed to educe or
illustrate their meaning. We doubt whether the writings of the
New Haven divines could furnish an equal number of sentences,
which more completely deny the actual or possible existence of a
depraved nature in man prior to moral action.
Of this famous sermon Dr. Beecher has. however, given a still
more famous explanation. It was written, he says, with the view
of refuting the error which claims as moral excellencies the various
amiable qualities and kindly feelings which are found in unregene-
rate men, and thus undermines the doctrine of man's total depravity.
At least this is one account of the object he had in view in writing
the sermon; for we shall presently show that he has given a differ-
ent one. In refuting the error above named, he contends that as
he had no occasion to speak of anything but actual sin, all that he
says should be applied only to adult man. The substance of his
defence, on this ground, consists, therefore, in interpolating the words
actual and adult before depravity in all the passages where it
occurs. This is so extraordinary an explanation of the matter
that we feel really embarrassed to know how to deal with it.
There are some things so plain that they cannot be made plainer ;
there are explanations and arguments sometimes adduced in the
course of discussion which are so foreign to the subject that nothing
can be done with them but to declare that they are impertinent.
Even thus is it with this defence of Dr. Beecher; we despair of
being able to illustrate its incongruity to any one who does not at
once perceive it. Because the primary object of the writer was
not to discuss the subject of original sin, is it therefore certain that
this subject would not be incidentally alluded to? Is it considered
a sound rule of interpretation to endeavour to ascertain what was
the author's main design, and then to assume that every word has
strict reference to this one subject? This is, in effect, what Dr.
Beecher claims on his own behalf. “The sermon,” he says,
not designed to have any reference to original sin; it spake only
of the present actual condition of adult mind; the question how
man came into such a state was not so much as touched."
Throughout the whole of his defence of this sermon there is an
was
Bishop Berkley wrote a treatise, called Siris, which had for its professed object
to make known the healing virtues of tar-water, but in the course of which he goes
into a discussion of the ancient philosophy, the harmonies of the universe, the nature
of virtue, &c. Allowing him the same latitude which Dr. Beecher claims, he might
insist upon his right to insert tar-water before virtue wherever it occurs.
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
159
assumption that no part of it includes or refers to anything beyond
his original design in writing it. There is no argument beyond
this assumption to show that the passages objected to do not teach
what they have been supposed to teach. Because he did not
intend to discuss the question how man came into his present state,
therefore this question was not touched, though there are the
passages in which, according to the common understanding of the
English language, he has not only touched it, but decided that the
present condition of man is owing to his voluntary disobedience.
Because he designed to prove in the sermon that all men are actual
transgressors, therefore whenever he speaks of depravity we must
prefix the qualifying term, adult, no matter with what confusion
of grammar or sense. The design and drift of a writer ought
indeed to be consulted in interpreting obscure passages, and should
decide the question between two doubtful meanings. But we have
never before met with any one who would carry this canon of
exegesis so far as to pervert entirely the ordinary construction and
force of words, for the sake of accommodating them to the one
main argument of the writer. The subject of original sin is so far
germane to that of actual transgression that we should not be sur-
prised to see it alluded to by the most logical writer upon total
depravity; and in attempting, therefore, to discover the meaning
of any passage in his discourse, we should be guided by the
most obvious signification of the terms employed. And surely
there can be no doubt what is the most obvious meaning of the
passages we have quoted from Dr. Beecher. They are so plain
that, if his explanation of them is admissible, we must abandon
language as the means of communicating ideas, and invent some
less dubious method. If a "depraved nature" means actual trans-
gression, then black may mean white, and square may mean round,
and root may mean branch, and language may be thrown aside as
less explicit than dumb signs.
Let us take one of these sentences and try Dr. Beecher's expla-
nation upon it. "Neither a holy nor depraved nature is possible
without understanding, conscience, and choice." In his Defence
he interprets this to mean, that "neither a holy nor depraved
nature, in respect to actual depravity, is possible." There is no
difficulty in understanding the first of these assertions. By a
depraved nature in man, all the world understand that disposition
or bent of mind by which he is inclined to evil, and which is the
source of all actual transgression. The declaration that such a
nature is impossible, without understanding, reason, and choice,
can only mean that depravity cannot be affirmed of man until he
has reached the period at which personal accountability commen-
ces; and this is well known to be one of the prevalent theories
upon this subject; and these are the very terms in which that
theory is generally announced by those who confessedly hold it.
But we are utterly at a loss to divine the meaning of the phrase,
"a depraved nature, in respect to actual depravity." If the term
160
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
actual is used in the sense of real, as opposed to imaginary, then it
would seem to teach that the depravity which exists prior to moral
action is only a kind of metaphysical fiction, holding the same sort
of relation to the truth that the square root of a negative quantity
does to a real expression in algebra. If he uses the word actual
as opposed to potential, and means to distinguish between a depra-
ved nature in esse and in posse, we must deny the correctness of
the distinction. A depraved nature is itself the potential existence
of actual transgression. Had it been Dr. Beecher's intention
merely to teach that all actual sin is voluntary, it would have been
very easy for him to have expressed this idea; but we cannot
understand how the extracts which we have given can be made
to convey it, however modified they may be by the expletives,
actual and adult. The original garment refuses to receive these
heterogeneous patches.
We have said that Dr. Beecher has given two different accounts
of his object in writing this sermon. One of them we have already
given, the other is contained in the following extract from his
Defence; "The question was as to the voluntariness of the depra-
vity of an adult man. Keep this in remembrance, and then let me
explain the drift of that sermon. After proving that the depravity
of man is very great, I proceed in the sermon to say that it is
voluntary, and this doctrine I advance in opposition to the philos-
ophy which represents the existence of a great black pool some-
where behind the will; I don't know how big, but which continually
pours out its waters of death-waters which turn the will as if it
were a mill-wheel attached to some sort of patent model, which is
continually working out sin. . . . . . The doctrine I meant to oppose
was that of a physical, natural, constitutional depravity, totally
involuntary; and as instinctive as the principle which teaches a
robin to build her nest, or a lion to eat flesh and not grass. Against
this notion of instinctive depravity, leading men of necessity to do
nothing but sin, I composed the sermon, in which I declare that
the depravity of man, implied in his destitution of religion, is volun-
tary," &c.
We have no objection to this account of the matter,
save that it is inconsistent with the one previously given. If the
sermon were written to counteract the notion that men are partially
holy on account of their natural amiableness, it seems to us that
this by-play with the black-pool and robin-red-breast theories of the
will is quite as foreign to the topic as a touch at original sin would
have been. Dr. Beecher has, however, just as good a right to
quarrel with this great big black pool, as Don Quixote had to fight
with the windmill. And if he should see fit to exercise this right,
we cannot find it in our hearts to blame him; we can only express
our wonder that a man of his undoubted strength should expend it
in beating the air, or in creating a big black pool, and then splash-
ing in its dirty waters only to his own defilement. Dr. Beecher is
not too old to learn. He has recently discovered to his great
amazement, that the doctrine of free agency, which he had previ-
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
161
ously thought was the product of New England wisdom, has been
held in all ages of the Church in connexion with the Calvinistic
system. Yet it was upon this very point that he was formerly in
the habit of breaking out into the most copious expressions of horror
over the evils produced by that false philosophy which had been
employed for the exposition of Calvinism. We have no doubt that
he has since sincerely repented the injustice of which he has thus
been guilty towards others, and regretted the loss of his own time,
which, as he has now discovered, was wasted in contending with
shadows. And as he is now upon the right track, he will probably
soon discover that there are other forms of that false philosophy
which he has attributed to old Calvinists, that are, in truth, nothing
more than the spectra of his own distempered fancy.
We cannot see how this second account of the object of the
sermon sheds any light upon the passages which we have quoted
from it. Let us again take one of these extracts, and see
whether there is the least relevancy in the explanation.
"To say
of an accountable creature that he is depraved by nature, is only
to say, that, rendered capable by his Maker of obedience, he dis-
obeys from the commencement of his accountability." This, by
itself, seems sufficiently plain. It is the precise account which
Prof. Fitch gave of man's depravity in his sermon on the "Nature
of Sin," and which has since been repeatedly given from the New
Haven school. It could hardly be made more definite than it is.
And we do not see that it receives the least illustration from the
author's information, that his object in writing the sermon was to
drain off the big black pool which some explorers have found lying
back of the will, or that his aim was to describe the depravity
of adult man. He speaks here of the depravity which is by nature,
and, as plainly and forcibly as words can do it, he excludes from
it everything but actual disobedience.
The difficulty under which Dr. Beecher felt himself to labour in
his defence, will be further perceived in the claim which he,
with apparent seriousness, puts forward, that in this very sermon
he does teach and establish the doctrine of original sin. And how?
why," by proving two of the fundamental doctrines always relied
on by the orthodox church, and by Edwards in particular, to prove
the doctrine of original sin-I mean the doctrine of total depravity,
and the doctrine of regeneration." Verily the narrow portals of
the Calvinistic platform must be widened, if all who teach total
depravity and regeneration are to be therefore considered as good
believers in our doctrine of original sin. Upon this principle, it
should seem, if a man agrees with us in any one fact or doctrine,
we are to assume that he agrees with us in all our inferences from it.
Dr. Taylor believes and teaches that all men are sinners, that the
first moral act, and all the successive acts of every man, until he is
renewed, are sinful. He has urged this point quite as strenuously
as Dr. Beecher. Are we therefore to conclude that Dr. Taylor
believes the doctrine of original sin as taught in our standards?
11
162
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
We are astonished and grieved when we see a man of Dr.
Beecher's high standing engaged in the attempt to palm off such
wretched sophistry-it hardly deserves so respectable a name—
upon the Presbyterian church.
Dr. Beecher further asserts, that in one of the very passages
"claimed to deny original sin, he does expressly allude to and
recognise its existence as a reality." Our readers will doubtless
be curious to know what he considers a recognition of this doc-
trine. We quote the passage which contains it. "Whatever effect,
therefore, the fall of man may have had on his race, it has not had
the effect to render it impossible for man to love God religiously;
and whatever may be the early constitution of man, there is noth-
ing in it, and nothing withheld from it, which renders disobedience
unavoidable and obedience impossible." There can never be any
lack of believers in the doctrine of original sin, if the vague, nega-
tive allusions, "whatever effect the fall of man may have had on
his race," and "whatever may be the early constitution of man,"
are to be considered a sufficient profession of faith. Who can
withhold his sympathy from Dr. Beecher, in the affliction which
he must have felt, when compelled to resort to such means as this
to prove his orthodoxy? There is not a Pelagian or Socinian in the
land who might not, with perfect consistency, have uttered this
sentence; and he must have felt himself hard pressed before he
could have been driven so far to trifle with the public, and with his
own character, as to allege it in proof of his recognition of the
doctrine of original sin.
We have one more extract from Dr. Beecher's writings which
we shall produce in evidence of his opinions on this subject prior
to his trial. We solicit special attention to this passage, since its
explicitness will be seen, if examined, to preclude all evasion and
subterfuge. Through some neglect or oversight, which we deeply
regret, it was not produced upon his trial. Had it been, we see
not how the synod could have avoided convicting Dr. Beecher of
having denied the doctrine of the Confession of Faith upon this
point. The passage occurs in the controversy in which Dr.
Beecher was engaged with the editor of the Christian Examiner,
in the year 1828.* It is in the following words :
"The Reformers also, with one accord, taught that the sin of
Adam was imputed to all his posterity, and that a corrupt nature
descends from him to every one of his posterity, in consequence of
which infants are unholy, unfit for heaven, and justly exposed to
future punishment. Their opinion seems to have been, that the
very substance or essence of the soul was depraved, and that the
moral contamination extended alike to all its powers and faculties,
insomuch that sin became a property of every man's nature, and
was propagated as really as flesh and blood. . . . . . Our Puritan
fathers adhered to the doctrine of original sin, as consisting in the
imputation of Adam's sin, and in a hereditary depravity; and this
See Spirit of the Pilgrims, vol. i., p. 158.
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
163
continued to be the received doctrine of the churches of New Eng-
land until after the time of Edwards. He adopted the views of
the Reformers on the subject of original sin, as consisting in the
imputation of Adam's sin, and a depraved nature transmitted by
descent. But after him this mode of stating the subject was gradu-
ally changed, until long since the prevailing doctrine in New Eng-
land has been, that men are not guilty of Adam's sin, and that
depravity is not of the substance of the soul, nor an inherent or
physical quality, but is wholly voluntary, and consists in the trans-
gression of the law, in such circumstances as constitute account-
ability and desert of punishment."
Here, at least, if never before, Dr. Beecher, to use one of his own
expressions, is "fairly out" upon the subject of original sin. It is
impossible to read this passage, and then doubt what his opinions
were at the time he wrote it. Will he pretend that he was merely
giving what was the prevalent doctrine in New England, and not
stating his own views? The connexion in which this passage
occurs precludes such a plea. The controversy which he was
waging was occasioned by a note to his sermon on the Moral
Government of God, in which he had denied that the Calvinistic
scheme involved the opinion that infants are damned. The editor
of the Christian Examiner replied to this note; and Dr. Beecher
in his letter to him complains bitterly, that in maintaining his argu-
ment that Calvinists hold the offensive opinion in question, he
makes use of exploded representations on the subject of original
sin, instead of taking those which he knew were then generally
adopted in New England. Dr. Beecher therefore, was certainly
guilty of duplicity in seeking to obtain for himself what he deemed
the benefit of these modified views of original sin, if he did not
really hold them. But there is no doubt, there can be none, that
he is here stating his own opinions. Were there any, it would be
removed by the following passage which is found in close con-
nexion with the one above quoted. "The pamphlets and treatises
on this subject were written, and the subject settled, before my
recollection. But I have read them, and have searched the Scrip-
tures, and have from the beginning accommodated my phraseo-
logy to opinions which had been adopted as the result of an inves-
tigation which commenced more than seventy years ago, and has
been settled more than fifty years." Dr. Beecher here declares,
that the opinions which he had just presented on the subject of
original sin, were his own, that he had adopted them after careful
study, and that he had preached them from the beginning.
Will he urge that he is here speaking of actual or adult depra-
vity? We should feel that we were unjust towards Dr. Beecher,
in intimating the possibility of his resort to such grounds of
defence, were it not for the specimen which he has already given of
his wonderful capabilities in this line. But all the changes which
he can ring upon the words actual and adult will not help him
here. He is, in this part of his letter, professedly giving what he
164
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
deems the true view of original sin, in opposition to the old Calvin-
istic doctrine, from which his adversary had drawn some of his
arguments. It is then of infants, not adults, that he is writing; it
is of a depraved nature, existing prior to moral action, in distinc-
tion from whatever it is that he means by a depraved nature in
respect to actual depravity."
66
Assuming what cannot be questioned, that this passage contains
Dr. Beecher's views of original sin, it suggests several very obvi-
ous reflections. We see that Dr. Beecher here, as in his other
writings, misrepresents and caricatures the orthodox doctrine, that
doctrine which he admits was generally held from the time of the
Reformation until after Edwards. After stating correctly the doc-
trine which they taught, he adds his own version of it in these
words, "that the very substance or essence of the soul was
depraved." And in giving an account of the change which had
taken place in the mode of stating the subject, he makes the nega-
tive part of it to consist in the denial "that men are guilty
of Adam's sin, and that depravity is of the substance of the
soul, or an inherent or physical quality," This, then, was
the doctrine which had been previously taught by Edwards,
and his predecessors. But he otherwise represents their doc-
trine as teaching that "a corrupt nature descends from Adam
to every one of his posterity," or that "original sin consists in the
imputation of Adam's sin, and in a hereditary depravity," or "a
depraved nature transmitted by descent." Let it then be distinctly
marked and held in remembrance, that when Dr. Beecher rails at
physical depravity, he means hereditary depravity; when he
attacks the opinion that the substance or essence of the soul is
depraved, his shafts are levelled against the doctrine of a corrupt
nature descending from Adam to his posterity. We have often
been much perplexed in the attempt to understand what is meant
by certain men, when they declaim against physical depravity,
material sin, &c.; and we have sometimes been uncharitable
enough to think that they had no meaning at all, and made use of
these phrases merely to round a sentence or point an antithesis.
But Dr. Beecher makes his meaning sufficiently plain. He uses
physical depravity, and a depraved nature transmitted by descent,
as convertible phrases; and he leaves no halting-place between
the theory that depravity consists in a voluntary action, and that
which makes it a physical quality. If this is done ignorantly-if
Dr. Beecher is really unable to perceive the difference between
the orthodox doctrine of a corrupt nature, and that of moral
depravity in the physical structure of the soul, then he ought cer-
tainly to lay aside the office and the air of an instructer of his
brethren in theology. But if the misrepresentation is made wilfully,
we will venture to recommend to him the same discipline which
he once advised in a similar case, the careful study of the ninth
commandment. We are willing, however, in the present instance,
to endure the pain of this evil report of our opinions, and even feel
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
165
grateful to Dr. Beecher on account of it, because of the key which
it furnishes to the passages in which he fulminates against physical
depravity, and those who hold and teach it.
66
We were moreover struck, while reading this passage, with the
wonderful similarity between its statements and those already
quoted from the sermon on the Native Character of Man. It is
truly surprising that there should be such a strong likeness, a per-
fect identity indeed, between the two, when we consider that in the
one he is describing actual depravity, or adult depravity, or a
depraved nature in respect to actual depravity, and in the other, that
depravity which belongs to original sin. Speaking of a depraved
nature in respect to actual depravity, he says, "If, therefore, man
is depraved by nature, it is a voluntary and accountable nature
which is depraved, exercised in disobedience to the law of God;"
and speaking of a depraved nature in respect to original sin, he
says, Depravity is wholly voluntary, and consists in the trans-
gression of the law in such circumstances as constitute account-
ability and desert of punishment." We may surely be pardoned
the natural error of supposing, that in these sentences he was
describing the same thing. Especially do we think we may be
forgiven this offence, when it is further observed that he uses the
same phrases, native depravity, depraved nature, &c., in the one
case to denote actual depravity, and in the other that which is not
actual. And yet, further, would we plead in extenuation of our
error, that Dr. Beecher informs us in this letter, that the views
which it presents of original sin were those which he had held from
the beginning, and to which he had always accommodated his
phraseology. What then could have been more natural than for
us to suppose, when we found in this letter a certain assertion made
respecting" native depravity," and then found the same assertion
respecting "native depravity," in a sermon written previously,
that they both had reference to the same thing. If we have,
indeed, erred in this supposition, we must pronounce it hazardous
to attempt to interpret any production of Dr. Beecher, until he has
first been tried for it, and had an opportunity to put in his explana-
tion and defence.
Our last remark upon this exposition of the doctrine of original
sin is, that the author himself cannot have the hardihood to deny
that it is in direct conflict with the Confession of Faith. He ex-
pressly rejects the doctrine, whatever it was, which had been
taught by the Reformers, the Puritan fathers of New England, and
by Edwards, and it has never been denied or doubted that the
doctrine which they taught is that of our Confession. He denies
that men are guilty of Adam's sin, and thus rejects the doctrine
of imputation. He asserts that all depravity is voluntary, and
consists in the transgression of the law, discarding, as plainly
as language can do it, the doctrine of a depraved nature transmit-
ted from Adam to his posterity. Yet this doctrine, thus discredited,
and contemptuously given over to the tender mercies of his
166
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
Socinian adversary, is the doctrine of our standards. He does
not simply modify the orthodox mode of stating this doctrine,
he altogether rejects the doctrine itself. In a passage following
the one we have given, he says, "These (the New England
divines) while they disclaim the language held by Calvin
and Edwards on the subject of imputation, do, in accordance with
the Bible and the Reformers, teach that there is a connexion of
some kind between the sin of Adam and the universal, voluntary,
and entire depravity of his posterity; so that it is in consequence
of Adam's sin that all mankind do sin voluntarily, as early as they
are capable of accountability and moral action." This restriction
of the whole matter to "a connexion of some kind" between Adam
and his posterity, in consequence of which they all sin voluntarily
as soon as they become capable of moral action, does more than
discard our mode of representing the doctrine of original sin, ast
consisting in the imputation of Adam's sin, the want of original
righteousness, and the corruption of man's whole nature. By
denying that we are in any sense guilty of Adam's sin, and reject-
ing the idea of a corrupt nature transmitted by descent, while it
confines all depravity to actual transgression, it removes the whole
ground of distinction between original and actual sin. It is mere
quibbling, or something worse, to retain the phrase, when every-
thing that could be meant by it has been rejected. Besides actual
transgression, Dr. Beecher teaches that there is nothing but "a
connexion of some kind" existing between Adam and his posterity.
But he certainly cannot contend for the absurdity of applying the
term original sin to this connexion. Sin denotes something in the
subject, not out of him. The phrase cannot be applied to the con-
nexion itself, nor are we at liberty to affix it to the effect of this
connexion upon the subjects of it, for this, he assures us, is actual
transgression, not original sin. He believes that accountability
does not " commence from the womb," and that the time when it
does commence "is not and cannot be exactly known to any but
the eye of God." Previous to this period, upon his theory, nothing
more can be affirmed of the infant than that, in consequence of the
sin of Adam, it is certain that it will sin voluntarily, as soon as it
becomes capable of moral action. This is the utmost extent to
which his doctrine can carry us; and what more gross misappli-
cation of language is possible than to term this undefined con-
nexion with Adam, or the certainty arising from it that the being
will actually sin, original sin. This phrase should, in fairness, be
thrown aside, if there can be no depravity or sin without "a
transgression of the law under such circumstances as constitute
accountability and desert of punishment." We should despair of
being able to construct a categorical denial of every semblance of
the doctrine of original sin, if this be not one.
We expressed regret that the passage upon which we have been
commenting had not been produced in evidence upon the trial, but
we recall this expression. We doubt whether such regret is con-
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
167
sistent with the proper degree of kindly feeling towards Dr.
Beecher. No friend of his, who has beheld the pitiable plight to
which he was reduced by the extracts that were brought forward
from his sermon, the hopeless conflict in which he felt himself com-
pelled to struggle with the obvious meaning of his words, and the
wandering mazes of confusion and nonsense in which he was lost,
can desire that his calamity should have been so much increased
as it must have been had this passage been produced.
When it is considered that out of the little that Dr. Beecher had
published which touched at all upon controverted points in theo-
logy, there was so much that denied the doctrine of original sin-
that his sermons and conversation were said, by many competent
judges who were in the habit of hearing them, to contain much
more to the same effect-that he had declared, in his letter to Dr.
Porter, that there were some things in which he agreed with Dr.
Taylor-and that it was publicly known that during the contro-
versy between Dr. Taylor and Dr. Tyler, in the Spirit of the Pil-
grims, either as the locum tenens of the editor, or in some other
capacity, he acted as second to Dr. Taylor-is it wonderful, when
these things are considered, that Dr. Beecher should have been
more than suspected of heresy? Were the accusations against
him so entirely groundless, that he is entitled to assume the attitude.
and tone of an injured man? Truly, we think the merchant or phy-
sician who had given as much reason for suspicion of his honesty
or his skill, however aged, might not only be justly called upon to
exhibit his books, or give an account of his cases and practice,
but that he ought to esteem himself fortunate if he escaped con-
viction of fraud, or quackery, and humbly resolve to amend his
course, instead of censuring those who had called him to an
account.
*
We will now take up Dr. Beecher's Views in Theology, and
seek to ascertain what opinions he there avows on the subject of
original sin. And here we find an account so different, so diame-
trically opposed to that which he had previously given, that we
can hardly believe them to have proceeded from the same pen.
The voice that we hear is no longer the exulting tone of one pro-
claiming new and important truths in theology; it sounds like an
echo from the tomb of the dead and buried orthodoxy of the
Reformers and the Puritan fathers. Let the following extract be com-
pared with those which we have given from his previous writings.
* We have indeed heard it said, that after the publication of his Views in Theo-
logy, Dr. Beecher, as if doubtful of his own identity, sought to assure himself by
going on to New Haven and ascertaining whether Dr. Taylor would recognise him.
It is added, that the result of the experiment was entirely satisfactory. But this
story must be apocryphal. We can readily conceive that Dr. B. might feel himself
in the predicament of Amphitryo when he exclaimed,
Num formam perdidi? mirum quin me norit Sosia.
Scrutabor: eho dic mihi, quis videor? num satis Amphitruo?
But the incredible part of the story is that Sosia recognised Amphitryo.
168
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
"What the precise errors are which I am supposed to hold I do
not know; but from the evidence relied on, and the general course of
the argument, it would seem that I am supposed to hold the Pela-
gian doctrine on the subject (original sin); that I deny that Adam
was the federal head and representative of his race; that the
covenant was made not only with Adam, but also with his poste-
rity; that the guilt of his sin was imputed to them; that there is
any such thing as native depravity; or that infants are depraved.
That, on the contrary, I hold and teach that infants are innocent,
and as pure as Adam before the fall; and that each one stands or
falls for himself as he rises to personal accountability; and that
there is no such thing as original sin descending from Adam by
ordinary generation; and that original sin is not sin, or in any
sense deserving God's wrath and curse.
"Now every one of these assumed errors of my faith I deny to be
my faith. They ascribe to me opinions which I have never held
nor taught, and as I shall show, there is no evidence that I ever
taught one of them."
This confession leaves us nothing to desire on this subject. The
most orthodox cannot go beyond it. Translated from its present
negative into the equivalent positive form, it would read thus: "I
hold and teach, that Adam was the federal head and representative
of his race; that the covenant was made not only with Adam, but
also with his posterity; that the guilt of his sin was imputed to
them; that there is such a thing as native depravity, and that in-
fants are depraved. I hold and teach that infants are guilty; that
they are already fallen, before they rise to personal accountability;
that there is such a thing as original sin, descending from Adam
by ordinary generation; and that original sin is properly sin, and
deserving of God's wrath and curse.
Those who are acquainted with the controversies to which the
subject of original sin has given rise, will at once perceive how
explicitly this confession meets and rejects every error that has at
any time prevailed. We have never seen, within the same com-
pass, so close and strict a statement of the doctrine, one which so
fully yielded all that the orthodox demand, and so carefully guarded
against everything to which they object. We do not believe that
there is upon record a Calvinistic statement of this doctrine, which
adds anything which is not included in the view that Dr. Beecher
here presents as his own. It would have been entirely satisfac-
tory, therefore, and we should have rejoiced in it beyond measure,
if in connexion with this profession of his faith, he had made a
recantation of his former errors. Or we should have been satis-
fied with the virtual recantation, implied in this profession, if he
had not seen fit to accompany it with the express declaration,
Such, on the subject of original sin, are the views which I have
always held and taught since I have been in the ministry." Again,
he says, "My doctrinal opinions have been unchanged from the
beginning." And yet again, "In doctrine I am what I have ever
66
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
169
been." These declarations are the source of our perplexity and
our misgivings. Here he declares, that ever since he has been in
the ministry he has held and taught, "that original sin descends
from Adam to his posterity, by ordinary generation," or, as he
again expresses it in another passage, that "it descends from Adam,
by natural generation to all his race." But in his letter to the
editor of the Christian Examiner, he informs us, that he has from
the beginning adopted those opinions of original sin which reject
the idea presented by the Reformers, " of a depraved nature, trans-
mitted by descent." Here he professes to believe, "that the guilt
of Adam's sin is imputed to his posterity;" in his letter he states
his opinion to be," that men are not guilty of Adam's sin." Here
he affirms that "it (original sin) is involuntary ;"* in his letter he
declares that there is no depravity save that which is "wholly
voluntary." Here he teaches that infants are guilty, before they
rise to personal accountability, and deserving God's wrath and
curse; in his letter he tells us that there is no depravity or guilt,
but that which arises from "the transgression of the law under
such circumstances as constitute accountability and desert of pun-
ishment." Here he says of original sin, that "it is denominated by
Edwards, and justly, an exceedingly evil and depraved nature;"t
in his letter he declares that he has always repudiated the views
and language of Edwards upon this subject.
Here is contradiction palpable and broad. The two views pre-
sented by Dr. Beecher, in his earlier and later publications, belong
to two entirely different, two opposite systems. They have no
common points of resemblance, and the same man can no more
hold the two simultaneously in his faith, than he can believe both
in the Ptolemaic and the Copernican systems of the universe. Yet
Dr. Beecher assures us again and again that he has never changed
in doctrine; that he has always taught that native depravity is
voluntary, and always taught that native depravity is involuntary.
We know not which way to turn for a solution of this paradox.
We are unwilling to believe that Dr. Beccher is so obtuse in his
perception of truth, that he does not see the wide and bridgeless
gulf between these two systems. We are reluctant, too, to believe
that pride or false shame would keep him from acknowledging a
change in his views, if himself conscious that such a change had
taken place. And we would fain avoid the belief that in his ortho-
dox professions, he uses words and terms in a different sense from
that which he knows others will attach to them, thus reserving to
himself the liberty of retreat, under the shelter of the esoteric sense,
to his former views, whenever the days of trial for heresy shall
have passed by. We can conceive no other solution, save that
which is afforded by one of these hypotheses:-but we are unwil-
ling to choose between them, and will leave our readers, after this
exhibition of the facts and the difficulties of the case, to form their
own conclusion.
* See Views in Theology, p. 193.
† See Views, p. 194.
170
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
We regret most sincerely and deeply the result of our exami-
nation into Dr. Beecher's opinions. It is painful to bring forward
such charges as are implied in the exhibition we have made,
against one whom we are constrained on so many accounts to
admire and respect. But truth and justice are superior in their
claims to personal considerations; and we have felt that under the
peculiar circumstances of the case they required this exposure at
our hands.
The only other topic which we intended to make the subject of
extended comment, is the theory which Dr. Beecher gives of the
will, in his discussion of Natural Ability. But we have already
occupied so much space that we must defer our remarks on this
point.
SECOND ARTICLE.
In resuming the examination of Dr. Beecher's views, with the
object of discussing his theory of moral agency, we feel that we
are undertaking a task of considerable difficulty. It is by no means
easy to cull from the mass of heterogeneous and irrelevant matter
which he has brought together, a consistent account of his peculiar
opinions. When we think we have caught his meaning upon one
page, the next is sure to unsettle us. At one time he seems to be
contending with the Antinomian fatalist-at another, with the old-
fashioned Calvinist-and not seldom, as if unable to find other
antagonists worthy of his prowess, he is reduced to the necessity
of fighting with himself. It might be an amusing, and certainly
would be an easy exercise to answer one part of his book by quo-
tations from another. He gives ample evidence of the correctness
of the late Dr. Porter's opinion, that Dr. Beecher is no metaphysi-
cian. At every step he manifests a most singular incompetency
for discussions of this nature. He seldom defines the words or
phrases which he employs-and when he does, it is generally with
such want of precision, that he might better have left them unde-
fined. Where we feel the need of a clear and definite statement
of the point in debate, we are treated often to an unmeaning jingle
of words; and where we have a right to expect an argument we
have a metaphor unexpectedly played off upon us. Instead of
giving us, in a lucid train of consecutive reasoning, a defence of
the opinions in debate, he deals out page after page of glowing
declamation in proof of positions which no one has ever denied.
There may be much good rhetoric in all this, but it is sadly
wanting in logic. It might make a deep impression if delivered,
ore rotundo, before a popular audience, but it will make no con-
verts among those who are accustomed to study the subject which
it treats.
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
171
The theory of the will, beyond all other subjects within the range
of mental and moral science, demands precision in the use of lan-
guage. The terms employed, being of necessity those of the fire-
side and the forum, possess many different shades of meaning, and
cannot well serve the purposes of scientific discussion, unless
they are first precisely defined, and then used in the single sense
attached to them. Without the most scrupulous and vigilant care,
any attempt to elucidate this subject can end only in multiplying
words without knowledge. Dr. Beecher might have learned an
important lesson upon this matter from an author of whom he
would hardly have spoken as he has done, if he had been familiar
with his writings, and from whom we quote therefore the following
sentence for his benefit. "Seeing then that truth consisteth in the
right ordering of names in our affirmations, a man that seeketh
precise truth hath need to remember what every name he uses
stands for, and to place it accordingly; or else he will find him-
self entangled in words, as a bird in lime-twigs."* There are very
few authors, who have written extensively upon the abstruse
subject of the will, who will not be found occasionally open
to censure upon this score, so extremely difficult is it to guard
entirely against the snare set for them in the ambiguity of language.
But there is a vagueness in the terms and statements of Dr.
Beecher, and a looseness in his method of reasoning as well as his
phraseology which are altogether peculiar to himself. This would
have been the more surprising to us on account of the seeming con-
sciousness of strength with which he comes forward to grapple with
the difficulties of the subject, had we not long since learned to consider
a manifestation of such confidence no proof of extraordinary fitness
for the undertaking. "Settle," he says, "the philosophy of free
agency-what are the powers of a free agent-how they are put
together, and how they operate in personal, accountable action-
and controversy among all the friends of Christ will cease. It has
often been said that it never can be settled. I believe no such
thing. The perplexities of the schoolmen are passing away," &c.
It has been said by one who delved much more than we have done
among the tomes of the middle ages, that it was "impossible for
any mortal living to tell what a schoolman ever meant by his
words" but there can hardly be anything in Duns Scotus or
* Hobbes's Treatise on Human Nature.
We doubt very much the wisdom or justice of sneering by wholesale at the
schoolmen The logical subtleties to which they devoted themselves, though per-
plexing, yet on this very account sharpened in a high degree their intellect, and
quickened their powers of discrimination and argument; and it was the opinion of
Leibnitz, frequently avowed, at a time when such an avowal was dangerous to one's
reputation and almost to his personal safety, "that there was much gold in the
impure mass of scholastic philosophy." This great man often confesses his own
obligations to the scholastic writers, and his high estimate of the value of many of
their works. It would be a useful undertaking, would some competent scholar, who
could gain access to their productions, examine them carefully and gather from them
what is worth preserving. We have little doubt that much sterling ore might be
dug out from this mine.
172
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
།
Thomas Aquinas more perplexing than would be the attempt to
educe an intelligible meaning from many of Dr. Beecher's sen-
tences. Let the following formal definition be taken for a sample.
"By natural inability, I understand that which an agent, though
ever so willing, cannot do, from defect of capacity." According
to this definition the natural inability of a loose and careless thinker
would be a compact, well-digested piece of reasoning. The inabi-
lity is not an attribute of the agent-it is the thing which he cannot
do. And were this mistake rectified, the definition would still be
incomplete. It limits natural inability to the want of power which
is consequent upon "defect of capacity." But it is obvious that
though the eyes of a man should be ever so good, yet if he were
deprived of light, he would labour under a natural inability of seeing.
So far as the applicability of the term natural is concerned, it is a
matter of indifference whether the inability result from a defect in
the faculties of the agent, or in any of the conditions required by
nature for the appropriate exercise of his faculties.
Other instances of a like kind are not wanting. There is
a vagueness, remarkable even in Dr. Beecher, attending his
use of the terms, cause and effect. The following passage
furnishes an example. "The supposition of accountability for
choice, coerced by a natural necessity, is contrary to the nature of
things as God has constituted them. The relation of cause and
effect pervades the universe. The natural world is full of it. It
is the basis of all science, and of all intellectual operation, with
respect to mind. Can the intellect be annihilated, and thinking go
on?
No more can the power of choice be annihilated, and free
agency remain." The power of choice, or, in other words, the
faculty usually denominated the will, is certainly requisite to free
agency. This we suppose no one has ever denied, since no defini-
tion of free agency can be given which does not virtually imply
the existence of a will in the agent. But it is certainly a very
strange use of the words to call the will a cause, and free agency
its effect; and the analogical argument founded on this assumed
relation is most lame and impotent. Dr. Beecher however is so
partial to this analogy that he introduces it again under a subse-
quent head of argument. "The supposition," he says, " of con-
tinued responsibility, after all the powers of causation are gone, is
contrary to the common sense and intuitive perception of all man-
kind. On the subject of moral obligation all men can see and do
see that there can be no effect without a cause. That nothing
cannot produce something is an intuitive perception, and you can-
not help it. This is the basis of that illustrious demonstration by
which we prove the being of a God." Though this passage occurs
within a page of the one last quoted, it will be observed that the
application of the analogy of material causes and effects has been
changed within this brief compass. In the first, the effect was
free agency, here it is responsibility or moral obligation. There
is still another passage in which he says, "Material causes, while
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
173
upheld by heaven, are adequate to their proper effects; and the
mind of man, though fallen, is, while upheld, a cause sufficient, in
respect to the possibility of obedience, to create infinite obligation.”
Respect for Dr. Beecher restrains us from employing the only be-
coming and adequate mode of exposing such argumentation as
this. It is impossible to enter upon a serious refutation of the
analogy assumed in these extracts; or to undertake, with a grave
face, to prove that the will, or the mind of man, does not stand in
the relation of a cause to free agency, responsibility, the possibility
of obedience, or infinite obligation. These latter terms character-
ize abstract properties or relations which are not the object of
power, and would not therefore be termed effects by any one who
was at all attentive "to the right ordering of names.
Such rea-
soning might be tolerated in a public oration before a promiscuous
audience, it might be overlooked in a popular sermon,-but it must
leave its disparaging mark upon one who employs it in a set expo-
sition of the subject of free agency, cleared of the perplexities of
fog and mist in which the schoolmen have involved it. No one
who reads the extracts we have given, or still less if he reads the
treatise from which they are taken, will wonder that Dr. Beecher
should have felt it necessary to inform Dr. Porter, and through
him the public at large, that his method of philosophizing was the
Baconian.*
99
There is another case of the perversion of terms in Dr. Beecher's
work more serious than those we have quoted, because it has
betrayed him into some erroneous opinions. The phrases natural
ability and moral ability have been for many years currently em-
ployed in discussions upon the subject of the will and free agency.
Their meaning has been well defined by long usage, and Dr.
Beecher professes to use them in their common acceptation. We
have given his own definition of natural inability. He subse-
quently gives, with approbation, as coincident with his own,
the definitions of President Edwards. We are said to be natu-
rally unable to do a thing which we cannot do if we will,
because what is commonly called nature does not allow of it.
See Dr. Beecher's published letter to Dr. Porter. In this letter he gives this
truly original definition of Philosophy. Philosophy is the nature which God has
given to things, to mind and to matter; with the laws of their operation." He sub-
sequently adds, "If I understand my own mode of philosophizing, it is the Baco-
nian-facts and the Bible are the extent of my philosophy" The latter part of this
sentence is somewhat obscure. He can hardly mean that his philosophy embraces
only the knowledge of facts and of the Bible, without regard to the disposition of his
knowledge in systematic order. We suppose he intended to inform us that he
applied to facts and to the Bible, the principles of the Baconian philosophy. We
have once before, in a single instance, met with the notion of improving theological
science, by applying to the Bible the principles and methods of the inductive philo-
sophy. About as fitly might one talk of getting a purer system of truth from the
Bible, by applying to it the new method of boring for water. It is to be wished that
Bacon were more read or less talked about His name is getting to be so much a
stalking horse for pretenders, that it is now almost a suspicious circumstance to be
caught making any use of it.
174
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
Moral inability is the want of inclination, or a contrary incli-
nation." The correlate phrases, natural and moral ability, will of
course denote, the one, the ability which results from the posses-
sion of physical powers and opportunities; the other, that which
arises from inclination or disposition. But Dr. Beecher applies.
these terms to the will itself, as well as to the agent. He speaks
of the "natural inability of the will," " the natural power of choice."
"the natural power of the will," &c. Had he paused a moment
upon these phrases, he must have felt that they were destitute of
meaning. Their absurdity is at once made apparent by substitut-
ing the word will in the definition which Dr. Beecher himself gives.
It would run thus: "By the natural inability (of the will), I under-
stand that which the will, though ever so willing, cannot do, from
defect of capacity," that is, in this case from defect of will.
it is important to get light upon these phrases, if any can be
had, we will try, whether the definition which he has adopted from
Edwards can help us to see what is meant by the natural inability
of the will."The will is said to be naturally unable to do a thing
which it cannot do if it will, because what is commonly called
nature does not allow of it." Now as the question is only about
acts of the will, and it is very plain that if a thing is willed it is
willed, the only hinderance which nature can interpose here must
be by the destruction of the will itself To assert, then, that a man
labours under a natural inability of will, must mean that he is alto-
gether destitute of this faculty. It is in like manner apparent that
the moral inability of the will must mean the want of will in the
will, or rather that it has no intelligible meaning whatever.
As
It would be difficult, too, to tell what can be meant by the follow-
ing remark: "The will is under no such necessity as destroys its
own power of choice." We do not recollect that Dr. Beecher has
defined the sense in which he uses the word will. He seems, how-
ever, usually to employ it in its common acceptation, as denoting,
according to Locke, "the power or ability to prefer or choose," or
in the language of Edwards," that power or principle of mind by
which it is capable of choosing." What then can be intended by
"the will's own power of choice," that is, by the power of choice
possessed by the mind's power of choice? When we assert that
an agent in order to be accountable must possess the power of
choice, the assertion is both intelligible and true. It means that
the agent in question must possess the faculty of will. But that
"the will is under no such necessity as destroys its power of
choice" can convey no meaning beyond what is involved in the
identical proposition that the will is no longer the will after it has
been destroyed. These instances will show how easy it is in the
discussion of this subject, to slide from the clear to the obscure,
from the significant to the unmeaning; and the knowledge of this
danger to which he is exposed should admonish every one who
undertakes the discussion, to employ all possible precaution and
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
175
vigilance. Better far the endless niceties of the scholastic distinc-
tions, than this vague, slip-shod use of terms.*
Other passages might be produced which are open to censure
of a somewhat lighter kind, as manifesting an undue predominance
of the imagination over the reason-passages in which the objec-
tionable phrases cannot, in strictness of speech, be pronounced
absurd, but nevertheless are so vague or hyperbolical as to be
exceedingly out of place in a treatise of this kind. We quote the
following specimen: "There must exist the power of intellect,
perception, comparison, judgment, conscience, will, affections, taste,
memory, the discursive power of thought, the semi-omnipotence
of volition, and those exercises of soul which constitute personal
excellence and inspire affection." We have here, among the attri-
butes of a moral agent, the power of intellect, and then again, the
discursive power of thought; the will is not enough, he must
have in addition the semi-omnipotence of volition; affections are
needed, and then besides these, the exercises of soul which consti-
tute personal excellence. One set of these phrases might surely
have been spared. But Dr. Beecher is seldom satisfied with the
simple, quiet statement of a truth. The boisterous exaggerations
of oratory delight him far more. "The semi-omnipotence of voli-
tion," one would think could hardly be beaten. But the following
sentence may at least contest the palm with it: "The will of man
is stronger than anything in the universe, except the Almighty
God." We thought Dr. Taylor had gone quite far enough in cha-
racterizing the will as a "giant rebel," but he is fairly outdone by
Dr. Beecher. No one has ever given an intelligible account of
any active power that man can exert, save to move the muscles
of his body, or to direct the attention of his mind, and that only
within certain limits. This beggarly power is strangely glorified
when clothed in the princely habiliments of semi-omnipotence and
strength inferior only to the Almighty God.
The method of argument pursued by Dr. Beecher, as might
have been expected from the looseness of his phraseology, is inco-
herent, d ffuse, and often self-contradictory. One of his heads of
argument in defence of his theory of moral agency, is the follow-
ing. "That man possesses, since the fall, the powers of agency
requisite to obligation, on the ground of possibility of obedience, is
a matter of notoriety." It would be easy to point out a defect of
precision in this sentence, but it is not for that purpose we have
quoted it. It asserts that the truth of his own opinions on the sub-
* We refer Dr. Beecher to the author, whose method of philosophizing he thinks
he has adopted, for the following weighty sentences: "Itaque mala et inepta verbo-
rum impositio, miris modis intellectum obsidet." "Sed verba plane vim faciunt
intellectui, et omnia turbant." Nov. Organ. Aph. 43. He will find too this instruct-
ive caution in the same author's Proficience and Advancement of Learning:
"Here,
therefore, is the first distemper of learning, when men study words and not matter.
It seems to me that Pygmalion's phrensy is a good emblem of this fault; for words are
but the images of matter; and except they have life of reason and invention, to fall
in love with them, is all one as to fall in love with a picture."
176
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
ject of man's moral agency is a matter of notoriety. Then surely
he might have spared himself the trouble of filling the hundred
pages which follow. For evidence of its loose and declamatory
style of argument, we must refer our readers to the book itself.
They cannot open it amiss. We might almost say the same of its
inconsistencies. We select at random an instance or two, illus-
trating the latter feature. The author repeatedly denies that
motives are, properly speaking, causes of volition, they are the
ground, occasion, or reason, but not the cause. This is urged most
strenuously. But in discussing the question whether the word of
God is employed as the instrument in regeneration as well as in
conversion, he has the following argument. "But why should the
efficiency of God defraud the word of its alleged instrumentality,
or the instrumentality of the word exclude the power of God? Is
the union of both impossible? It cannot be impossible, because,
unquestionably, in the government of the natural world, God's
almightiness is associated with the instrumentality of natural causes,
and may be just as possibly, if God pleases, in the moral world,
associated with the instrumentality of moral causes" We do not
intend to dispute the truth of the opinion advocated in this passage;
we wish simply to call attention to the argument employed. Why
is the joint efficiency of motives and of the power of God possible,
in the production of a given effect upon the mind? Because in the
natural world the power of God acts in conjunction with natural
causes. Here the author assumes that a motive is a cause, or at
least so near akin to one, that an argument may be founded on the
similarity in their mode of operation,-a notion that he has been
most vigorously combating all along through the previous pages.
Another example in the same kind will suffice for the present. In
his defence of the natural ability of man, we find the following
observations. Accountability for personal transgression does.
require some ability to refuse the evil and choose the good. There
must be the faculties and powers of a free agent, bearing the rela-
tion of possibility to right action. Faculties that can do nothing,
and powers that have no relation of a cause to its effect, in possi-
ble action, are nonentities." Again, he asks, "Do the requisitions
of law continue, when all the necessary antecedents to obedience
are destroyed? Has God required effects without a cause?"
There is much more to the same effect. The ability to choose
right is continually represented as a cause, of which the effect is
variously stated to be the possibility of a right choice, or right
choice itself. This power is magnified and exalted. It is made
the basis of God's moral government, the essential element of man's
accountableness. Let the reader peruse again the extracts we have
just given, and then look at the following sop which Dr. Beecher
throws to the Cerberus of orthodoxy, when he comes to discuss
the subject of original sin. "The thing to be accounted for is the
phenomenon of an entire series of universal actual sin; and to
ascribe the universal and entire obliquity of the human will to the
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
177
simple ability of choosing wrong, is to ascribe the moral obliquity
of a lost world to nothing." It is certainly impossible for a man,
who has only the ordinary powers of vision, to see how the ability
to choose wrong can be a mere nothing, while the ability to choose
right is everything. If one of these species of ability be not a
sufficient cause, ground, or reason, determining the mind to a par-
ticular kind of action, then the other cannot be; and not having
the relation of a cause to its effect, it is, according to the previous
account of the matter, a nonentity. Such are the mistakes and
contradictions into which the rhetorician falls when he undertakes
to deal with the niceties of logical reasoning. As an orator, Dr.
Beecher has few equals. He excels greatly in popular appeals
from the pulpit, the platform, and the press. He has uncommon
powers of imagination, and great facility in gathering from all
quarters luminous illustrations and bold imagery, to give to the
truth a visible and substantial form. His stirring notes have often
reached and aroused us, and, on fitting occasions, there is no one
whose white plume we would more willingly see leading the van.
But he mistakes his calling, and therefore forfeits our confidence
in him as a guide, when he attempts to unravel the difficulties of
that department of theology which is intersected by metaphysical
science. The same qualities which raise him to pre-eminent
excellence in his appropriate sphere, operate rather as a disqualifi-
cation here. The orator is not called upon to use his words in a
steady and determinate sense, approaching the fixed precision of
mathematical terms, nor is it necessary that all his arguments be
such as would bear the test of severe scrutiny. An analogy will
often be as good as an argument, and a well-timed metaphor
better than either. The rigorous exactness which scientific inves-
tigation demands, the cold prudence with which it rejects every-
thing that is not strictly allied to the subject in hand, and the severe
restraint which it imposes upon the imagination in its grasping
after such sensible forms as may materialize the truth, are not
likely to be learned in the school of oratory.
The extracts which we have as yet brought forward from Dr.
Beecher's views have been adduced mainly with the view of illus-
trating the difficulties which must be encountered in the attempt to
discover what are the opinions which he really intends to avow
and defend. We have laboriously endeavoured to understand
his drift; we are conscious of an honest purpose; and if the com-
mon cry of misapprehension shall be raised, we think Dr. Beecher's
obscurity ought at least to divide the blame with our dulness.
To a cursory reader it might seem that Dr. Beecher means to
inculcate nothing more than the common doctrine of man's natural
ability. To all that he says which is strictly applicable as a
defence of this doctrine we have nothing to object. There is a
clear and important distinction between the inability which results.
from the defect of natural faculties, and that which arises from the
want of inclination. According to the intuitive judgment of all
12
178
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
•
men an inability of the former kind absolves from all accountable-
ness and guilt. No man can be under an obligation to perform
any action which, though he will to do it, is yet impossible of
execution. There cannot be any difference of opinion on this
point, where the terms which enter into the discussion are pro-
perly understood. It will accordingly be found that in nearly all
cases, where the natural ability of man for the performance of his
duty is denied, there is a misapprehension of what is really meant
by this form of statement; or else the objector intends merely to
deny the suitableness of the language to express the thing signified.
It cannot be disputed that man possesses all the faculties which
are necessary to constitute him a free moral agent. But it may
be disputed, and with considerable show of reason, whether the
mere possession of these faculties can be said, in strictness of
speech, to confer upon him the ability to change the moral state of
his heart, and perform the spiritual duties required of him by his
Maker. The sole question here is respecting the fitness of the
term ability in this connexion. This word, in its ordinary use,
always bears a reference to actual results. A machine is able to
do only what it actually will do, if it be set in motion, and in form-
ing our estimate of its power we are guided by our observation of
its effects when in operation, or by our knowledge of what has
been produced heretofore by such combinations as enter into its
structure. Man, it is true, is not a machine, nor is he compelled
like inanimate matter to exert at every instant all the power which
he possesses. But while it would not be safe, on this account, to
infer that an individual had, in any particular instance, put forth
his whole ability, we should follow only our usual rule of judgment
in declaring that man is unable to do that which no one of the
human race, however favourably situated, has ever performed, and
which it is admitted no one ever will perform. If another power,
in addition to man's natural ability, is always concerned in his
regeneration and conversion, we may safely infer that this further
power is necessary to the production of the effect. And it is an
obvious impropriety to call that an ability to do a given thing, which
yet requires an additional power to be combined with it to render it
efficient in the production of its result. While we fully adopt, there-
fore, the opinions of President Edwards upon this subject, we cannot
*It is singular to observe how absurdities and errors that have been reasoned or
laughed out of existence in one age are revived in another. Much of the fine satire
of Pascal has as keen an edge for existing follies, as it had for those against which it
was originally aimed. We quote the following detached passages, and would recom-
mend the reader to turn to his Provincial Letters, and read all that he has written on
the subject of efficacious grace.
C
My good friend the Jansenist seemed pleased with my remarks, and thought he
had already gained me. He said nothing to me, however, but turning to the Father,
Pray,' said he, in what respects do you agree with the Jesuits?' He replied,
In this, that we both acknowledge that sufficient grace is given to all men.' But,'
returned he, there are two things in the term sufficient grace; the sound, which is
mere air, and the sense, which is real and significant. So that when you avow an
agreement with the Jesuits in the word, but oppose them in the sense, it is obvious
that you disagree with them in the essential matter, though you accord in the term.
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
179
but consider his phraseology as eminently unhappy. However
guarded and explained, it is still calculated to mislead. We need not
go further for proof of its unhappy tendency than to the writings of
Dr. Beecher. In his Sermon on Free Agency and Dependence he
says, "The moment the ability of obedience ceases, the commission
of sin becomes impossible." It will be observed that the ability
which is here said to be essential to the commission of sin, is not
Is this acting with openness and sincerity? But,' said the good man, 'what cause
of complaint have you, since we deceive no one by this mode of speaking? for in our
schools we publicly declare that we understand the expression in a sense quite
opposite to the Jesuits.' 'I complain,' said my friend, that you do not declare to
all the world, that by sufficient grace you mean a grace which is not sufficient.
Having changed the signification of the usual terms in religion, you are obliged in
conscience to declare, that when you admit of sufficient grace in all men, you really
intend that they have not sufficient grace.'
Christians inquire of divines what is the real condition of human nature since
the fall? St. Augustine and his disciples reply, that it does not possess sufficient
grace, unless it pleases God to bestow it. The Jesuits come forward and assert that
all do absolutely possess it. Consult the Dominicans upon this contradictory repre-
sentation, and what is the consequence? They coalesce with the Jesuits. By this
artifice their numbers appear so considerable They divide from those who deny
sufficient grace, and declare that all men have it; and who would imagine otherwise
than that they sanction the Jesuits? When, lo! they proceed to intimate that the
sufficient grace is useless, without the efficacious, which is not bestowed upon all
men !
"Shall I present you with a picture of the church amidst these different senti-
ments? I consider it like a man who, leaving his native country to travel abroad, is
met by robbers who wound him so severely that they leave him half dead. He sends
for three physicians resident in the neighbourhood. The first, after probing his
wounds, pronounces them to be mortal, assuring him that God alone can restore him;
the second, wishing to flatter him, declares he has sufficient strength to reach home,
and, insulting the first for opposing his opinion, threatens to be the ruin of him. The
unfortunate patient, in this doubtful condition, as soon as he perceives the approach
of the third, stretches out his hands to welcome him who is to decide the dispute.
This physician, upon examining his wounds, and ascertaining the opinions already
given, coincides with the second, and these coalesce against the first to turn him out
with contempt; and they now form the strongest party. The patient infers from this
proceeding, that the third physician agrees with the second, and upon putting the
question, he assures him most positively that his strength is sufficient for the pro-
posed journey. The wounded man, however, expatiating upon his weakness, asks
upon what he founds his opinion? Why, you have still got legs, and legs are the
means which, according to the constitution of nature, are sufficient for the purpose
of walking.' Very true,' replies the wounded traveller; but have I all the strength
which is requisite for making use of them: for really they seem useless to me in my
present languishing condition? Certainly they are,' returns the physician, and
you never will be able to walk unless God vouchsafes some extraordinary assistance
to sustain and guide you.' What then,' says the infirm man, have I not sufficient
strength in myself to be fully able to walk?" O no, far, very far from it' • Then
you have a different opinion from your friend respecting my real condition.'
didly admit I have.'
C
C
'I can-
"What do you suppose the wounded man would say to this? He complains of
their strange proceeding, and of the ambiguous language of this third physician.
He censures him for coalescing with the second, when he was in fact of a contrary
opinion, though they agreed in appearance, and for driving away the first with whom
he really coincided; and then, after trying his strength, and finding by experience
the truth of his weakness, he dismisses them both, and, recalling the first, puts him-
self under his care, follows his advice, and prays to God for the strength which he
confesses he needs. His petitions are heard, and he ultimately returns home in
peace.'
Has not the time nearly or quite arrived in our church, when sober argument hav-
ing accomplished all that it can do, the pen of satire becomes a legitimate and effec-
tive weapon? Is there not some Pascal among us, who will come forth to castigate
the follies of the day?
180
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
qualified by the epithet natural. The declaration is as broad as it
could be made; and it seems to us impossible to pen a sentence
which would more palpably conflict with the plain language of the
Scriptures upon this subject, or more directly tend to absolve the
sinner from the terrors of an evil conscience. Every sinner knows
that his ability to obey, using these words according to their ordi-
nary meaning, is lessened by every sin that he commits. The
more profligate he becomes, the less able is he to rise from the
depths into which he has sunk. How comforting to him to hear
that as his ability is thus diminishing his sins are becoming less
criminal, and that when he has become so depraved that he can no
more recover himself than the Ethiopian can change his skin, then
he can no longer commit sin! Dr. Beecher would of course
explain by saying that he meant only natural ability. But the sen-
tence as it now stands is at least ambiguous, and in one of its
senses, and that one in perfect accordance with the ordinary use of
language, it is untrue and dangerous. It is no small objection to
the use of the phrase, natural ability, that such a man as Dr.
Beecher should have been led by it to preach in a style so well
adapted to lead his hearers into serious error. In the same Sermon
we find the following still more alarming sentence. "And most
blessed and glorious, I am confident, will be the result when her
ministry everywhere shall rightly understand and teach, and their
hearers shall universally admit, the full ability of every sinner to
comply with the terms of salvation." Could Edwards have foreseen
that such a declaration as this would have grown out of the phrase-
ology which he cast around this subject, he would surely have
paused and sought some less beguiling words. But he could not
have anticipated that from his effort to overthrow Arminianism there
would arise the very error he was combating, or something worse.
Had it been Dr. Beecher's intention to announce the opinion com-
monly held by Pelagians respecting man's ability, could he have
taught it except in words of equivalent import with those in the pas-
sage above quoted? Would not the "full ability of every sinner to
comply with the terms of salvation" be naturally understood to
mean all ability of whatever kind that is necessary to the end in
view? And if the sinner has within himself all the ability that is
requisite, with what propriety can it be said that the influence of
the Spirit is necessary? We quote another passage to the same
effect from Dr. Beecher's Sermon on the Faith once delivered to
the saints. "Men are free agents, possessed of such faculties, and
placed in such circumstances, as render it practicable for them to
do whatever God requires." It will be seen that the same doctrine
of plenary ability is here taught, though in a somewhat stronger
form. Without attempting to define the precise difference between
the two words, practicable and possible, it will be admitted that
the former conveys a lower idea of the difficulty to be overcome
than the latter. No aid is ever deemed necessary to enable a man
to accomplish a practicable enterprise. And if it is practicable for
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
181
man to do all that God requires, then is he cast upon his own
resources, independent of any help from without. Will Dr. Beecher
reply that the influences of the Spirit are necessary not to make
him able, but to render him willing? We reply, that if they are in
any sense, or for any reason, necessary, it is a gross perversion of
language to say that the work, for the accomplishment of which
they are necessary, is practicable without them. And besides this,
the sinner's willingness constitutes the chief element in the practi-
cableness of his duty. These extracts from Dr. Beecher's sermons
show that he has given sufficient reason for ranking him with the
modern improvers of the Edwardean theory of natural and moral
ability. The characteristic mark of these improvers is that they
reject, as Dr. Beecher does, the terms natural and moral, and
assert without qualification that man possesses all the ability which
is requisite for discharging the duties required of him. We have
never heard from any of them stronger statements on this point
than those we have quoted from Dr. Beecher; and if he contends
that he meant to teach only the natural ability of the sinner, we
take the liberty of exhorting him to be, in future, less reckless in
his use of words.
If further proof is wanted that the doctrine taught by Dr.
Beecher in these extracts from his sermons is not the natural
ability of the New England theologians, it may easily be furnished
from the writings of Edwards. Dr. Beecher teaches that the
sinner must possess "full ability" to do all his duty, so that if there
be anything which he has not sufficient power to perform, he
cannot be under any obligation to do it. Full ability, commen-
surate with requirement, he represents as the only equitable foun-
dation of God's moral government. How wide this is from the
notions of Edwards on natural ability, may be inferred from the
following passage, which is found in his work on Original Sin, in
the course of his argument against the Pelagian opinions of Dr
Taylor of Norwich. "It will follow on our author's principles,
not only with respect to infants, but even adult persons, that
redemption is needless, and Christ is dead in vain. Not only is
there no need of Christ's redemption in order to deliverance from
any consequences of Adam's sin, but also in order to perfect
freedom from personal sin and all its evil consequences. For God
has made other sufficient provision for that, viz. a sufficient power
and ability in all mankind to do all their duty, and wholly to avoid
sin. Yea, he insists upon it, that when men have not sufficient
power to do their duty, hey have no duty to do. We may safely
and assuredly conclude (says he) that mankind, in all parts of the
world, have sufficient power to do the duty which God requires of
them; and that he requires of them no more than they have
sufficient powers to do. And in another place, 'God has given
powers equal to the duty which he expects.' These things fully
imply, that men have, in their own natural ability, sufficient means
to avoid sin, and to be perfectly free from it. And if the means
182
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
are sufficient, then is there no need of more, and therefore there is
no need of Christ's dying in order to it."* The principles of the
celebrated champion of Pelagianism, which are here controverted,
are precisely those of Dr. Beecher. We can conceive of no
jugglery upon his words which can possibly separate between
them. And so far are these doctrines from being coincident with
the views of Edwards, that he rejects them with abhorrence, as
tending to make the death of Christ of none effect. And yet these
are the doctrines for which the sanction of his venerable name is
now invoked !
""
A careful examination of Dr. Beecher's views will make it
evident that he still teaches a different doctrine from what is com-
monly understood by man's natural ability. While his professed
object is to defend this doctrine, he slips in some important additions
of his own. At the very outset of his discussion, in stating the
question at issue, he places himself in direct opposition to Edwards.
"The point at issue," he says, “is, in what manner the certainty of
the continuous wrong action of the mind comes to pass? Does it
come to pass coerced or uncoerced by necessity? Does fallen
man choose, under the influence of such a constitution of body and
mind and motive, that every volition bears the relation of an effect
to a natural and necessary cause, rendering any other choice than
the one which comes to pass impossible, under existing circum-
stances?" Again he says, "The question of free-will is not whether
man chooses-this is notorious, none deny it--but whether his choice
is free, as opposed to a fatal necessity.' He contends throughout,
that in order to ascertain whether man is a free agent, we must inquire
into the causes of his volitions, and see whether they are necessary
in their operation; and that to render him accountable it is not
sufficient that his actions are voluntary-his will also must be free.
Let us compare this notion of freedom with that given by Edwards.
But one thing more I would observe concerning what is vulgarly
called Liberty; namely, that power and opportunity to do and
conduct as he will, is all that is meant by it; without taking into
the meaning of the word anything of the cause of that choice, or
at all considering how the person came to have such a volition;
whether it was caused by some external motive or internal
habitual bias; whether it was determined by some internal
antecedent volition, or whether it happened without a cause;
whether it was necessarily connected with something foregoing,
or not connected. Let the person come b his choice any how,
yet, if he is able, and there is nothing in .e way to hinder his pur-
suing and executing his will, the man is perfectly free, according
to the primary and common notion of freedom."+"Liberty is the
power, opportunity, or advantage that any one has of doing as he
pleases, or conducting himself in any respect according to his
pleasure, without considering how his pleasure comes to be as it is."‡
*Edwards's Works, vol ii., p. 515.
Freedom of the Will, p. 39.
‡ Ibid., p. 291.
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
183
The ground of blame-worthiness too, as stated by Edwards, is
essentially different from that given by Dr. Beecher. The latter
requires, in addition to voluntariness, that the agent should possess
the power of controlling his own choice. But Edwards says, "The
idea which the common people through all ages and nations have
of faultiness, I suppose to be plainly this; a person being or doing
wrong with his own will and pleasure," he adds, " and this is the
sum total of the matter."
A few more extracts from Dr. Beecher will show that he advo-
cates, sometimes at least, a theory very different from that of Edwards
and of Calvinistic writers in general, respecting natural ability.
Choice," he says, "in its very nature, implies the possibility of a
different or contrary election to that which is made. There is
always an alternative to that which the mind decides on, with the
conscious power of choosing either." He states the question in
debate respecting man's freedom to be, "whether it (his choice) is
the act of an agent who might have abstained from the choice
he made, and made one which he did not." He speaks very often
of the necessity that man should possess what he calls the power
of choice, with the power of contrary choice, in order to constitute
him a responsible agent. "But if any man does not possess the
power of choice, with power to the contrary, he sees and feels that
he is not to blame; and you cannot, with more infallible cer-
tainty, make men believe and fix them in the belief that they are not
responsible, than to teach them that they have not the power of
alternative election." Speaking of a man committing some sin,
he asks, “When he has done it, does he not know, does he not feel
that he could have chosen the other way?" He affirms that man's
obligation to choose good and refuse the evil, originates in his
constitutional power of choice, with power of contrary choice." He
contends that the supposition, "that man is not after all able to modify
and diversify his choice indefinitely, &c., destroys the credibility
of the Bible as an inspired book ;" since the Bible assumes "every-
where that man is free to choose with power of contrary choice."
He speaks repeatedly of the necessity of determining whether
"choice is free;" whether man "in his mode of voluntary action,
is coerced or free," &c., in order to settle the question of his free
agency and responsibility.
46
It is not a little surprising that in the book which contains these
passages, Dr. Beecher should quote from Edwards, thus showing
that he had read at least some part of his Treatise on the Will, and
yet claim agreement with him on the subject of free agency. Re-
specting the power of the will to choose differently from what it
actually does, we quote the following passage from Edwards.
After the definition of liberty which we have already quoted, he
adds :
"And I scruple not to say, it is beyond all their wits to
invent a higher notion or form a higher imagination of liberty: let
them talk of sovereignty of the will, self-determining power, self-
motion, self-direction, arbitrary decision, liberty ad utrumvis, power
184
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
of choosing differently in given cases, &c., as long as they will. It
is apparent that these men, in their strenuous dispute about these
things, aim at they know not what, fighting for something that they
have no conception of, substituting a number of confused, unmean-
ing words instead of things and instead of thoughts. They may
be challenged clearly to explain what they would have, but they
never can answer the challenge." And in relation to the liberty of
the will which Dr. Beecher maintains to be vitally essential to free
agency, Edwards has the following remarks. "In strict propriety
of speech, neither liberty, nor its contrary, can properly be ascribed
to any being or thing but that which has such a faculty, power or
property, as is called will. For that which is possessed of no wili,
cannot have any power or opportunity of doing according to its
will, nor be necessitated to act contrary to its will, nor be restrained
from acting agreeably to it. And therefore to talk of liberty or the
contrary as belonging to the very will itself, is not to speak good
sense." The question whether the will itself is coerced or free,
which Dr. Beecher maintains to be the only question in debate,
Edwards refuses to entertain, pronouncing it to be not good sense.
The power of choosing differently in given cases, which Dr.
Beecher holds to be essential to moral agency, is, according to
Edwards, a thing of which we can form no conception, a confused,
unmeaning jumble of words. The inquiry which Dr. Beecher con-
tends that we must institute into the causes of choice, in order to
ascertain whether it be free or not, before we can attribute blame-
worthiness, is rejected by Edwards and by all Calvinistic writers,
for the reason already given, that the question whether the will is
free, is nonsense, and also because when the other conditions neces-
sary to constitute a moral act are present, it is sufficient that the
agent be voluntary to render him accountable. Whatever agree-
ment there may be between Dr. Beecher and "the ablest writers on
free agency" in the final results of their reasoning, it is apparent that
there is rather a startling difference in some of their first principles.
We have shown with whom Dr. Beecher, in the extracts
which we have given, does not agree.
We will now show
with whom he does agree. Dr. Reid gives the following
definition of liberty. By the liberty of a moral agent, I under-
stand a power over the determinations of his own will. If in any
action he had power to will what he did, or not to will it, in that
action he is free. But if, in every voluntary action, the determina-
tion of his will be the necessary consequence of something involun-
tary in the state of his mind, or of something in his external circum-
stances, he is not free; he has not what I call the liberty of a moral
agent, but is subject to necessity."*. This is the definition of liberty
which has been substantially adopted by all subsequent Arminian
and Pelagian writers upon the will; and granting them their defi-
nition, we know not how to resist their conclusion. And we can
* Reid's Works, vol. iii., p. 326.
dr. beecheR'S THEOLOGY.
185
66
see no difference between the idea of liberty which is here taught,
and that for which Dr. Beecher so strenuously contends. He main-
tains explicitly that it is not enough that man chooses, and is not
hindered from acting according to his preference, to constitute him
a free agent; he must possess also a power over the determinations
of his will, so that in any given case he might have chosen differ-
ently. We might quote abundantly from other writers than Reid
to prove that Dr. Beecher's notion of liberty is precisely that which
is taught by Arminians and Pelagians in general; but we will refer,
in addition, only to the writings of the New Haven divines. This
same idea of liberty runs through all Dr. Taylor's writings in the
Christian Spectator. It is succinctly expressed in the following
sentence. They (theologians) have supposed it to be impossible
for God to foreknow the actions of a truly free agent, that is, of one
who, whatever may be his choice in a given case, was entirely
able to make the contrary choice."* It has always hereto-
fore been supposed by the most competent judges that the
notion of moral liberty, which includes in it this power over
the determinations of the will, was inconsistent with the Calvin-
istic scheme. If Dr. Beecher has discovered their consistency,
he ought, in justice to his own reputation, to withdraw the ac-
knowledgment, which was doubtless prompted by his modesty,
that he had no new discoveries to announce." He has, in truth,
made one of the most wonderful discoveries of the age. We
are inclined to think, however, that it ought to be ranked as an
invention rather than a discovery. And as in the case of many
other inventions, though the ingenious author seems to place great
confidence in it, we are disposed to see how it will work before we
adopt it. In the meantime we admit and feel, that Dr. Beecher's
own case furnishes a stronger argument than we had thought it
possible to produce in favour of some extraordinary kind of liberty
possessed by man; since he has shown by his own example that
the Pelagian philosophy of the will can be held in unison with the
doctrines of Calvinism.†
From the specimens which we have given of Dr. Beecher's
looseness and inaccuracy in reasoning, it will not be expected that
he should trace out very clearly the connexion between the different
parts of his system so as to show their mutual coherency. On
the contrary, such sentences and phrases as we have quoted are
often found in close connexion with others entirely different in
their meaning, and yet given as if they were of equivalent import.
The natural ability of choice, the natural ability of the will in
respect to the power of choice, and the natural ability of man, are
used interchangeably, without any apparent suspicion on the part
* Christian Spectator, vol. iii., p. 469.
A German author has recently obtained two prizes, one for an essay in defence
of the medical theory of homeopathy, the other for an essay against the same theory.
This exploit, however, is by no means equal to that which Dr. Beecher aims to
accomplish. The German did not aspire to obtain a favourable verdict upon both
his essays from the same body of men.
186
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
of the author that he is not describing the same thing by each of
these phrases. The question of free agency, which he generally
states to be the question whether man's will is free in such a sense
that he always has power to make a contrary choice to the one
actually made, is sometimes represented as involving only the
inquiry whether man has liberty to act according to his will. By
thus interchanging phrases of different import, and shifting the
question at the proper turn, he is enabled to array upon his side a
formidable list of authorities from the days of the fathers down to
the present generation. Any theory of moral agency might be
thus confirmed by first assuming that it is the only true or possible
theory, and then quoting in its support every author who has
taught that man is a moral agent.
We proceed to examine, somewhat more in detail, the peculiar-
ities of Dr. Beecher's theory. Under the strange, and to us
unmeaning head, of "fatality of choice," we have the following
paragraph: "The question of free-will is not whether man choosest
this is notorious, none deny it; but whether his choice is free
as opposed to a fatal necessity-as opposed to the laws of instinct
and natural causation; whether it is the act of a mind so qualified
for choice as to decide between alternatives, uncoerced by the
energy of a natural cause to its effect; whether it is the act of an
agent who might have abstained from the choice he made, and
made one which he did not. To speak of choice being free, which
is produced by the laws of a natural necessity, and which cannot
but be when and what it is, more than the effects of natural causes
can govern the time and manner and qualities of their being, is a
perversion of language." We quote the following additional pas-
sages in connexion with this. “That choice is in accordance with
the state of body and mind and character and external circum-
stances may be admitted, or that it is as the greatest apparent good,
may be admitted; but that it is so necessarily, to the exclusion of all
ability of any kind to be other than it is, cannot be admitted without
abandoning the field of God's government of accountable crea-
tures, and going to the centre of fatalism." "If obedience to com-
mands, exhortations and entreaties, is prevented by a constitutional
necessity, a natural impossibility of choosing right; and the diso-
bedient choice is also the unavoidable, coerced result of a consti-
tutional necessity, over which the will has no power, but of which
it is the unavoidable effect; then choice is as much the effect of a
natural cause, as any other natural effect." These extracts pre-
sent the question in debate in the form which is usually given to it
by Dr. Beecher, except when some authority is to be adduced.
The inquiry raised is whether choice is free. He must of course.
mean by choice, in this connexion, the power of choice, or the will.
We have already given the decision of Edwards respecting this
question, that it is "not good sense," since liberty must be the attri-
bute of an agent, and not of a faculty. Both Locke and Hobbes
had previously made a similar remark. It would be difficult for
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
187
Dr. Beecher to give any intelligible definition of liberty which
would not show the absurdity of his form of stating the question.
Hobbes defines a free agent to be "he that can do if he will, and
forbear if he will." And this is substantially the definition which
has been given by Leibnitz, by Collins, and by Edwards, and all
Calvinistic writers. We derive our notion of freedom from the
dependency of our actions upon our volitions. If, when we will a
particular act, the act follows, we are free. This is the primary,
original notion of freedom. Liberty then can be affirmed with
propriety only of agents that are possessed of a will, and in rela-
tion to such actions as are consequent upon volition. We do
indeed, in common language, attribute liberty to inanimate objects,
as when we say of a stone that it descends freely; but this is only
in accommodation, and from an analogy suggested by another idea
involved in the liberty of an agent, that he is subject to no impedi-
ment extrinsic to himself. If a man is bound hand and foot, or
held by a superior muscular force to his own, we say he is not free
to move; but if he is lame, or confined to his couch by disease,
he does not want liberty but power or strength to move. It is in
analogy with this idea that we say of inanimate objects that they
act freely, meaning thereby that there is no external impediment
to hinder them from acting according to their intrinsic qualities.
We think it will be found, upon examination, that in every sup
posable case in which we can properly affirm that an agent is free,
there is involved the idea that the impediment denied is without
himself. If this be correct, then we may give this definition of a
free agent, one who is not hindered by any extrinsic impediment
from acting according to his own will. How then can we raise
the question whether the will itself be free? In order to this, we
must suppose each volition to be the effect of a previous volition.
But we never will to will. "Proprie loquendo volumus agere,
non vero volumus velle; alioqui dicere etiam possemus, velle nos
habere voluntatem volendi, quod in infinitum abiret."* And besides
this, whatever hinderances can be supposed to force or impede the
will must be within itself, and if it labours under any difficulty there-
fore, it must be from a defect of power, not of freedom.
In entire consistency with this confusion at the outset, we find
him in a subsequent sentence speaking of the choice itself not hav-
ing power to be other than what it is, any more than effects in the
physical world can control their causes! And yet again he speaks
of the "disobedient choice being the unavoidable result of a con-
stitutional necessity over which the will has no power, but of
which it is the unavoidable effect." Here choice and the faculty
of will are each made the effect of necessity, or else in two
dependent members of the same sentence the word will in the one
denotes the faculty known by that name, while in the other the
Leibnitzii Opera, tom. i., p. 136.
188
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
pronoun which refers to it denotes not the will, but a volition or
act of the will.
There are still further difficulties attending the interpretation of
these passages. Dr. Beecher denies that choice (the will) is sub-
ject to necessity. When we look further to see what this means,
we find it sometimes described as a fatal, unavoidable and irre-
sistible necessity. And quite as often it is said that the will is not
free if the cause which influences its volitions be a natural or con-
stitutional cause. We should naturally be led to conclude that, in
Dr. Beecher's opinion, a natural or constitutional cause established
a fatal necessity. But let his readers beware how they attempt to
interpret Dr. Beecher by comparing him with himself. He him-
self elsewhere teaches that the cause which determines man's will
to a particular kind of action is both natural and constitutional.
He says, "I hold and teach that such a change in the constitution
of man was produced by the fall as creates a universal and preva-
lent propensity to actual sin, preventing in all men the existence
of holiness, and securing the existence of actual total depravity."
Speaking elsewhere of this same cause he calls it "a prevalent
bias of nature." And again he says, "This impotency of will to
good, according to the Bible, and our Confession, and the received
doctrines of the church, includes the constitutional bias to actual
sin, produced in all men by the fall, anterior to intelligent, volun-
tary action." We here have the determining cause of volition in
fallen man styled a bias of nature, and a constitutional bias. The
will, then, being operated upon by a natural and constitutional
cause, is subject to a fatal necessity; it is not free, and no respon-
sibility attaches to any of its acts. This contradiction is to be
avoided only by the plea that the terms constitutional and natural are
used in different senses in the two cases. Doubtless they are, but
it is to be regretted that they should be used to convey such opposite
meanings, without any notice of a change of signification, or any
attempt in either case to define the sense in which they are employed.
This is the more to be regretted, because when Dr. Beecher asserts
that if choice be the product of a necessity of nature, man can-
not be an accountable agent-if instead of bringing argument
after argument to prove it, he had simply defined what he meant
by nature, he would have saved himself all further trouble upon this
point. He cannot mean that it is not in accordance with the nature
of things in general, or of the will in particular, that it should be
moved by the causes which act upon it. Nor will he deny that
there is any less certainty, the state of mind of the agent, his sus-
ceptibilities, and all the circumstances under which he acts being
known, that a particular volition will follow, than that any physi-
cal cause will be succeeded by its appropriate effect. Nature is
often used to denote the settled order of things which we observe
in the world around us. An event is said to be natural, or to be
according to the course of nature, when it is seen to be regularly
connected with its cause, and in harmony with the manner of suc-
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
189
cession which we observe in other things. And it is called unna-
tural when it seems, through our ignorance, to fall without the
ordinary fixed course of things, or to vary greatly from the esta-
blished order of similar events. But the laws which govern the
will are as invariable as those which govern matter, and whatever
distinction exists between them must be sought elsewhere than in
respect to the regularity of their operation. But there is a sense
of the word nature in which Dr. Beecher's declaration contains a
truth, though certainly a very harmless one, to any conflicting the-
ory of morals. This word is frequently employed to signify the
assemblage of material causes which are continually working their
effects around us. Numberless changes are every moment occur-
ring to which the will of man contributes no influence, and the
causes which produce them are characterized by the general term
nature. But our own volitions are also causes of motion, and often
interfere to modify or interrupt the course of events around us.
Nature and choice come thus to be considered as diverse and even
opposite to each other. A proposition may be constructed, found-
ed upon this notion, of some kind of opposition between nature
and choice, which shall be true, but the misfortune is, it will be too
true,—it can be nothing else than a truism. But a natural cause
may be distinguished from a moral cause, if we denote by the first
a cause which produces its effect upon matter, and by the other
a cause which acts upon the mind. This, we admit, is a usual and
legitimate use of the epithet natural. Here we have an opposition
between nature and choice, or rather between nature and the cause
of choice, which is founded upon the difference between the objects
upon which they act; the effect of the one is some change in mat-
ter, of the other, an act of the mind. There must of course be a dif-
ference in nature between these two classes of causes to adapt
them to the production of their different effects. The mind cannot
be directly acted upon by such causes as are comprehended in our
notion of nature; it is moved by motives presented to the under-
standing, or by its own habitual dispositions. We should esteem
it therefore a work of supererogation, to deny vociferously that a
man can be responsible for a choice, which is the result of a natu-
ral cause. No correct definition of a natural, as distinguished
from a moral, cause, can be given, which would not exclude choice
from the sphere of its operation. Dr. Beecher is the only writer
we have ever met with who seemed to suppose that the will could
be moved by water-power or propelled by steam. He gives a
very characteristic illustration of what he calls "the fatality of
agency," in which he supposes volitions to be produced by "the
motion of a great water-wheel and the various bands which keep
the motion and the praise and the blasphemy agoing." This illus-
tration he introduces, not for the purpose of showing the absurdity
of the thing supposed, but to prove that no "accountability would
attach to these voluntary praises and blasphemies produced by the
laws of water-power." Now we are quite as ready to grant,
190
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
that a man is not responsible for any volition that is sucked or
forced out of him by a pump, or squeezed out by a screw, as we
would be on the other hand to contend, that if one of the stones
that bounded up at the call of Orpheus's music, had struck and
killed a man in its frantic joy, it ought to have been tried and con-
demned for murder. Either of these propositions we imagine
would unite all suffrages, for one of them is just as true as the other.
We trust this will be deemed a sufficient answer to the much that
Dr. Beecher has said respecting choice being the "effect of natu-
ral causes, as really and entirely as the falling of rain, or the elec-
tric spark, or the involuntary shock that attends it."
It is evident that if we would get at Dr. Beecher's meaning we
must seek it elsewhere than among these first principles of his rea-
soning. We will be more likely to find it a little further on in his
system. The stream, which is muddy at its origin, sometimes
becomes more clear as it proceeds. Dr. Beecher has obviously
reasoned backward from certain ulterior truths which he wished to
maintain in search of the first principles which were adapted to
uphold them. One of these starting points is the position, that in
every particular case a moral agent might have abstained from the
choice which he made, and made one which he did not; and he
seems to think that this is established when he has proved that
man is not accountable for those of his volitions that are worked
out of him by water-power. Thus that man "cannot but sin
when he does sin, more than rivers of muddy water can purify
themselves," and that he " is not able to modify and diversify his
choice indefinitely," are used as synonymous expressions. The
soul being "exempt from the laws of natural necessity," is
assumed as equivalent with the existence." of a possibility in
every case of a different or contrary choice." And in one of the
passages which we have previously quoted there are found the
following inquiries put, as if they were but repetitions of the same
idea: "Whether it (choice) is the act of a mind so qualified for
choice as to decide between alternatives, uncoerced by the energy
of a natural cause to its effect;" and, "whether it is the act of an
agent who might have abstained from the choice he made, and
made one which he did not." There is here an assumption tacitly
made, without any shadow of proof, respecting natural causes,
which really involves the whole question in dispute. It is adroitly
taken for granted, that any effect which is produced by other than
a natural cause, might have been different from what it is. It is
impossible not to admire the convenience of this mode of reason-
ing. It saves a world of trouble. Having proved, what it would
be very foolish in any one to deny, that no man is responsible for
such of his volitions as are produced "by the motion of water-
wheels," there is nothing more to be done but to take possession of
the ground, that a man is not accountable for his acts, unless he
possesses the power of willing differently from what he does in
every particular case.
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
191
66
We have admitted the truth of the first of these statements
we are not yet prepared, however, to adopt the second. Before
discussing this question it will be expedient to define the terms will
and volition. These words are used with considerable latitude of
meaning. Under the division of our faculties, made by the earlier
writers, into the powers of the understanding and those of the will,
this latter term included all our inclinations, desires and passions.
And the word is still often used in this large sense. According to
Mr. Belsham," every volition is a modification of the passion of
desire," and Dr. Priestley asks, "is not every wish a volition ?"
This is the popular sense of the word, as when the apothecary in
Romeo and Juliet says, My poverty but not my will consents ;"
and nothing is more common than to hear people speak of doing a
thing against their wills, in which nevertheless they acted volun-
tarily. The acts of the will are thus confounded with the desires
and affections; and the faculty of will is not to be distinguished
from our susceptibility of emotion. But when we consider what
passes in our minds, we find that while some of our desires remain
immanent, there are others of them that are followed by action.
When the idea of some action of our own, which we conceive to
be in our power, is contemplated by the mind, associated with
some object or end which we desire to attain, there results a deter-
mination to act, and this is followed by the action determined
upon. It is this determination which is followed by some act of
the body or mind that philosophers have very generally agreed to
call volition, and the power that produces it, the faculty of will.
Locke defines volition to be, an act of the mind knowingly
exerting that dominion it takes itself to have over any part of the
man by employing it in, or withholding it from, any particular
action." No definition can be given, however, of a simple act of
the mind that will convey any idea of it to those who do not
reflect upon what passes within them. To obtain a clear notion
of what is meant by a volition, or an act of the will, we must refer
to our own consciousness of what takes place when we resolve
to do any particular thing-the state of mind immediately pre-
ceding the action is a volition, and the faculty or power, in virtue
of which we are enabled to form such a determination to act,
is the will.
*6
The cause of any particular volition, or that which moves the
mind to determine to act in any instance, is called a motive. It
seems to have been the opinion of Locke that the immediate
motive of every volition is some uneasiness. He supposes the
external object to awaken desire, that this desire, while ungratified,
produces uneasiness, and that to get rid of this uneasiness the
will determines upon the appropriate action. It may be doubted
*The term truth is not strictly applicable to such propositions as the one here
referred to. Of such an assertion as this, "a man is not bound to cultivate any of
the virtues, which are square or red," we could not in strict propriety say it was
either true or false, but we might very safely let it pass without dispute.
192
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
whether this is altogether a correct account of the matter. But if
there be in all cases, immediately preceding the determination to
act, a state of mind that is properly described by uneasiness, it is
not to this that the term motive is usually applied. It is generally
employed to denote either the external object or action, or the state
of the agent's mind in relation to it. We associate action as a
motive with object, for it is an important fact towards the solution
of some of the phenomena of the will, that in its volitions the mind
is often not so much conversant with the objects presented, as with
its own action in relation to these objects. There are many cases
in which action, simply considered, is the end at which the mind
aims. It gives rise to much confusion and error, if, in speaking of
the motives of volition, we leave out of consideration the state of
mind of the agent. The same object which is a powerful motive
to action at one time, is viewed with indifference at another, in
consequence of the different state of the mind to which it is pre-
sented. The motive is not properly the external object, but the
affection of the mind in relation to that object.
Let us now resume the inquiry whether, in any given case, a
man might have willed contrary to what he did? And here it
may be observed that the mode of putting the question virtually
makes a change in the conditions under which the supposed choice
took place. The only sense in which it is true that the man might
have willed differently, is, that he might, if he had been inclined to
do so.
But his being inclined to will as he did, was the determin-
ing cause of his volition. The word might therefore implies a
change in the antecedents of the particular choice in question, and
is on this account inconsistent with the hypothesis that all the
circumstances remain the same. If it is urged that he might have
willed differently, because he might have changed the state of his
mind, we reply, that to do this would require, of course, an act of
the will, and that act must have a previous inclination for its
motive, and so on without end. We are thus driven to hunt along
an infinite chain for the first link.
Consciousness is appealed to by Dr. Beecher for proof that we
always have power to will differently from what we do. We
agree with him that "consciousness is the end of controversy,"
but it is necessary to be very careful in taking its testimony. What
then is the witness of consciousness in this matter? For ourselves,
in every process of volition, we are conscious only of the presence
of certain views and considerations, some inclining us to will in
one way and some in another, and also of a power which we
possess to will as we please. We are not conscious of any power
to will contrary to our prevailing inclination. Our consciousness
concurs with other considerations in proving that a man might, in
any case, have made a different or contrary choice, if he had been
inclined so to do, and it proves nothing more than this.
It is now very plain what kind of power Dr. Beecher attributes
to the will. His position is, that all the circumstances under which
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
193
•
any choice is made remaining the same, the man had power never-
theless to will the contrary. His hypothesis supposes that the
views and inclinations of the mind remain unchanged, and that the
man can will in direct opposition to them. This is the most disas-
trous power that can well be conceived of, and if any man possesses
it, he ought to make it his daily prayer to be delivered from it.
No man, while cursed with such a self-determining power as this,
could be safe for a moment. With his whole soul bent in one
direction, he might be borne, and that too by his own will, in
another. With the most anxious desire to escape from danger, he
might be carried immediately into it. He could form no plans for
his own conduct, nor would others be able to anticipate in the least
degree what they might expect from him.
But perhaps Dr. Beecher intended to exclude from the unchanged
circumstances of the agent, his own state of mind. He may mean
that the agent has power to will differently, because he has power
to change his inclination. This involves the absurdity, already
pointed out, of requiring an infinite series of antecedent volitions;
or else it assumes that the will can act to modify the inclination of
the mind, without any motive to determine it, and we are thus led
to the common notion held by Arminians of the self-determining
power of the will.
In contending then that in every given case a man might have
made a different choice, Dr. Beecher contends for one of the
following things. In the first place, that under the same conditions,
that is, with an inclination to will in a particular direction, he had
power to will the contrary. Now if man possesses any such
power as this, it may on some occasions be exercised. A power
that cannot be put in action is no power at all. On some occasion,
then, when a man desires with all his heart to do a particular thing,
there may spring up a volition to do something directly contrary,
towards which he has no desire, and which he even hates with perfect
hatred.* It would be very singular if such a power as this, which,
if it existed, would deprive all its acts of a moral character, and
render man incapable of being governed by a moral law, should
yet be necessary in order to render him accountable. If this is not
Dr. Beecher's meaning, then he must mean, in the second place,
that in every case of volition, the man might have abstained from
the choice he made, because he had the power to alter the incli-
nation which led to the choice. And in this case we have a resurrec-
tion of the theory of self-determining power of the will, which
we thought every Calvinist at least had considered twice dead and
buried.
But how then, it is asked, can man be responsible for any voli-
tion, if he has not the power of willing differently?
"Is not ability
* If so light a remark may be tolerated here, we would say that the only illustra-
tion with which we are acquainted of such power as the one in question, is afforded
by some of our new-school brethren, who, with a great desire apparently to be ortho-
dox, are yet continually willing the contrary.
13
194
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
the ground and measure of obligation?" If it is, then to be sure
man must possess the power, however incomprehensible or absurd
it may seem, since there can be no question that he is bound to
will right. But we deny the truth of this maxim in the sense in
which it is held by Dr. Beecher; and since this is one of the fixed
centres around which many forms of error revolve, we will endea-
vour to point out its unsoundness. We have already admitted that
a man cannot be bound to perform any act, which, though he be
willing to do it, is impracticable. If he is deprived of his limbs, or
if they have been paralysed by disease, he cannot be under any
obligation to walk. He cannot be bound to fly, or, in short, to do
anything which would be out of his power, provided he was wil-
ling and desirous to do it. In all such actions as are properly con-
sequent upon volition, it is true that ability is the ground and mea-
sure of obligation. Dr. Beecher's error consists in extending the
maxim to a case which lies beyond the premises within which it
was generalized, and in this application of it we utterly deny its
truth. We can find nothing in the Bible, or in the general judg-
ment of mankind, to prove that a man is not responsible for his
volitions, unless he possesses in each case the power to will con-
trary to his desires, or the power to change in an instant, by an
act of the will, his inclinations and affections. The first of these
powers he could not possess and exercise without ceasing to be a
moral agent; and the second, it is notorious that he does not pos-
sess. There is no fact in the operations of the mind better esta-
blished, than that the affections cannot be immediately acted upon.
by the will. No man ever loved any object or ceased to love it
in obedience to a volition. If any one doubts this, we have no
way of proving it but by bidding him to make the trial. If he pos-
sesses this power he can surely exercise it, and a few experiments
upon the subject will satisfy him whether he has it or not. The only
power which man possesses of destroying existing affections, or
creating new ones, is that of directing the attention of his mind to
such considerations as may be adapted to exert the required influence
upon it. This is a matter of universal experience. But at the
instant of making any particular choice, he has no motive to induce
him thus to direct the attention of his mind to adverse considera-
tions. To suppose this, is to suppose that he has a desire to change
his existing desire, or that he has towards the same object, at the
same moment, two contrary desires, equally strong, since either of
them is capable of producing a corresponding choice. If this be
required to render man accountable, it is very certain that there
is no accountability in our world. The only plausibility which the
maxim "that ability is the ground and measure of obligation" pos-
sesses, when applied to volitions and affections, is derived from its
being intuitively true when referred to a different class of acts, and
from the proper discrimination not being made between the two
cases. Dr. Beecher appeals to the common sentiments and con-
duct of men to prove that "the lunatic ought not to be treated as a
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
195
subject of law," "that the poor idiot is not responsible for its acts,"
and that a woman, whom he knew, whose mind had lost the power
of association, ought not to be required to deliver a Fourth of July
Oration, and then, because she failed, "be taken to the whipping
post and lacerated for that which she wanted the natural ability to do."
It is from instances like these, in which he must, of course, carry
universal conviction with him, that he arrives at the general truth
that ability is the measure of obligation. The general conclusion,
thus obtained, is immediately applied to prove that no man can be
responsible for a volition, unless at the same time he made it, he had
power to will to the contrary; nor for any inclination, unless, when
cherishing it, he was able to divest himself of it by a single act of will,
both of them cases greatly dissimilar to those which furnished the
general axiom, and incapable therefore of receiving any illustration
from it. The common judgment of man's conscience in relation to these
cases, is that a man is accountable for every act of his will, because
it is the act of his own will, and for every inclination, because it
is his own inclination. The axiom that ability and obligation must
be commensurate, in the extensive sense given to it by Dr. Beecher,
is false and dangerous. He seems to have a special horror of
fatalism, and we know no more likely way to make men fatalists
than by teaching them to believe the truth of this maxim. It is
not more certain that man is an accountable agent, than it is that
he does not possess the power at any moment to divest himself of
an evil inclination or affection by an act of his will. Teach him
then that this power is essential to accountability, and the infer-
ence made, in a majority of cases, will be, not that he really has a
power which all his experience convinces him he does not possess,
but that, being destitute of it, he is not responsible for his evil
temper. The insensibility to the difference between right and
wrong which will thus be produced is the distinctive mark of the
fatalist.
Dr. Beecher refers to the Bible for proof of the truth of his
opinions, but it is almost needless to add that he receives from it
no aid, except in establishing what no one has, denied, that man
possesses the powers requisite to free agency. The substance of
his reasoning under this head, is to show from the Bible that man
is a free, accountable agent, and then virtually to assume that the
Bible maintains his peculiar theory of free agency and account-
ableness. He does not succeed, however, in proving the common
doctrine of man's natural ability, without committing some singular
mistakes. The following passage will show how little reliance
is to be placed upon Dr. Beecher as an interpreter of the Scrip
tures.
"The manner in which all excuses are treated in Scripture,
which are founded on the plea of inability, confirms our exposition.
There were impenitent sinners of old, who pleaded a natural
inability of obedience. In the time of the prophet Jeremiah, there
were those who alleged that God's decrees created the unavoid-
196
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
able necessity of sinning. They said they could not help it. But
God, by his prophet, instead of conceding the doctrine, repelled it
with indignation.
"Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit. Will ye
steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn
incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not;
and come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my
name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations?'-
Jer. vii., 8, 9, 10.
"Does God approve of men's reasoning, when they say, God
has decreed it, and God executes his decrees, and a resistless fate.
moves us on to evil. Far from it. In what stronger language
could the Lord speak to hardened and impudent men, who laid
their sins at his door? Now the fall itself was somehow com-
prehended in God's decrees; and if it be true that the fall took
away all man's natural ability, wherein were those Jews wrong?
Their excuse was that their sins were produced by the fatality of
God's decrees. They were delivered to do all these abominations.
Their fathers had eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth were
set on edge. By the sin of Adam they had lost all free agency,
and therefore they were not to blame; all was just as God would
have it; an inexorable fate drove them on, and how could they
resist the Almighty? But if God did indeed require spiritual
obedience from men who lay in a state of natural impotency, how
is it that he frowned so indignantly, when they pleaded their impo-
tence in bar of judgment?"
He subsequently refers to the same passage again in the follow-
ing words:
"So the same opinions operated among the Jews, as we learn
by the terrible interrogations of the prophet-'Will ye lie, and
steal, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense
unto Baal, and come into this house which is called by my name,
and say we are delivered to do all these abominations? We have
no power over ourselves. We do but obey the irresistible laws of
our nature. We are delivered by the constitution God has given
us to do all these things.' The only difference between these
ancient and modern licentious antinomians is, that the ancient
denied accountability entirely; while the latter attach it to
fatality, and bring in the grace of God to deliver from a natural
impotency."
The whole force of this passage turns upon the words " we are
delivered," and it is unfortunate that Dr. Beecher should have
made so strong a use of it, and founded upon it so much rhetoric
and logic, without ascertaining what the word thus translated
meant. It never, in any instance of its use, has a signification at
all approaching that which he assigns to it. It is the same word,
and in the same tense, that is used in Isaiah xx., 6: "Behold such
is our expectation whither we flee for help, to be delivered from the
king of Assyria." It never means, to be bound fast by a divine decree
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
197
or by anything else, but in opposition to this, to be free, to be saved.
In the passage quoted by Dr. Beecher, the sense evidently is," Will
ye come and say, We are free to do these abominations, we shall
have immunity in the perpetration of them, we shall escape the
punishments threatened by the prophets." A preterite tense,
instead of the future, is used, says Michaelis, to denote the firm
persuasion of safety. The grossness of Dr. Beecher's mistake is
apparent. This comes of applying the principles of the Baconian
philosophy, instead of the Hebrew Lexicon, to the interpretation
of the Bible.
It is not necessary to follow Dr. Beecher regularly through the
course of his argument and declamation. Most of his arguments
go merely to prove that man is a free, accountable agent. We
believe we have already replied to every consideration which he
has brought forward in defence of his own theory of free agency.
There is one of his topics, however, which deserves a passing com-
ment, principally for the sake of showing how far it is safe to trust
to Dr. Beecher's accuracy in matters of history. One of his heads
of argument is this. "Choice, without the possibility of other or
contrary choice, is the immemorial doctrine of fatalism." He is
kind enough to add, "I say not that all who assert the natural ina-
bility of man are fatalists. I charge them not with holding or
admitting the consequences of their theory-and I mean nothing
unkind or invidious, in the proposition I have laid down, and truth
and argument are not invidious." There will be observed here
that adroit and confounding together of distinct things to which we
have several times alluded. In the proposition, he is declared to
be a fatalist, who denies that, at the time of every volition, the
agent might have made a different or contrary one, and in the next
sentence this is changed into asserting the natural inability of
man. The method of argument pursued, in fixing the charge of
fatalism on those who differ from him, may certainly lay claim to
originality. His theme is, "That choice without the power of
contrary choice is fatalism in all its diversified forms, is obvious to
inspection, and a matter of historical record." For the proof of
this position we might reasonably expect to find evidence produced,
from a careful examination of the systems of fatalists, that they
all held the precise opinion in question respecting the nature of
choice. But instead of this, the author gives us a list of fatalists,
for the most of whom he has manufactured a creed by the exer-
cise of his own ingenuity, instead of searching their writings to
see what they really believed and taught, and all of whom, with
one or two exceptions, according to his account of them, were
materialists. We might prove, in this way, that to believe in the
existence of matter is to adopt fatalism, for it is obvious to inspec-
tion, and matter of historical record, that all fatalists have believed
in it. We will now examine the value of Dr. Beecher's historical
record. His list of fatalists comprises the Stoics, the Epicureans,
the Gnostics, the Manicheans, Spinosa, Descartes, the French revo-
198
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
lutionary atheists, Bolingbroke, Hume, Hobbes, Priestley, and Bel-
sham. He states, at some length, and in an oracular manner, their
different systems, as if he knew all about them, and were well
qualified to instruct others. For the fatalism of the Stoics we refer
the reader to the first instance of the Enchiridion of Epictetus,
where he will find as strong a statement as could well be given of
the liberty of the will: and to Dugald Stewart, who is high
authority in matters touching the history of philosophy, and who
declares that the "Stoics, with their usual passion for exaggera-
tion, carried their notions of the liberty of the will to an unphilo-
sophical extreme."
sys-
The fullest exposition which has come down to us of the
tem of the Epicureans, is to be found in the writings of Lucretius,
and we refer Dr. Beecher to his Rerum Natura, lib. 2, v. 250-
261, for proof that one of their avowed objects in maintaining their
notion of the 'declination of atoms,' was to avoid the difficulties
of fate. In this passage, Lucretius makes use of the free will of
man, libera voluntas, to prove that each cause is not linked in with
a previous cause from infinity, and that there is a principle which
can break the decrees of fate, quod fati foedera rumpat. He
expressly calls the will of man, a will set free from the fates, fatis
avolsa voluntas, in virtue of which we go whithersoever our plea-
sure leads us. He declares it to be far from doubt, dubio procul,
that each man's own will is a principle of motion and action sepa-
rate and independent of fate. Cicero also, in his book de Fato,
alludes to what he calls the "commentitias declinationes" of the
Epicureans, as having been introduced by them for the avowed
purpose of freeing "the voluntary motions" of man from the con-
trol of fate. Of Spinosa we know nothing save from the writings
of his opponents, though we comfort ourselves here, in our igno
rance, with the remark which Voltaire somewhat makes, that there
are not ten persons in Europe who have read Spinosa's works. If
Dr. Beecher has read them, we are willing to receive his account
of what they contain; but if he has drawn upon his own imagina-
tion for his system, as he has done with most of his other fatalists,
we must still hold the matter in doubt. It would be impossible for
us to convey, within the limits which we can devote to it, any-
thing like an adequate idea of the metaphysical system of Hobbes,
though it will not be difficult to show that Dr. Beecher has done
him injustice. Hobbes is distinguished beyond most authors for
his sententious brevity. He is the most pithy and laconic of all
philosophical writers. After he has once defined a term, or stated
a proposition, he is seldom at the trouble of repeating them, taking
it for granted that his readers will understand and remember every-
thing that he has once said. Hence, though his style is remark-
ably clear, his language, as Sir James Mackintosh says of it, never
having but one meaning, and that one never requiring a second
* Stewart's Works, vol. vi., p. 241.
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
199
thought to find, he is nevertheless liable to be misapprehended by
one who reads only detached portions of his writings. Thus he
denies in many passages that the affections and passions of the
heart are voluntary, but his meaning is elsewhere explained.
"Appetite, fear, hope, and the rest of the passions, are not called
voluntary, for they proceed not from, but are the will, and the will
is not voluntary; for a man can no more say he will will, than
he will will will, and so make an infinite repetition of the word
will, which is absurd and insignificant."* If careful attention be
paid to his own definitions of terms, it will be found that Hobbes
maintains neither more nor less than the common doctrine of phi-
losophical necessity. He gives the same definition of freedom with
Edwards. "A man is free," he says, "when, in such things as he
has strength and wit to do, he is not hindered to do what he has a
will to." He first pointed out that for which Locke generally
receives credit, the impropriety of affirming freedom of the will
itself. "From the use of the word Free-Will, no liberty can be
inferred of the will, desire or inclination, but the liberty of man, the
which consisteth in this, that he finds no stop in doing what he has
the will or inclination to do."‡ In the commencement of his letter
to the Marquis of Newcastle, in reply to some strictures of Bishop
Bramhall, he states the question thus: "His Lordship may think it
all one to say, I was free to write, and it was not necessary I should
write; but I think otherwise, for he is free to do a thing that may
do it if he will to do it; and may forbear if he have the will to
forbear. I acknowledge this liberty, that I can do if I will; but to
say, I can will if I will, I take to be an absurd speech. In fine,
that freedom which men find in books, that which the poets chaunt
in the theatres, and the shepherds on the mountains; that which
the pastors teach in pulpits, and the doctors in the universities, and
that which the common people in the markets, and all mankind in
the whole world do assent unto, is the same that I assent unto,
namely, that a man hath freedom to do if he will, but whether they
have freedom to will, is a question neither the bishop nor they ever
thought of." To the objection, that if liberty of will be taken
away, "the nature and formal reason of sin is taken away," he
makes this reply: "I deny the consequence. The nature of sin
consisteth in this, that the action done proceeds from our will, and
be against the law. A judge, in judging whether that be sin or no
which is done against the law, looks at no higher cause of the
action than the will of the doer. Now when I say that the action
was necessary, I do not say it was done against the will of the
doer, but with his will, and necessary, because man's will, that is,
every volition or act of the will, had a sufficient, and therefore a
necessary cause. An action may therefore be voluntary and a sin,
and nevertheless be necessary." Another extract will illustrate
* Human Nature, p. 29. † Commonwealth, p. 188.
§ Of Liberty and Necessity, p. 478.
‡ Ibid., p. 189.
200
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
still further his use of the word necessary. "If there be an
agent, he can do something; and if he do it, there is nothing want-
ing of what is requisite to produce the action; and consequently the
cause of the action is sufficient, and if sufficient, then also necessary,
as has been proved before."* The necessity for which he contends
is declared to be perfectly consistent with human liberty; he denies
that it removes the distinction between the nature of virtue and
vice, praise and blame, reward and punishment; or that it renders
useless admonitions and counsels, promises and threatenings. We
do not believe that a single passage can be produced from all his
writings in which he has been led to slide into the notion of a prac-
tical necessity, or a necessity at all different from that which Ed-
wards has since taught. But Dr. Beecher calls him a fatalist, and
Dr. Beecher doubtless is a learned man! Then Edwards too was a
fatalist. We have not yet done with our catalogue of errors. Boling-
broke too is included in the list of fatalists, and the peculiar form
of fatalism which he held is particularly described. We are told
that he supposed "motives, as the antecedents of volition, to be
clothed with the coercive power of material causes to their effects,
and thus destroyed the liberty of the will," &c. This rather passes
anything we have had yet. Bolingbroke was one of the most
rampant of all advocates for the self-determining power of the will.
He uniformly contends for this power, and often becomes angry
and foul-mouthed in his abuse of those who deny it. He speaks
of "the free-will of man which no one can deny without lying,
or renouncing his instinctive knowledge." He says again, "To
acknowledge the fatum of ancient philosophers, to hold with the
Mahometans the absolute predestination of all events, with Spinosa
and Calvin the necessity of all our actions, or with Leibnitz his
whimsy of a pre-established harmony, would be somewhat almost
as mad as to take the true history of Lucian for such." "I am
not unacquainted," he says, "with the various refinements of inge-
nious men about the freedom of the human will. Some of them
have assumed it to be a freedom from external compulsion only,
and not internal necessity. Others have assumed it to be a free-
dom from both. This second opinion is so evidently true, that I
cannot conceive it would have been liable to any contradiction, if
philosophers had not done in this case what they do in many, if
they had not rendered what is clear, obscure, by explanations, and
what is certain, problematical, by engraftments." In another
passage of the same tract, after stating what the Creator has done
for us, he adds, "What we shall do for ourselves he has left to the
freedom of our own elections; for free-will seems so essential to
rational beings, that I presume we cannot conceive any such to be
without it." We should not be surprised after this to see Dr.
Whitby and Dr. Taylor, the ancient and the modern, with sundry
* Of Liberty and Necessity, p. 480.
Philosophical Works, vol. viii.,
p. 280.
† Philosophical Works, vol. v., p. 85.
§ Ibid., p. 355.
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
201
others of like sentiments, figuring in the next catalogue of fatalists
which Dr. Beecher may have occasion to draw up. But the most
surprising instance yet remains. Descartes, too, among the fatal-
ists! We give his account of Descartes' philosophy. The fatal-
ism of Descartes was the atomic theory, the fortuitous concourse
of atoms-intelligence in results without an intelligent being-
design without a designer-and choice, the product of the happy
concurrence of material accidents." We are here lost in amaze-
ment. We could not have believed it possible for any man to pen
such a paragraph as this of the great father of the modern mental
philosophy, the man who forms an era in the history of metaphy-
sics, physics, and mathematics, and whose opinions we had thought
were somewhat known to everybody who reads at all.* Descar-
tes a materialist, an atheist, and a fatalist! His atheism consists
in assuming that, next to the existence of his own mind, the most
certain and indisputable of all truths is the existence of God.
His materialism is to be sought in his opinion, which Condorcet,
D'Alembert, and many others, assert never had been before dis-
tinctly taught, that the mind, the thinking principle in man, is
strictly and properly immaterial. And his fatalism can be found
only in his many strenuous defences of man's "freedom of will."
At the very outset of his Principia Philosophiae, he calls upon his
reader to reject everything of the existence of which it is possible.
for him to doubt. "We can easily suppose, he says, that there is
no God, no heaven, no bodies; and that we have neither hands nor
feet, nor body; but we cannot thus suppose that we who think
these things do not exist, for it is absurd to suppose that that which
thinks, at the very time while thinking, does not exist." He thus
proves the actual existence of a thinking principle, which is not
characterized by extension, by figure, by local motion, or by any
property like those which we attribute to matter; which is there-
fore purely immaterial; and of which we have an earlier and
more certain knowledge than of any material thing." He then
proceeds to establish the being and perfections of God, truths
which he considers as necessarily involved in the idea which we
are capable of forming of an eternal, self-existent, and perfect
being. It is upon the veracity of God that he founds his whole
faith in the evidence of his senses, and the conclusions of his
reason. He then returns to prove by his senses the existence
and properties of the material world, and to apply his reason-
ing powers to the investigation of truth. He repeatedly affirms,
in the strongest manner, the liberty of the will. A single passage
66
Condorcet, Stewart, and most metaphysical writers, agree in styling Descartes
"the father of the Modern Experimental Philosophy of the Mind."
† In the second of his Philosophical Meditations, he asks, "What am I? A
thinking being—that is, a being, doubting, knowing, affirming, denying, consenting,
refusing, susceptible of pleasure and pain. Of all these things I might have had
complete experience without any previous acquaintance with the qualities and laws
of matter." This is a queer way of teaching that "choice is the happy concurrence
of material accidents."
202
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
will sufficiently illustrate his opinions on this subject. "It is
wrong," he says, " to imagine that we can do anything which has
not been fore-ordained by God. But we may readily embarrass
ourselves with great difficulties if we attempt to reconcile this fore-
ordination of God with the liberty of our will) arbitrii nostri liber-
tate). But we may extricate ourselves from these by remember-
ing that our minds are finite; but that the power of God by which
he not only foresaw from eternity, but also willed and fore-ordained
all things that are or can be, is infinite. And though we may so
far attain the idea of infinite power as to perceive clearly and dis-
tinctly that it is an attribute of God; yet we cannot sufficiently
comprehend it, to see in what manner it leaves the actions of men
free. But we are so intimately conscious of the liberty and indif-
ferency which we possess, that there is nothing which we can more
obviously and perfectly comprehend. And it would be truly absurd,
on account of a thing which we know from its very nature ought
to be incomprehensible, to doubt respecting another thing which we
perfectly comprehend, and of which we are intimately conscious.”*
Even the physical theory of this illustrious philosopher was not, as
Dr. Beecher asserts, "the atomic theory. Descartes supposed
that the material universe was a machine originally constructed
and put in motion by the Deity, and that the multiplicity of effects
that have since taken place may all have proceeded from one single
act of his power. It was to connect the present motions and
changes in matter, with the original impulse imparted to it by the
Creator, that he invented his hypothesis of "vortices," in direct.
and avowed opposition to "the atomic theory," and thereby
involved himself in a protracted discussion with Gassendi, the
great defender of the Epicurean system of physics. It is strange
that Dr. Beecher should have so misunderstood his physical theory;
and still more strange that he should have made it the ground of
charging materialism, atheism, and fatalism, upon the man, who
was the first to establish clearly the distinction between mind and
matter as separate and heterogeneous objects of human knowledge;
who taught that we have no reason for trusting even our own
senses, or our reason, save our confidence in the veracity of our
Maker; and who maintained that no truth can be more certain and
undeniable than the liberty of the human will.
We could easily show that there are other mistakes in Dr. Beecher's
account of the fatalists, but we have sufficiently redeemed our
promise. Our readers must be, by this time, satisfied how far it is
safe ever to trust to Dr. Beecher's accuracy in reporting upon the
opinions of others. We may now freely admit "that truth and
argument are not invidious," without thereby relieving Dr. Beecher
from the charge. The next time that he wishes to hurl† the calum-
* Princ. Phil., § xl.
† For a deserved reproof of Dr. Beecher on this point, as well as for a detailed refu-
tation of the errors of his book, we refer the reader to Dr. Harvey's work on Moral
Agency, recently published.
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
203
nious epithet of fatalist against those who differ from him, let him
at least see to it that he chooses his ground better.
Before closing this examination of Dr. Beecher's work we wish
to state distinctly, that it contains much of orthodoxy. The very
errors which we have condemned, as we have already remarked,
are often given as the equivalents of orthodox statements. And
"When this per-
there are many such assertions as the following.
verse decision is once made, the heart is fully set, and incorrigible
to all motives and immutable in its way." "The Scriptures speak
of the permanence and immutability of man's depravity." "It is a
part of the terrific nature of sinful man, to baffle all motives, and
be voluntarily but unchangeably wicked." We desire to be thank-
ful that it belongs to Dr. Beecher, not to us, to show that that which
is incorrigible may nevertheless be corrected, and though unchange-
able, that it can be changed. In a single sentence we sometimes
have the two brought together. Nothing is better supported
from Scripture than that man by nature is in fact incapable of
recovery without the power of God specially interposed, though
not an impossibility such as the sinner cannot overcome." We
fear our readers will think that a work, in which the same thing is
thus affirmed and denied within the compass of a single sentence,
has already received too extended a notice. We dismiss it, there-
fore, with the expression of our best wishes for the author, and our
sincere desire that he may in future be more cautious and guarded,
should he undertake to deal with the controverted topics of meta-
physics and theology.
66
Since the foregoing article was commenced, we have received
two publications from Dr. Beecher through the columns of the
Cincinnati Journal. In the first of these we are arraigned, in
company with Dr. Wilson, Dr. Hoge, Mr. Nettleton, Dr. Har-
vey, and the editors of the Presbyterian, the Southern Chris-
tian Herald, and the Hartford Watchman, as parties to a con-
spiracy against him. Though he thinks these conspirators have
all done him great wrong, yet he believes that "their sin and shame”
may be forgiven, if they will suitably "bewail the evil they have.
done." The object of the conspiracy is "to write him down in
reference to the present crisis in our church;" the proof of it is,
that his book, and the consistency of his conduct, have undergone
examination at the hands of several of the individuals named within
a recent period, and that period so chosen as to preclude the possi-
bility of a reply from him prior to the session of the late General
Assembly. We have turned the subject in every possible way,
and we are utterly at a loss to conceive what connexion the review
of Dr. Beecher's book had with the sessions of the General Assem-
bly. He was not upon trial before that body-he was not a dele-
gate to it-he had no other interest in it, that we can discern, than
every other Presbyterian minister had. It is useless, however, to
reason with the fears of the imagination. And yet we wish there
was some way to lay the phantom of evil which Dr. Beecher has
I
204
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
conjured up. The most miserable man we have ever known was
one who was persuaded that Bonaparte was employing the whole
resources of the French empire for his capture, and that if this
attempt was successful, there would then be nothing to hinder the
subjugation of the rest of the world. The inconvenience and
suffering, occasioned by such fears, are not less than if the appre-
hended danger were real. We do therefore solemnly assure Dr.
Beecher that our article was written without concert or collusion
with any one, without a hint or suggestion from any quarter; and
that the proximity in the time of its appearance to the session of the
General Assembly, was purely accidental. It never once entered
our thoughts that a review of his book could have any influence on
the proceedings of that body.
Dr. Beecher also finds reason, from the simple fact that his con-
sistency has been impugned, and his book in some respects cen-
sured, both at East Windsor and at Princeton, to suggest to the
public whether there is not sufficient evidence of "a coalition of
Theological Seminaries," for the sake of "intimidating" their pupils
and others into their own theological peculiarities, and thus getting
up a second papal system." We shall make no other comment
upon this note of alarm than to quote the following sentence from
his Views in Theology. "And never was there a moment when
a little panic of alarm, or impatience of feeling, may turn, for good
or for evil, the life-giving or destroying waters of such a flood
down through distant generations.'
(6
Dr. Beecher's second communication to the public is occupied
entirely with our former article, but it will not be necessary for us
to notice it at any great length. Every reader of the review and
the reply will at once see that he has not touched upon the diffi-
culties of the case. The real question is turned aside, and a new
issue presented. We will merely illustrate this by a reference to
the manner in which he disposes of the extract which we produced
from the Spirit of the Pilgrims. In this passage it will be remem-
bered that, after stating the opinions which had been held by the
Reformers, the Puritans, and Edwards, he states that a change had
taken place, and that the New England divines had long since
rejected "the views of the Reformers on the subject of original sin,
as consisting in the imputation of Adam's sin, and a depraved
nature transmitted by descent; that in opposition to this they held
"that depravity is wholly voluntary, and consists in the transgres-
sion of the law under such circumstances as constitutes accounta-
bility and desert of punishment." We then quoted another passage
to show that Dr. Beecher himself held these views which he attri-
buted to the New England divines. And how does he dispose of
this case? Even thus.
Even thus. "To prove that I deny the doctrine of
original sin, it is necessary to prove that the standard New England
divines denied it, for the change is one which they made, and my
concurrence is with them. If they deny original sin, I deny it, and
if they do not, I do not.” Then follows a string of quotations from
DR. BEECHER'S THEOLOGY.
205
New England writers, which we have not read, because they are
nothing to the purpose; and moreover we do not need to be
informed by Dr. Beecher that they taught the doctrine of original
sin. We know they did. But what does this prove? Only what
we also knew before, that Dr. Beecher grossly misrepresented them
in the extract in question. We were aware that Dr. Woods and
others had complained that he did not truly state the New England
opinions, in this very controversy with the Christian Examiner;
but we did not think it becoming, at the time, to take any notice of
this misrepresentation, little imagining that he himself would lay hold
of it as the weapon of his defence. The only effect of his reply is
to draw down upon himself the additional charge of having misre-
presented the opinions of his brethren. There stand his own
words, expressly denying, on behalf of the New England divines
in general, and of himself in particular, the doctrine of original sin.
To prove now that they did not deny it, is only to convict himself
of having slandered them. His own denial still stands in connex-
ion with his explicit avowal of the same doctrine in his Views in
Theology, and his declaration that he has never changed his opi-
nions upon the subject.
ESSAY VII.
THE DOCTRINES OF THE NEW ENGLAND
CHURCHES.
OUR readers may be somewhat surprised at seeing, in our
margin, the title of a book published near a century ago. The
character of this periodical, however, does not restrict us to
the notice of works of a recent date. The past is the mirror of
the present, as the present is of the future. What is now has
been before, and shall be hereafter. It is well, at times, to look
back and see how the trials of our forefathers agree with our own;
to observe how the errors and disorders with which we have to
contend afflicted them; to notice how the methods adopted in for-
mer ages to secure the introduction of false doctrines answer to
the devices of the present day; and how signally God blessed the
faithful efforts of his servants in defence of his truth, and how uni-
formly compromise and subserviency have been followed by the
triumph of error and the decline of religion. The history of the
church is replete with instructions on all these points; and these
instructions are presented in the history of the church in our own
country in a form peculiarly adapted to our present circumstances.
The pious founders of the Congregational and Presbyterian
churches in America brought with them the very doctrines which
the friends of truth in those churches are now struggling to main-
tain; they had to contend with the same errors and disorders, and
they resisted them by the same means which we are now endea-
vouring to employ, viz., testimony, discussion and discipline.
Their fidelity produced just the same outcry about ecclesiastical
tyranny, inquisitorial powers, freedom of thought, march of intel-
lect, new discoveries, with which the ears of the public are now
assailed. The same plea of essential agreement, of mere shades
of difference, of the evils of controversy, was urged then, as now.
But blessed be God, not with the same success. The men of those
generations did not allow themselves to be either frightened or
Originally published in 1839, in review of the following work:-" A Brief His-
tory and Vindication of the Doctrines received and established in the Churches of
New England, with a specimen of the New Scheme of Religion beginning to pre-
vail." By Thomas Clap, A. M., President of Yale College.
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
207
beguiled. And as long as they retained their courage and fidelity,
their efforts were crowned with success.
There is another instructive feature in the history of the last
century. Those who could not endure sound doctrine, would not
endure sound discipline. As soon as they had departed from the
faith, they got their eyes wide open to the evils of ecclesiastical
authority. This opposition to supervision manifested itself in Con-
necticut in two ways. Some objected to the examination into
the doctrinal opinions of ministers, or to the exercise of disci-
pline for the prevailing errors; while others withdrew from the
consociated churches and set up for themselves. These separat-
ists called themselves strict Congregationalists. One of their
standing subjects of complaint was the supervision of the consoci-
ation. This was found to be very inconvenient. It is readily
admitted that many Christians have honestly and from good
motives preferred the purely independent system of church
government, yet there can be no doubt that then, as now, many
who advocated that system did it because of the convenient lati-
tude which it affords for all kinds of doctrine.
So much has been said of late years of the contentions in the
Presbyterian church; such assiduous efforts have been made to
produce the impression that there is either some great evil in Pres-
byterianism, or that its present advocates are peculiarly and wick-
edly bigoted, that we have thought it wise, and likely in various
ways to be useful, to recall attention to one chapter of the eccle-
siastical history of Connecticut. It will be seen that so long as
there is a regard for divine truth and for real religion in the
church, there will be controversy and contention when errorists.
arise and endeavour to propagate their doctrines. There can be
no surer sign of degeneracy than the peaceful progress of error.
If, therefore, the same or analogous errors and disorders which
a century ago agitated many parts of New England to its
centre, are now allowed to prevail without opposition, it will
prove to all the world that the faith and the spirit of the
Puritans have perished among their descendants. It is not
our intention, though largely in the debt of a certain class of our
New England brethren, to read them a lesson out of their own
history. It is not for their benefit so much as for our own, that
we bring to the notice of our readers President Clap's Defence of
the Doctrines of the New England Churches. It will serve to
confirm the purpose and strengthen the faith of the friends of truth
in our church, to see that they are fighting the same battle which
has once before been fought and won, and that on New England
ground. It will serve to refute the calumny of those who represent
the struggle in our church, as an opposition to genuine New
England doctrines. It will show that we are now opposing what
all sound and faithful Puritans ever have resisted; and that the
reproaches which we now suffer were just as freely lavished on
New England men a hundred years ago.
208
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
There is so little in this pamphlet which is not directly applica-
ble to the present times, that we shall do little more than extract
its contents, giving, it may be, an occasional remark by way of
application or improvement.
"The great motive," says President Clap, "which induced the
first planters of New England to leave their pleasant European
seats, and settle in this howling wilderness, was, that they might
enjoy religion in the purity of its doctrines, discipline and worship,
and transmit the same down to the latest posterity. The doctrines
which they believed and professed, were those which had been
generally established in all ages of the Christian church; and more
especially summed up, and declared in the several confessions of
faith in the various Churches of the Protestant Reformation; though
there were some lesser circumstances in their ecclesiastical discipline
which were in some measure peculiar to themselves. For the sake of
these inestimable privileges, they undertook to settle a new and uncul-
tivated country, filled with the most savage and barbarous enemies;
and nothing but these religious prospects could induce them to believe
that they did not purchase it at too dear a rate. And the leaving the
gospel in its purity, they judged to be a better inheritance to their
posterity, than the valuable soil which they acquired with such
incredible hardship, danger, and fatigue: therefore any attempt
to deprive them of their religion is as injurious as to deprive
them of their lands, or to change their happy form of civil govern-
ment.
46
'Soon after their first settlement, there was a general Synod of
the elders and messengers of all the churches in New England, in
the year 1648, wherein they unanimouslydeclared their sentiments in
the doctrines of the gospel, in these words, viz. This Synod, hav-
ing perused and considered (with much gladness of heart, and
thankfulness to God) the Confession of Faith lately published by
the Reverend Assembly in England, do judge it to be very holy,
orthodox and judicious in all matters of faith; and do therefore
freely and fully consent thereunto, for the substance; only in
matters of church government and discipline, we refer ourselves
to the platform of church discipline agreed upon by this assembly.'
And accordingly published it as 'their Confession of Faith, and as
the doctrine constantly taught and professed in these churches.'
"In their preface they say, that it has been the laudable prac-
tice of the churches of Christ, in all ages, to give a public account.
to the world of the faith and order of the gospel among them;
and that it has a tendency to public edification, by maintaining the
faith entire in itself, and unity and harmony with other churches.'
"Our churches, say they, believe and profess the same doctrine
which has been generally received in all the reformed churches in
Europe. I suppose the Assembly's Catechism was not expressly
mentioned, because before this it had been generally received and
taught to children.
"A few years after there was a Synod of Congregational
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
209
churches held at the Savoy, in London; wherein they consented
to the Westminster Confession aforesaid; only they left out some
things relating to church discipline and divorce, and amended some
few expressions. This is called the Savoy Confession.
"A general Synod of the elders and messengers of the churches
in New England, in 1680, approved of and consented to this con-
fession; and the general court at Boston ordered it to be printed
'for the benefit of the churches in the present and after times.'
The Synod, in their preface, say, 'That it must needs tend much
to the honour of the blessed name of the Lord Jesus, when many
churches join together in their testimony for the truth. That the
Lord hath signally owned the Confessions of the four first general
Councils or Synods for the suppression of heresies in the primi-
tive times. That the Confessions of the Bohemians, Waldenses,
and other Protestant reformed churches (which also show
what harmony of doctrine there is among all sincere profes-
sors of the truth) have been of singular use, not only to those
who then lived, but also to posterity, even to this day. That
it must needs be a work pleasing unto God, for his servants to
declare to the world what those principles of truth are, which they
have received, and purpose to live and die in the profession of;
nor are they worthy of the name of Christians, who refuse to
declare what they believe.' They conclude with these words::
'What hours of temptation may overtake these churches, is not for
us to say; only the Lord doth many times so order things, that
when his people have made a good confession, they shall be put
upon the trial some way or other concerning their sincerity in it..
The Lord grant that the loins of our minds may be so girt about
with truth that we may be able to withstand in an evil day, and
having done all to stand.'
"In the year 1690, there was a meeting of the Presbyterian and
Congregational ministers in England, who, agreeing perfectly in
points of doctrine, compromised those small circumstantials wherein
they had disagreed in church discipline. This they published under
the title of Heads of Agreement assented to by the united Ministers
formerly called the Presbyterian and Congregational; in which
they declare their approbation of the doctrinal articles of the
church of England; the Confession of Faith; the larger and
shorter Catechisms composed by the assembly of divines at West-
minster, and the Savoy Confession, as agreeable to the word of
God.'
"In the year 1708, there was a general Synod of all the churches-
in the colony of Connecticut, assembled by delegation, at Saybrook,
in which they unanimously consented to the Savoy Confession,
and the heads of agreement before mentioned; and drew up some
articles for the administration of church discipline. One principal.
thing wherein these articles differed from what had been before
generally received and practised in the New English churches,
was this, that whereas the Cambridge platform had said in general
14
210
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
terms, that councils should consist of the neighbouring churches,
and some questions had arisen who should be esteemed the neigh-
bouring churches, and what number should be called in particular
cases these articles reduced it to a greater certainty, that councils
should consist of the neighbouring churches in the county;
they forming themselves into one or more consociations for that
purpose.
'
"These three things, viz., the Confession of Faith, Heads of
Agreement, and Articles of Church Discipline, were presented to
the General Court at Hartford in May, 1708; and they declared
their great approbation of them, and ordain that all the
churches in this government, thus united in doctrine, worship
and discipline, shall be owned and acknowledged established by
law.'
error.
•
"The Synod of Saybrook, in their preface, say, that the usage
of the Christian church, whose faith rested wholly on the word of
God, respecting Confessions of Faith, is very ancient, and necessary
for the correcting, condemning, and suppressing of heresy_and
For this purpose, ancient and famous Confessions of Faith
have been agreed upon by Oecumenical Councils, e. g. of Nice,
against Arius; of Constantinople, against Macedonius, &c. That
the several reformed nations agreed upon Confessions of Faith,
famous in the world, and of special service to theirs and the suc-
ceeding ages. That the faith of these churches is the same which
was generally received in all the reformed churches in Europe.
This Confession of Faith they say they offer as their firm persua-
sion, well and truly grounded on the word of God, and commend
the same to the people of this colony to be examined, accepted
and constantly maintained. That having applied the rule of holy
Scripture to the articles of this Confession,* and found the same to
be the eternal truths of God, you remember and hold them fast:
contend earnestly for them, as the faith once delivered to the saints :
value them as your great charter; the instrument of your salva-
tion, and the evidence of your not failing of the grace of God, and
of your receiving a crown that fadeth not away. Maintain them,
and every of them, all your days, with undaunted resolution
against all opposition, whatever the event may be; and the same
transmit safe and pure to posterity; having bought the truth, sell
it not believe the truth will make you free. Faithful is he that
hath promised. Let no man take away your crown.'
"In this state our pious forefathers established the pure religion
of Christ in this land, and left it as the best legacy to their
posterity. They were doubtless men of great piety; fervent in
prayer, and assiduous in studying the sacred Scriptures, in order
to find out the truth and recommend it to their posterity. They
did not undertake to make a religion, but to declare it from the
* C
By this is meant, not the applying those few texts of Scripture only, which
are set in the margin (for it is probable they were not put there by the Assembly of
Divines), but every text of Scripture applicable to these articles."
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
211
word of God: nor did they suppose that their faith or belief should
be the ground and foundation of ours, but resolved all into the
authority of God speaking in his word.
Among the various means they used to propagate this pure
religion to their posterity, they esteemed the erecting of colleges
and subordinate schools to be the principal. To this purpose the
general synod at Boston in 1679 fully express their sentiments.
That we read of schools and colleges in scripture; 1 Chron. xxv.,
8; Mal. ii., 12; Acts xix.. 9, and xxii., 3. That Samuel, Elijah and
Elisha, were presidents of the schools of the prophets: 1 Sam. xix.,
18. That Ecclesiastical History informs us that great care was
taken by the apostles and their immediate successors, to settle
schools at all places; that so the interest of religion might be pre-
served, and truth propagated to all succeeding generations.
We
have reason to bless God, who hath put it into the hearts of our
fathers to take care in this matter; for these churches would have
been in a deplorable state if the Lord had not blessed the college,
so as thence to supply most of our churches."
"When the people in New England were poor and but few in
number, there was a spirit to encourage learning; and as we desire
that religion should flourish, it concerns us to endeavour that the
college and inferior schools be duly inspected and encouraged.'
Thus far that synod.
"The fathers of the colony of Connecticut, from the same pious
and religious design, erected a college among themselves in the
year 1701: the scheme was concerted principally by the ministers,
with an especial design to maintain and propagate that pure reli-
gion, which was before settled among them; as appears by sundry
letters to and from those ministers who first undertook to found this
school, dated before the charter, and still extant.
<
"The charter is predicated upon the petition of sundry well-
disposed persons, of their sincere regard to, and zeal for, upholding
and propagating of the Christian Protestant religion, by a suc-
cession of learned and orthodox men.' And the grant was made
to encourage such a pious and religious undertaking.
first meeting they came into the following solemn act.
At their
"At a meeting of the collegiate undertakers holden at Saybrook,
November 11, A.D. 1701, present, the Revs. Israel Chauncey,
Thomas Buckingham, Abraham Pierson, Samuel Andrew, James
Pierpoint, Noadiah Russel, Joseph Webb.
"Whereas it was the glorious public design of our now blessed
fathers, in their remove from Europe into these parts of America,
both to plant, and under the Divine blessing, to propagate in this
wilderness the blessed reformed Protestant religion, in the purity
of its order and worship; not only to their posterity but also to the
barbarous natives: in which great enterprise they wanted not the
royal commands and favour of his majesty king Charles the Second
to authorize and invigorate them.
66 6
We, their unworthy posterity, lamenting our past neglects of
212
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
this grand errand, and sensible of the equal obligations better to
prosecute the same end, are desirous in our generation to be ser-
viceable thereunto.
"Whereunto the religious and liberal education of suitable
youth is, under the blessing of God, a chief and most probable
expedient. Therefore, that we might not be wanting in cherishing
the present observable and pious disposition of many well-minded
people, to dedicate their children and substance unto God in such
a good service: and being ourselves with sundry other Reverend
Elders, not only desired by our goodly people to undertake as trus-
tees for erecting, forming, ordering and regulating a collegiate
school for the advancement of such an education: but having also
obtained of our present religious government, both full liberty and
assistance by their donations to such an use: tokens likewise that
particular persons will not be wanting in their beneficence: do, in
duty to God, and the weal of our country, undertake in the afore-
said design. And being now met, according to the liberties and
aids now granted to us for the use aforesaid, do order and appoint,
that there shall be, and hereby is erected and formed a collegiate
school, wherein shall be taught the liberal arts and languages, in
such place or places in Connecticut, as the said trustees with their
associates and successors, do or shall, from time to time, see cause
to order.
"For the orderly and effectual management of this affair, we
agree to, and hereby appoint and confirm the following rules:
"1st. That the rector take special care, as of the moral behaviour
of the students at all times, so with industry to instruct and ground.
them well in theoretical divinity; and to that end shall neither by
himself nor by any other person whomsoever, allow them to be
instructed and grounded in any other system or synopsis of divinity
than such as the said trustees do order and appoint: but shall take
effectual care that the said students be weekly, at such seasons as
he shall see cause to appoint, caused memoriter to recite the Assem-
bly's Catechism in Latin, and Ames's Theological Theses; of which,
as also Ames's Cases, he shall make, or cause to be made, from
time to time, such explanations as may (through the blessing of
God) be most conducive to their establishment in the principles of
the Christian Protestant religion.
"2d. The rector shall also cause the Scripture daily (except
on the Sabbath), morning and evening, to be read by the students.
at the times of prayer in the school, according to the laudable order
and usages of Harvard College, making expositions upon the same,
and upon the Sabbath shall either expound practical theology or
cause the non-graduated students to repeat sermons, and in all
other ways according to his best discretion shall at all times stu-
diously endeavour in the education of the students, to promote the
power and purity of religion and the best edification of these New
England churches.'
"The founders of the college and their successors have, upon
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
213
several times and occasions, come into some further and more
explicit resolves, in pursuance to the original fundamental plan ';
particularly,
"At a meeting of the trustees of Yale College, in New Haven,
October 17, 1722: present, the Rev. Messrs. Samuel Andrew,
Timothy Woodbridge, Samuel Russell, Joseph Webb, John Daven-
port, Thomas Buckingham, Stephen Buckingham, Thomas Rug-
gles, Eliphalet Adams.
'16. Voted, That all such persons as shall hereafter be elected
to the office of rector or tutor in this college shall, before they are
accepted therein, before the trustees, declare their assent to the
Confession of Faith owned and consented to by the elders and mes-
sengers of the churches in the Colony of Connecticut, assembled
by delegation at Saybrook, Sept. 9, 1708, and confirmed by act
of the General Assembly; and shall particularly give satisfaction
to them, of the soundness of their faith, in opposition to Arminian
and Prelatical corruptions, or any other of dangerous consequence
to the purity and peace of our churches: but if it cannot be before
the trustees, it shall be in the power of any two trustees, with the
rector, to examine a tutor with respect to the confession and sound-
ness of faith in opposition to said corruptions.
"17. Voted, That upon just ground of suspicion of the rector
or tutor's inclination to Arminian or Prelatic principles, a meeting
of the trustees shall be called as soon as may be to examine into
the case.
"18. Voted, That if any other officer or member of this col-
lege shall give just grounds of suspicion of their being corrupted
with Arminian or Prelatical principles,* or of any other of dan-
gerous consequence to the peace and purity of our churches, the
rector and tutor shall call them upon examination according to the
articles of the said Confession; and in case they refuse to sub-
mit thereto, or do not give a satisfactory account of their uncor-
ruptness, they shall suspend them to the next meeting of the
trustees.'
"N. B. Five of the first founders were at this time alive, and
four present at the passing of these acts.
"At a meeting of the president and fellows of Yale College,
November 21, 1751, present, the Rev. Mr. Thomas Clap, Presi-
dent; the Rev. Messrs. Jared Eliot, Joseph Noyes, Anthony Stod-
dard, Benjamin Lord, William Russel, Thomas Ruggles, Solomon
Williams, and Noah Hobart, Fellows.
*"By Prelatical principles, I suppose, they intend the opinion that Prelacy or
Episcopacy is, by divine right, absolutely necessary to the being of the Christian
ministry and church; which opinion being entirely subversive of these churches
which the college was founded to support, those who endeavour to propagate it
counteract the fundamental design of the college: but such as suppose that Episco-
pacy is only most convenient as tending to maintain unity and order, and don't nul-
lity Presbyterian ordination (which is the opinion of the greatest part of the church
of England, in England), may consistently be admitted members of our college, and
to the communion of our churches too, as has been the practice ever since there
have been churchmen in the colony."
214
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
"Whereas the principal design of the pious founders of this
college was to educate and train up youth for the ministry in the
churches of this Colony, according to the doctrine, discipline and
mode of worship received and practised in them; and they par-
ticularly ordered that the students should be established in the
principles of religion and grounded in polemical divinity, accord-
ing to the Assembly's Catechism, Dr. Ames's Medulla and Cases
of Conscience; and that special care should be taken, in the edu
cation of students, not to suffer them to be instructed in any dif
ferent principles or doctrines; and that all proper methods or
measures should be taken to promote the power and purity of reli-
gion, and the best edification and peace of these churches:
66 6
We, the successors of the said founders, being in our own
judgments of the same principles in religion with our predeces-
sors, and esteeming ourselves bound in fidelity to the trust com-
mitted to us to carry on the same design, and improve all the col-
lege estate descended to us for the purpose for which it was given,
do explicitly and fully resolve, as follows, viz.:
"1. That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are
the only rule of faith and practice, in all matters of religion, and
the standard by which all doctrines, principles and practices in
religion are to be tried and judged.
2. That the Assembly's Catechism and the Confession of
Faith, received and established in the churches of this Colony
(which is an abridgment of the Westminster Confession), contain
a true and just summary of the most important doctrines of the
Christian religion; and that the true sense of the sacred Scriptures
is justly collected and summed up in these compositions; and all
expositions of Scripture, pretending to deduce any doctrines or
positions contrary to the doctrines laid down in these composures,
we are of opinion are wrong and erroneous.
"3. If any doubt or dispute should happen to arise about the
true meaning and sense of any particular terms or phrases in the
said composures, they shall be understood and taken in the same
sense in which such terms and phrases have been generally used
in the writings of Protestant divines, and especially in their public
confessions of faith.*
4. That we will always take all proper and reasonable mea-
sures, such as Christian prudence shall direct, to continue and pro-
pagate the doctrines contained in these summaries of religion, in
this college, and to transmit them to all future successions and
generations; and to use the like measures to prevent the contrary
doctrines from prevailing in this society.
"5. That every person who shall hereafter be chosen a presi-
dent, fellow, professor of divinity, or tutor, in this college, shall
before he enters upon the execution of his office, publicly give his
consent to the Catechism and Confession of Faith, as containing a
*"The general rule of interpreting all writings is, that words and phrases shall
be taken in the same sense in which they are commonly used in other writings upon
the same subject."
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
215
just summary of the Christian religion, as before expressed, and
renounce all doctrines or principles contrary thereunto: and shall
pass through such an examination as the corporation shall think
proper, in order to their being fully satisfied that he shall do it
truly without any evasion or equivocation.
"6. That since every such officer is admitted into his post
upon the condition aforesaid, if he shall afterwards change his sen-
timents, entertain any contrary set of principles or scheme of reli-
gion, and disbelieve the doctrines contained in the said Catechism
or Confession of Faith, he cannot, consistent with common honesty
and fidelity, continue in his post, but is bound to resign it.
7. That when it is suspected by any of the corporation, that
any such officer has fallen from the profession of his faith, as before
mentioned, and is gone into any contrary scheme of principles, he
shall be examined by the corporation.
8. That inasmuch as it is especially necessary that a profes-
sor of divinity should be sound in the faith; besides the common
tests before mentioned, he shall publicly exhibit a full confession of
his faith, drawn up by him in his own words and phrases, and shall
in full and express terms renounce all such errors as shall in any
considerable measure prevail at the time of his introduction; and
if any doubt or question shall arise about any doctrine or position,
whether it be truth or error, it shall be judged by the word of God
taken in that sense of it which is contained and declared in the said
Catechism and Confession of Faith; as being a just exposition of
the word of God in those doctrines or articles which are contained
in them.*
"9. That every person who shall be chosen president, fellow,
professor of divinity, or tutor in this college, shall give his consent
to the rules of church discipline established in the ecclesiastical con-
stitution of the churches of this Colony: it being understood that
our ecclesiastical constitution may admit of additions or alterations,
in such circumstances as according to our Confession of Faith are
to be regulated by the light of nature and the rules of Christian
prudence. And it is especially declared that if any person shall
deny the validity of the ordination of ministers of this Colony, com-
monly called Presbyterian or Congregational, or shall hold that it
is necessary or convenient that such ministers should be re-or-
dained in order to render their administrations valid, it shall be
deemed an essential departure from our ecclesiastical constitution,
and inconsistent with the intentions of the founders of this college,
that such a person should be chosen in it.
10. Yet we would suppose that it is not inconsistent with
the general design of the founders, and is agreeable to our own
inclination, to admit Protestants of all denominations to send their
*"This does not make the catechism and confession the rule of expounding Scrip-
ture (as some have suggested), for the best rule of interpreting Scripture, is the
Scripture itself, i. e., comparing one place with another. See Confession, chap. 1,
It was principally by this means, the Assembly found out the true meaning
of Scripture, and expressed and declared it in those composures."
sect. 9
216
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
children to receive the advantage of an education in this college:
provided that while they are here they conform to all the laws
and orders of it.
As we understand this matter these statutes were in force until
within a few years. It has been said indeed that the usage of the
institution, since the accession of President Stiles in 1773, allowed
of considerable latitude in this subscription; that the substance of
the confession is all that any officer was required to assent to. In
reference to this subject the Rev. Daniel Dow of Connecticut, in
the appendix to his pamphlet on the New Haven Theology, asks
the following question: "Whether the ancient Confession of Faith
be not a part of the constitution of Yale College, upon which the
funds of the college are established. And if it be, whether the
Corporation have any more right or authority to alter it, or repeal
it, or to accept of any adscititious creeds as containing the substance
of it, than any other corporate body has to alter the conditions of
their charter?" We presume Mr. Dow had a right to ask this
question. We have never heard whether he has been favoured
with an answer. It would seem, however, that the Dwight Pro-
fessor of Theology must be greatly straitened in order to avail
himself of the liberal usage above referred to. It seems the found-
ers of that professorship required that "Every professor who
shall receive the income or the revenue of this fund, shall be exa-
mined as to his faith, and be required to make a written declara-
tion thereof, agreeably to the following: 'I hereby declare my free
assent to the Confession of Faith and Ecclesiastical Discipline
agreed upon by the churches of the state in the year 1708.'
They further say: "If at any future period, any person who fills
the chair of this professorship, holds or teaches doctrines contrary
to those above referred to, then it shall be the duty of the Corpo-
ration to dismiss such person from office forthwith."
We are no
further interested in this matter than the New Haven gentlemen
are in the affairs of the Presbyterian church; or than the whole
Christian community is interested in the maintenance of good faith
and true religion. We proceed with our extracts.
"The body of the ministers in the Colony of Connecticut, in
their public conventions, have several times renewed their consent
to their Confession of Faith; particularly at the general council
at Guilford, in 1742, and at the general association at Fairfield,
1753, in these words:
"We recommend it to the particular associations, that they be
very careful, that the true and great doctrines of the gospel, agree-
able to the Confession of Faith, be maintained and preached up,
against the Arminian, Antinomian and other errors, and that espe-
cial care and pains be taken with our youth to instruct them in the
principles of our holy religion and articles of our faith."'
“At a general association of the Colony of Connecticut at Mid-
dletown, June 17, 1755, present, the Rev. Messrs. Jared Eliot,
Moderator; Benjamin Colton, John Graham, William Worthing-
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
217
ton, Solomon Williams, Jacob Elliot, Noah Hobart, Elnathan
Whitman, Nathaniel Eells, Jonathan Todd, Edward Eells, Joseph
Bellamy, Noah Wells, James Beebe, Izrahiah Wetmore.
This association apprehending that various errors contrary
to the doctrines owned in the churches of this Colony, are spread-
ing and prevailing in the land, and that it is highly necessary for
ministers to bear testimony against those prevailing errors; this
association earnestly recommend it to the particular associations
of this colony to agree among themselves, frequently to insist
upon these doctrines contained in our Confession of Faith, which
are contrary to the prevailing errors of the day; and particu-
larly that they would bear a sufficient testimony against Socinian-
ism, Arminianism, Arianism, Pelagianism, and Antinomianism, or
any other errors that may arise among us.
"And whereas one particular association of this colony have
declined coming into the proposal of a general consociation till
the several associations have declared their adherence to the Con-
fession of Faith owned in our churches; we freely declare our
adherence to the doctrines contained in our Confession of Faith,
and we would recommend it to particular associations strictly to
adhere to the doctrines of our Confession of Faith.'
"It was the practice of the once famous French Protestant
churches at every meeting of their national Synod, to read and
give their assent to their Confession of Faith; and promise to
preach according to it.* And it might be well if this was prac-
tised among us, notwithstanding the opposition made by those
who dislike the doctrines.
"Although the Protestant churches in general, and those of New
England in particular, have been thus fully fixed and established in
the pure doctrines of the Gospel, yet sundry persons of late have
risen up openly to oppose and deny them; and have by various
means endeavoured to introduce a new scheme of Religion, and
an easy way of salvation, unknown to the Gospel of Christ. To
this purpose a great variety of books have been written, either
expressly denying, or artfully endeavouring to misrepresent, per-
plex, and undermine the great doctrines of the Gospel. Although
those authors do not perfectly agree among themselves, yet their
scheme is, in the main, tolerably consistent with itself, inasmuch
as the denying of some of the doctrines of the Gospel (amongst
which there is a necessary connexion) naturally undermines and
destroys all the rest.
"I shall present the reader with a general view of this new
scheme of religion, as I some years ago collected it from the
writings of Chubb, Taylor, Foster, Hutcheson, Campbell and
Ramsey, and other books, which are by some highly extolled and
assiduously spread about the country.
"The only end and design of the creation is the happiness of
the creature; and this end shall certainly be attained, so that all
* See "Quick's Synodicon."
218
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
rational creatures shall finally be happy; or at least taken together
as a body, shall be as happy as they can possibly be; and if some
individual should be eternally miserable, it is because it is beyond
the power of God to make them happy; it being impossible that
a creature should be happy against its will, and the will cannot be
immediately changed without destroying the nature of the agent.
God has no authority over his creatures as creator, but only as
benefactor, and has no right to command his creatures, but only so
far as he annexes rewards to obedience, and makes it their interest
to obey the only criterion of duty to God is self-interest; and
God commands us to do things, not out of any regard to his own
glory or authority, but merely because the things commanded
naturally tend to promote our own interests and happiness. That
he annexes penalties only for the good of the creature, and the
only end of punishment is the good of those upon whom it is
inflicted; or, at least, for the good of the system of moral agents
in general.
"The natural tendency which things have to promote our own
interest, is the sole criterion of moral good and evil, truth and false-
hood, right and wrong, duty and sin. That sin consists in nothing
but a man's doing or forbearing an action contrary to his own
interest; and duty to God is nothing but the pursuit of our own
happiness, with this view, that it is the will of God that we should
be happy.
"We ought to have no regard to God, but so far as he is or may
be a means or instrument of promoting our own happiness, and
that to act from a view to the glory of God, his perfection,
authority or laws considered as over and above, beside or distinct
from our own happiness, is but a chimera; it being impossible that
any moral agent can have any rational view or design, but only its
own happiness.
"Since the nature of all sin consists in man's doing what he
knows to be contrary to his own interest and happiness: every sin
must be known and voluntary; and consequently there can be no
sin of ignorance, derivation or imputation; nor any sinful nature,
state or disposition. That Adam was not created in a state of
holiness, but only had a power to act virtuously, that is, to pursue
his own interest if he pleased: that he had in his original consti-
tution strong dispositions and inclinations to do acts that were.
sinful, i. e. contrary to his own interest, and he could not refrain
from those particular acts without considerable pain and uneasi-
ness: that God gave him inclinations which he ought not to
gratify, and that an inclination to sin, being the gift of God, is
no sin, but is designed for the exercise of his virtue in restraining
of it.*
66
Every man is now born into the world in as perfect a state of
* The author of “Heaven Open to all Men" says, if our appetites are irregular,
he who gave them is responsible for them.
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
219
rectitude as Adam was created; and has no more of a disposition
to sin than he had; and in all respects stands as fair for the favour
of God as Adam did; not being obliged to be conformed to any
standard of moral perfection, but only to pursue his own interest
and happiness.
"And though it should be supposed, that men have some weak-
nesses now, which Adam had not at first, yet nothing can be a man's
duty which is not now in his power, even though he has lost it by
his own fault; for the law is abated in proportion with the power
to obey.
"Adam, in a state of innocence, being liable to sickness, wounds
and death, there is reason to suppose that the special providence
of God would interpose to preserve him from them. The present
miseries and calamities of human life are no evidences of a sinful
state or tokens of God's displeasure; but are primarily designed
as means for the trial of men's virtue, and to make them capable of
a reward.
66
Every man has a natural power to prosecute his own interest,
and to do all that is necessary to be done by him for his own hap-
piness. The actions of moral agents can be neither virtuous,
vicious nor free, unless they are done by a man's own power, nor
unless he has also a power to do the contrary; and therefore it is
absurd to suppose that God should implant grace or holiness in
any man, or keep him from sin, or decree or foreknow his actions;
because all these suppositions destroy the free agency of a man,
and consequently his moral virtue.
"That God cannot certainly foreknow the actions of free agents,
because they are not in their own nature foreknowable; they not
depending upon any antecedent causes, but merely upon the free
and self-determining power of the will.
"Since sin is nothing else but a man's not pursuing his own interest
so well as he might, no punishment is properly and justly due to
him; but only that he should suffer the natural ill consequences of
his own misconduct; consequently no satisfaction is necessary in
order to the forgiveness of sin; and therefore Christ did not die
to make satisfaction for sin, and so there is no need to suppose
him to be essentially God, but only a most perfect and glorious
creature.
“The great design of the gospel, and of Christ's coming into the
world, was to revive the light of nature, and to cultivate moral
virtue, which had been greatly obscured by Jewish and heathenish
superstitions, and to give men more full assurance, that if they
endeavoured to promote their own interest in this world, they
should be happy in the next, than the mere light of nature could do:
and therefore there is no great weight to be laid upon men's believ-
ing Christ's divinity, satisfaction, or any of those speculative points
which have been generally received as the peculiar and fundamen-
tal doctrines of the gospel (some of which are prejudicial to moral
virtue), but we ought to have charity for all men, let their specula-
220
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
tive principles be what they will, provided they live moral lives,
whether they be Papists, Jews, Mahomedans or heathens: or, at
least, for all that say they believe the Bible, though* they put no
certain meaning to it, or construction upon it; but only that they
believe it to be a good system of morality, and don't profess to
believe anything more about Christ, than the Mahomedans gene-
rally do.
"And some have charity for all who are willing to be happy,
and have a benevolent temper towards their fellowmen, though
they do not so much as believe the being of a God; yea, some
extend their charity to the devils themselves, so far as to suppose,
that though they are at present very much out of the way, yet
they shall at length see their error, and all be finally happy in
heaven; and pretend to produce plain demonstration for it in this
form:
“The ultimate end and design of God in the creation, is the
happiness of the creature.
God's ultimate end and design never can be finally frustrated
or defeated; therefore all intelligent creatures shall finally be
happy.'
Here let the reader pause. Let him review this new scheme of
religion, and ascertain its leading features. He will find that what
we call new now, was called new a hundred years ago, and for the
same reason. The doctrines were no more new then than they
are at present; but it was a new thing that those doctrines should
be avowed in the midst of orthodox churches. The reader cannot
fail to notice, that every doctrine characteristic of the system which
is now agitating the country, is embraced in the scheme which
pious and orthodox men of New England were called to oppose
during the last century. These doctrines are, 1. That the promo-
tion of happiness is the grand end of creation. 2. That self-inte-
rest is the ultimate foundation of moral obligation. 3. That God
cannot control the acts of moral agents, or prevent sin in a moral
system. 4. That he cannot, of course, decree the acts of free
agents. 5. That all sin consists in the voluntary transgression of
known law; consequently that there is no such thing as a holy or
unholy nature. Adam was not created holy, but formed his own
moral character; and his posterity are not born corrupt, but become
corrupt by their own voluntary transgression of known law. 6.
That plenary ability and full power to the contrary are necessary
to the morality of any act.
There are some points embraced in the new scheme as given by
President Clap, which do not belong to the new divinity of our
day; as, for example, the speculations about the divinity of Christ ;
and there are some which belong to the new divinity, as, for exam-
ple, making regeneration to consist in the choice of God, as a
source of happiness, or in a change of purpose, which are not
"These call themselves Bibliarians."
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
221
expressly stated, though they are implied in the new scheme of
the last century. It would be easy and perhaps useful to point
out the striking coincidence, even in language, between these two
schemes, did our limits permit.* We must content ourselves here.
with a very few illustrations. With regard to the first point Pre-
sident Clap remarks: "This fundamental principle, That the hap-
piness of the creature is the sole end of creation,' naturally leads
to most if not all the rest." We are afraid this is too true, though
many who adopt this principle, or at least the theory of virtue of
which it is the expression, repudiate many or all of these conse-
quences. It is a strange perversion to make happiness the end,
and holiness but a means; as though enjoyment were superior to
excellence. The theory that virtue is founded in utility; that a
thing is right simply because of its tendency to promote happi-
ness; this tendency being not merely the evidence of its excel-
lence, but that excellence itself, is the copious fountain of specula-
tive errors, and of perversion of the moral feelings. If happiness
is the great end of creation; if anything is right that promotes
happiness, then the end sanctifies the means, and it is right to do
evil that good may come. If it is right for God to act on this
principle, it is hard to make men feel that it is wicked for them to
do so. The only difficulty is, that they may not have knowledge
enough to enable them to apply the principle correctly, but the
principle itself must be good. We think it might easily be made
to appear that the theology and morals of the church have suffered
severely from the adoption of this false theory of virtue.
66
That this theory is à constituent part of the new divinity is plain.
from almost every page of the writings of the advocates of that
system. Why is righteousness or justice," asks the Christian
Spectator," better than injustice ?" After rejecting other answers,
he says,
"We must come back to the tendency to good or evil,
pleasure or pain, happiness or unhappiness. The same relation is
implied in saying that righteousness or justice is better or prefer-
able to injustice or oppression. How better? In what respect
preferable? What fitness or adaptedness has it, unless to good?
and what is good, except as it tends to promote happiness?"†
According to this doctrine there is no such thing as morality.
Pleasure is the only good, and pain the only evil. There are
means of pleasure, and causes of pain; but there is no such thing
as sin or holiness. There is no specific difference between beauty
and moral excellence; between a crime and a burn. There is,
however, no more sense in asking, as is done by the Spectator,
"How righteousness is better than injustice?" than in asking, how
pleasure is better than pain. Every sentient being knows that
*This is the less necessary, however, as our readers have access to the admirable
letters on the origin and progress of the New Haven Theology, from a New England
minister to one at the South; to Mr. Dow's pamphlet on the New Divinity, and to
Mr. James Wood's work, entitled Old and New Theology.
† Christian Spectator, vol. x., p. 538.
222
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
pleasure is better than pain; and every moral being knows that
righteousness is better than injustice. No reason need be given in
either case. Right is as much a primary idea as pleasure. If a
man had never felt pleasure it would be impossible for him to
understand it; and if a man has no moral sense he can have no
conception of the meaning of the terms right and wrong. To tell
him that right is the quality of any act which tends to produce
happiness, and wrong of one which tends to produce pain, would
make him think these words synonymous with expedient and inex-
pedient, agreeable and disagreeable. It would convey no idea of
the specific meaning of the terms. Happiness is the mere shadow
of virtue. It must always follow it. But virtue is no more defined
by saying that it is that which tends to produce happiness, than the
nature of a solid body is defined by saying, it is that which casts a
shadow.
People are very apt to imagine that they gain a victory when
they ask a question which does not admit of an answer.
This is a
great mistake. We are no more concerned because we cannot
tell an inquirer what there is in virtue besides its tendency to pro-
duce happiness, than we are because we cannot tell a deaf man
the difference between a loud sound and a bright colour. The dif
ficulty does not arise from the identity of the two things, but from
a want of capacity in the questioner to perceive the difference.
Such interrogations, therefore, as those of the Spectator, produce
in us no other feeling than that of wonder how they can be put by
any man with a moral sense.
But the plague-spot of the new divinity is the second point above
specified, the principle that self-interest is the ultimate foundation
of moral obligation. This is its point of alliance with the lowest
form of speculative opinions on this subject, and which gives it a
character which must degrade the moral and religious feelings of
every human breast in which it gains a lodgment. This offensive.
doctrine is not only incidentally stated, or indirectly implied, it is
formally propounded and vindicated in writings of recognised
authority in reference to the new divinity. Thus we are told,
"This self-love or desire of happiness is the primary cause or rea-
son of all acts of preference or choice, which fix supremely on any
object." And more plainly still, "Of all specific, voluntary action
the happiness of the agent in some form is the ultimate end."* Can
there be a human heart which does not revolt at such a monstrous
assertion? Has every act of piety, every deed of benevolence,
every attention of maternal love, the happiness of the agent as its
ultimate end? The assertion contradicts the consciousness of
every human being. All religion, all benevolence, all the social
affections do not centre in self. Any man whose own happiness is
the ultimate end of all his specific voluntary actions is a bad man.
If such a being could be found, he would not deserve the name of
*Christian Spectator, 1829, p. 21-24.
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
223
a man. Every one performs a multitude of acts because they are
right; and in which the happiness of others and not of himself is
the ultimate end. It may be said, we do not analyse our feelings
with sufficient accuracy. We have, however, no faith in this ana-
lysing one thing into another; a sense of right into a desire of hap-
piness; self-denial into self-seeking; the love of God into the love
of self. We pray to be delivered from all such metaphysics.
66
Lest our readers should think that we assume on too slight
grounds that this doctrine is a part of the new scheme of religion
of our days, we refer them to an article on moral obligation in the
last number of the Christian Spectator. They will find it there
taught that "the ultimate foundation of moral obligation is the ten-
dency of an action to promote the highest happiness of an agent,
by promoting the highest welfare of all," p. 531. The last clause
of the sentence has nothing to do with the doctrine. The ground
of obligation is the tendency of the act to promote the happiness
of the agent. The fact that his happiness is best secured by acts
which tend to promote the highest welfare of all, is not, according
to the theory, the reason of their being obligatory. And this the
article teaches with abundant plainness. The nature of the doc-
trine taught is clear from the whole drift of the piece; and will be
sufficiently indicated to the reader by such sentences as the follow-
ing: "It will perhaps be said, that by making moral obligation to
rest on the tendency to promote the highest happiness of the agent,
we make it wholly a selfish thing," p. 541. Perhaps it may here
be said, if this is the evil of sin-the disregard of the agent's highest
welfare-and if this oftentimes results from a state of ignorance, then
the only remedy necessary is to supply the requisite knowledge-
to enlighten the mind," p. 550. It is taught no less explicitly that
the primary reason why we are bound to obey God is, that he
knows best what will make us happy. Nay, we are told that it
has been said, by at least one advocate of the new divinity, that if
the devil could make him happier than God can, he would serve
the devil.* It is hard to conceive how he could serve the devil
more effectually than by making such declarations, which, after all,
are only an irreverent statement of the doctrine of the Christian
Spectator. On p. 529 the question is started, Why ought we to
obey the will of God? After a good deal of circumlocution it
comes out that this obligation rests on his wisdom and benevolence,
that is, upon his knowing what will render us most happy, and upon
the assurance which his benevolence affords, that he will not
deceive us as to this point. "The rule,” we are told, exists," and
what its foundation is we have seen. As a matter of fact it exists,
however it may be made known, and the tendency, or bearing, or
relation to happiness, whence it arises, would exist even if the rule
or law was unknown. It is the province of the moral governor to
make this truth known and to sustain it. The fact that he is such
* We would not state this on slight grounds. We have received it from a source
on which entire reliance may be placed.
224
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
a being, that he is competent to the task, forms a reason, why he
should be obeyed. In this competency, his capacity to judge
what is best, what is most productive of good or of happiness,
and his disposition to do it, in other words his infinite wisdom
and benevolence, is the prime element to be taken into the
account," p. 537. On a previous page it was said, that if there
was "no feeling of gratification in the act (of obedience to God)...
the force of obligation would be unfelt." And on 538, it is asked,
"On what ground is obedience claimed? It is that the law is
holy, just and good. The very reason that God assigns is, that it
is good-that it is the surest way of making us most happy. [The
words holy and just, it seems, have no meaning for this writer.]
His declaration in the form of law, is the highest evidence which
we have of the fact, for it is the testimony of one who sees in all
things the end from the beginning, and who has no disposition to
mislead us, but who, with all the sincerity of infinite love, seeks to
promote our highest happiness. Men do not distinguish.
between God's competency to discern and to make known to us the
way of happiness, and his creating a particular line of conduct
right or wrong." Again," Does any one hold that the will of
God is the foundation of moral obligation, we show that this, when
carefully examined, can mean nothing more than the objective
ground, or the indication or proof to us, wherein our true welfare
lies, so as to supply to us our defect of knowledge," p. 543.
According to this doctrine there is in fact no such thing as moral
obligation in the universe. A man is bound to promote his own
happiness in the best way he can, and this is his whole duty. All
his obligation is to himself. He owes nothing to God, or to his
fellow men. It is expedient for him to observe the divine direc-
tions, but he is bound to do so only so far as they promote his own
welfare. We would fain hope that such a doctrine needs no refu-
tation in a Christian country. Its naked statement is enough to
secure its reprobation.
•
•
The third specification given above is, that God cannot control
the acts of free agents, or that he could not prevent the introduc-
tion of sin into a moral system. "It is a groundless assumption,"
says Dr. Taylor, " that God could have prevented all sin, or at
least the present degree of sin in a moral system. . Would not
a benevolent God, had it been possible to him in the nature of
things, have secured the existence of universal holiness in his moral
kingdom?"*
"Free moral agents," says the Christian Spectator,
"can do wrong under every possible influence to prevent it."†
"God not only prefers on the whole, that his creatures should
for ever perform their duties rather than neglect them, but proposes
on his part to do all in his power to promote this very object."‡
God, it is said, determined on his present course of providence,
"not for the sake of redemption in the universe, rather than have
† Vol. 1830, p. 563.
Ch. Spect. 1832, p. 660.
* Concio., p. 28.
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
225
a universe without sin; but for introducing redemption into a
universe from which sin could not, by any providence, be exclud-
ed."*
"The nature of things, as they now exist, forbids, as far
as God himself is concerned, the more frequent existence of holi-
ness in the place of sin."+ "The prevention of sin did not enter
into his determination because he saw it to be impracticable," p. 15.
"It is to him a subject of regret and grief, yet men transgress;
they rebel in spite of his wishes; they persevere in sin in spite of
all which he can do to reclaim them," p. 19.
Fourth, that the assumption that God cannot effectually control
the acts of moral agents, is inconsistent with the doctrine of
decrees, is too evident to need remark. The doctrine is therefore
rejected, though the terms, for the sake of convenience, or for some
other reason, are retained. That God decrees that an event should
occur, and yet proposes to do all in his power" to prevent its
occurrence, no one can believe. He may permit its occurrence, or
submit to it rather than destroy the system, but to say that he
decrees it, appears to be a contradiction. The statement of the
doctrines of predestination and election given by the New Haven
writers and others of the same school, is in accordance with this
fundamental principle of their system, and is a virtual denial of
those doctrines. "Whatever degree or kind of influence," says
the Spectator," is used with them (sinners) to favour their return
to him at any given time, is as strongly favourable to their con-
version as it can be made amid the obstacles which a world of
guilty and rebellious moral agents opposed to God's works of
grace." In another place the writer, speaking of the influence
which operates on the sinner, says, "Election involves nothing
more, as it respects his individual case, except one fact-the cer-
tainty to the divine mind, whether the sinner will yield to the means
of grace, and voluntarily turn to God, or whether he will continue
to harden his heart until the means of grace are withdrawn."
That is, God exerts an influence on sinners as strongly favourable
to their conversion " as it can be made," and he knows who will
yield, and this is election! To the same effect Mr. Tyler teaches,
"God foresees whom he can make willing in the day of his power,
and resolves that they shall be saved," p. 14. And Mr. Finney,
"The elect were chosen to eternal life, because God foresaw that
in the perfect exercise of their freedom they could be induced to
repent and embrace the gospel."§ It is really surprising that the
New Haven divines should still assert that they hold the doctrines
of predestination and election in the ordinary sense of the terms.
President Fiske, in answer to the review of his sermon in the
Christian Spectator, justly complains of this unfairness. "I can-
not," he says, "but express my deepest regret that a gentleman of
• Ch. Spect., p. 635.
† Sermon by Edward R. Tyler, New Haven, 1829, p. 9.
See Review of Dr. Fiske's Sermon on Predestination and Election.
Sermons on Important Subjects, p. 25.
15
226
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
the reviewer's standing and learning should lend his aid and give
his sanction to such a perversion of language, to such a confusion
of tongues. Do the words predestinate, foreordain, decree, mean
in their radical and critical definition, nothing more than to per-
mit, not absolutely to hinder, to submit to as an unavoidable and
offensive evil? . . . . Why then should the reviewer, believing as
he does, continue to use them in the symbols of his faith? . . His
mode of explanation turns the doctrine into Arminianism.”
Fifth, that all sin consists in the voluntary transgression of
known law. This is so much a favourite topic with the writers of
this class, that it is hardly necessary to bring examples. As they
explain and apply the principle, it involves the denial both of origi
nal righteousness and original sin. "Neither a holy nor a depraved
nature is possible," says Dr. Beecher, "without understanding,
conscience and choice. To say of an accountable creature that
he is depraved by nature, is only to say, that, rendered capable by
his Maker of obedience, he disobeys from the commencement of
his accountability."* "It is obvious," says Mr. Duffield, "that in
infancy and incipient childhood, when none of the actions are deli-
berate, or the result of motive, operating in connexion with the
knowledge of law, and of the great end of human actions, no
moral character can appropriately be predicated."+ "Why then
is it necessary," asks the Christian Spectator, "to suppose some
distinct evil propensity, some fountain of iniquity in the breast of
the child previous to moral action ?"+ "Animals and infants, pre-
vious to moral agency, do therefore stand on precisely the same
ground in reference to this subject." The doctrine of "a native
propensity to evil," according to Dr. Taylor, makes "God the
responsible author of sin," destroys responsibility, &c., &c. See
his Review of Dr. Tyler in the Christian Spectator, 1832. It is
useless to multiply quotations.
Sixth, that plenary ability and full power to the contrary are
necessary to the morality of any act. There are three views of
the doctrine of ability. The old one is, "That man by his fall
into a state of sin hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spirit-
ual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being alto-
gether averse from that which is good, and dead in sin, is not able
by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare him there-
unto." Inasmuch as the inability here spoken of is very different.
from that under which a man lies to create a world, and inasmuch
as it results from sin or the moral state of the agent, it may pro-
perly be called moral. On the other hand, as fallen man is a free
moral agent, as the things to be done do not transcend his nature
as a man, there is a sense in which he may be said to have a natu-
ral ability to obey all the commands of God. So long as the
expression natural ability was used in this sense, there was no con-
* Sermon on the Native Character of Man.
† Regeneration, p. 378.
‡ Christian Spectator, 1829, p. 367.
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
227
troversy as to the thing, but only as to the propriety of the terms.
There are two prominent objections to this form of expression.
The one is the perpetual and puzzling contradictions in which it
involves the preachers of the gospel; who tell sinners in the same
breath they can and they cannot; as well as the incongruity of
saying that a man is able to do what it is admitted that, in another
and equally true and important sense, he is unable to do. It is
always an evil for the declarations of ministers to come into
conflict with the consciousness of their hearers. A man may,
metaphysically speaking, be said to have a natural ability to love
one person as well as another, yet to tell him he can love all per-
sons alike, he feels to be absurd. The other objection is, that this
form of expression is unscriptural. It is not worth while for us to
be more philosophical or accurate than the Bible. The word of
God never tells the sinner he can do all that God requires of him,
though it often presses on him his obligation. They know but
little of the human heart, who so confidently maintain that a sense
of obligation is incompatible with the deepest conviction of help-
lessness and inability.
The second view of this doctrine is the Arminian. It does not
differ from the preceding except in one point. It admits that men
have by the fall lost all ability of will to that which is spiritually
good, but it teaches that the common influences of the Spirit, given
to all men who hear the Gospel, impart sufficient strength for the
performance of all duty.
The third view is that which may, with propriety and therefore
without offence, be called Pelagian. It is that which President
Edwards attributes to Dr. Taylor of Norwich, viz., that there is
"a sufficient power and ability in all mankind to do all their duty,
and wholly avoid sin;" or, that "God has given powers equal to
the duties which he expects." If this is so, says Edwards, "redemp-
tion is needless, and Christ is dead in vain.' This is the doctrine
of the New Divinity. "What notion," asks the Christian Specta-
tor, "can be formed of a subject of moral government, who is des-
titute of moral liberty? or in other words, who in every instance
of obedience and disobedience does not act with inherent power
to the contrary choice."+ Choice in its very nature," says Dr.
Beecher, "implies the possibility of a different or contrary election
to that which is made." Again, "The question is not whether
man chooses, that is notorious, but whether his choice is free as
opposed to a fatal necessity." (The reader will perceive that these
two sentences contradict each other.) "If a man does not pos-
sess the power of choice, with power to the contrary, he sees and
feels he is not to blame." The New Haven gentlemen constantly
represent what has hitherto been represented as moral inability as
inconsistent with free agency. Dr. Tyler had stated that there
* Edwards's Works, vol. ii., 515.
‡ Views in Theology, p. 32, et passim.
† Spectator, 1935, p. 377.
228
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
was in man "a native propensity to evil." His reviewer replies,
With such a propensity, man has not a natural ability to avoid
sin. And this is alike true, whether this propensity be supposed
to be sinful or innocent." In like manner, because Dr. Tyler
maintained that there was a moral change in the sinner anterior to
right moral action, he is represented as teaching physical depravity,
physical regeneration, natural inability, &c., &c.* "Talk not,"
says the Spectator, "of the distinction of natural and moral ability,
you have done it for ever away. If the change in question consists
in anything prior to voluntary exercise, such a change I can in no
sense produce."t
It is therefore abundantly manifest that the New Divinity is, in
its essential features, identical with the "New Scheme of Religion,"
with which the pious people of Connecticut had to contend a cen-
tury ago. If it was right for them to oppose it, it is right it should
be opposed now. It was the friends of evangelical religion who
resisted the introduction of the New Scheme; and it is the friends
of religion who now oppose the New Divinity. The history of
the church may be challenged to produce a single case in which
true religion, we do not say has flourished, but has survived under
the operation of that system of doctrine. It has been called Ar-
minianism. But this is a great mistake. There is fourfold more
truth and aliment for piety in Arminianism than in these new doc-
trines: Far more truth in the Arminian doctrine of original sin,
of divine influence, of regeneration, of the atonement, of justifica-
tion. And what has Arminianism to do with the doctrine that all
virtue is founded in utility? (So too we suppose all beauty is
founded in utility, and the only reason that a cascade gives plea-
sure is that it is adapted to turn a grist-mill.) And more especially,
what has Arminianism to do with the monstrous doctrine that self-
love is the ultimate foundation of moral obligation? The churches
ought not to be deceived upon this subject. The New Divinity is
not Arminianism, but something far, very far worse. Those men
are to be pitied who can see nothing but a shade of difference
between this system and the common orthodoxy of evangelical
churches; and still more are those to be commiserated who, for
party purposes, or for any other reason, call that a shade, which
they know to be a bottomless gulf. It remains yet to be seen
whether the faith and spirit of the Puritans have still sufficient
vigour in New England effectually to withstand the progress of
this system. It has received, we trust, its death blow in the Pres-
byterian church.
We resume our extracts from President Clap's Defence. "The
reading of this new scheme of religion will doubtless differently
affect the minds of different readers: some will be filled with indig-
nation to see the great and fundamental doctrines of the gospel
* Christian Spectator, 1832, Review of Dr. Tyler.
† Spectator, 1833, p. 661. See a full discussion of the theory of free agency on
which all these representations are founded, in a foregoing review of Dr. Beecher.
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
229
thus subverted and denied: others will think it scarcely possible, that
any men of sense should run into such absurd notions: others, who
have been inconsiderately led into some of the principles, will start,
when they come to see how naturally they lead to some other of
these principles, which at present they abhor. For this fundamental
principle, that the happiness of the creature is the sole end of the cre-
ation,' naturally leads to most, if not all of the rest: for this must be
the sole rule and measure of all God's conduct towards us, and of
ours towards him; and it is certain that God's sole end and ultimate
design never can be frustrated. Others will be grieved and pro-
voked to see their whole scheme exposed to open view; since
they find it most politic to conceal some parts of it, till they can
get the minds of men pretty well riveted into the rest.
-
"In order, therefore, to bring men to an indifferency, and prepare
them by degrees for the reception of this new scheme, sundry
artifices have been used.
"That there ought to be no creeds or confessions of faith but the
Bible: that there are no fundamental principles in religion, or any
certain set of doctrines necessary to be believed, in order to salva-
tion that those which have been commonly esteemed such, are
but mere disputable, speculative points, which have no influence
upon practice: and that the greatest heresy is an immoral life: that
public orthodoxy has been very various in different countries; and
in the same country at different times; that councils and assemblies
of divines, not being infallible, have no right to make or impose
upon others any creeds or confessions of faith, or public tests, or
standards of orthodoxy; or to fix any particular sense or meaning
on the Scripture: that no man is bound to believe as our fathers.
believed; but every man has a right to judge for himself; and that
is truth to every man which he believes to be the truth: that every
man shall be saved in that way or religion which he thinks is right,
let it be what it will; provided he lives according to it; that it is
sufficient, if men say that they consent to the substance of our
Catechism and Confession, without rigorously insisting upon every
article and doctrine in it: that great condescension ought to be used,
and sundry doctrines ought to be given up, either in whole or in
part, or different explications allowed for the sake of unity.
"That no man ought to be so uncharitable as to exclude another
from salvation, or any public office of instruction, because he does
not think as he does: that men's way of thinking is as different as
their faces; and to endeavour to make all men think alike, is to
make them bigots, and hinder all free inquiry after truth."
That is, the "artifices" employed in President Clap's time to
favour the introduction of error, were, 1. Undervaluing creeds and
confessions, and subscribing them for substance of doctrine. 2.
Making light of the points of difference, as mere philosophy, or
matters of speculation, or modes of explanation. 3. Declaiming
on the sin of destroying the unity of the church for the sake of
doctrine; on the duty of charity towards errorists; on the right of
230
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
free inquiry; and 4. Concealing the truth, as he says, p. 42: "Men
of this character are not always open and frank in declaring their
sentiments." Such, it seems, were the devices employed by the
advocates of the New Scheme of religion a hundred years ago.
Cannot the reader, without our aid, furnish modern illustrations in
abundance under each of these heads? Our limits do not admit of
our doing it for him, and the facts are so notorious, it can hardly
be necessary.
A standing topic of declamation, is the folly of
expecting men, who think for themselves, to join in adopting an
extended creed. If the substance be adopted, that is all that can
be required. And the substance is often a very small part of what
is really characteristic of the formula. Is it not also a common
method in our days of introducing the New Divinity, to make
much of the distinction between the doctrines and the philosophy
of them? to claim to hold the doctrines and differ only in the expla
nation, as even John Taylor professed to hold to original sin, with
a new explanation? How much too have we heard of the sin of
heresy hunting, of producing disturbance in the church, and of the
duty of living in peace let men teach what they may? Who,
however, is chargeable with the sin of controversy? the innovators,
or those who defend the faith once delivered to the saints?
there no sin in attacking brethren, who hold the faith of the very
standards which the aggressors have adopted, and great sin in
asserting what both parties have professed to believe? How true
it is what the famous Mr. Foxcroft, of Boston, remarked of his
generation, "that false moderation, which sacrifices divine revela-
tions to human friendships, and under colour of peace and candour
gives up important points of gospel doctrine to every opposer, is
still consistent with discovering a malignity towards others that
appear warm defenders and constant asserters of those evangelical
truths."*
Is
The grand device, however, of errorists in every age, has been
concealment. They do not come out boldly and frankly with their
true sentiments, but endeavour to introduce them gradually as the
public mind will bear them. The reader will probably remember,
when the doctrine was in these days first broached, that God
could not prevent sin in a moral system, how delicately it was
insinuated; it was merely said that the contrary could not be
proved, or ought not to be assumed; the idea was thrown out as a
hypothesis for further consideration. It may also be within the
knowledge of the reader how virtuously indignant the Spectator
was with Dr. Woods because he "changed Dr. Taylor's question
into an assertion-his hypothetical statement into a positive affir-
mation." Since that time, however, the doctrine has been asserted,
interrogatively and affirmatively; categorically and inferentially.
It has been assumed as the basis of argument; the denial of it has
* Preface to President Dickinson's Second Vindication of God's Sovereign Grace.
Boston, 1748.
† Spectator, 1830, p. 541.
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
231
been made the fountain of all manner of heresy and blasphemies.
Notwithstanding all this, the simple hypothesis is still resorted to
in times of peculiar emergency.
Another favourite method of concealment adopted in past ages
was the introduction of new opinions under the patronage of
revered names. This may remind the reader of the numerous
attempts to make Edwards, Bellamy, Dwight, and others, teach
the very doctrines which they strenuously opposed, in order to
gain the sanction of their names for the errors which they endea-
voured to refute. And finally, as we must stop somewhere, ano-
ther method of concealment is the use of ambiguous terms, or the
introduction of errors under the old formulas of expression,
employed in a new sense. Can anything be more seemingly
orthodox than the phrase "total depravity by nature?" How little
it seems to differ from natural depravity, or depravity of nature!
Yet they are, as to the sense intended, the poles apart. God is
said to foreordain whatsoever comes to pass. What Calvinist
could desire more? Yet to foreordain turns out to mean, as it
regards sin at least, to submit to its occurrence as an unavoidable
evil, and to propose to do all in the power of Him who foreordains
it, to prevent that occurrence. Original sin used to mean, in the
language of President Edwards, "an innate sinful depravity of
heart."
The term is still retained by those who teach with the
New Haven Spectator, Mr. Duffield, and others, that infants have
no moral character. Prof. Fitch says: "Nothing can in truth be
called original sin, but his first moral choice or preference being
evil." Mr. Duffield says, indeed, "original sin is a natural bias to
evil."* Here, to the uninitiated it would appear that two things are
asserted, first that this bias to evil is sin; and second, that it is
natural. But no such thing. This same Mr. Duffield says, " Instinct,
animal sensation, constitutional susceptibilities create an impulse,
which, not being counteracted by moral considerations or gracious
influence, lead the will in a wrong direction and to wrong objects.
It was thus that sin was induced in our holy progenitors. No one
can plead in Eve an efficient cause of sin resident in her nature (any
prava vis) or operative power, sinful in itself, anterior to and apart
from her own voluntary act. And if she was led into sin, though
characteristically holy, and destitute of any innate propensity to
sin, where is the necessity for supposing that the sins of her pro-
geny are to be referred to such a cause ?" "Temptation alone
is sufficient under present circumstances." Thus after all it ap-
pears that this "natural bias to evil" is nothing more than the con-
stitutional susceptibilities of our nature, such as it existed before the
*Minutes for the General Assembly for 1837. Protest by George Duffield, E. W.
Gilbert and others, against the adoption of the report on so much of the memorial of
the Convention as relates to erroneous doctrines. The statement of doctrines con-
tained in that Protest, as explained by the writings of its leading signers, is the most
extraordinary example of the use of old terms in a sense directly opposite to their
ordinary meaning, which we have ever seen.
† Duffield on Regeneration, p. 379, 380.
232
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
fall, yet this bias is said to be SIN. Rather than not be orthodox
and hold to original sin, he makes it exist in our "holy progenitors"
before the first transgression! Can this be exceeded in the whole
history of theological diplomacy? Yet it is a fair interpretation
of the language of the Protest, as explained by the writings of some
of its authors.
We wish it were in our power to insert the whole of President
Clap's pamphlet; but we have already much exceeded the limits
assigned for this article. We must therefore conclude with a few
citations given without remark.
"The doctrines contained in our Catechism and Confession of
Faith, particularly the divinity and satisfaction of Christ, origina
sin, the necessity of special grace in regeneration, justification by
faith, &c., have been universally received, established and taught in all
ages of the Christian church: and upon all the search I have been
able to make into antiquity, I can find no single instance of any
public Confession of Faith, drawn up by any council, or generally
received and established in any Christian country in the world,
wherein any of these doctrines have been plainly and expressly
denied.
“For though there have been some men scattered up and down
in the world, and sometimes convened in assemblies, who have
not believed these doctrines, and have sometimes endeavoured
covertly to disguise them and let them drop, and by degrees to
root them out of the Christian church; yet they never dared openly
and formally to deny them by any public act, because they knew
that these doctrines had been so universally received in the
Christian church, that all antiquity would condemn them, and that
such an open denial would bring upon them the resentment of all
mankind."
On page thirty-seven we find the following passage: "Some
will say that they own the doctrine of original sin; but they mean
nothing but a contracted disposition or inclination, arising from a
vicious habit or practice, and deny that any disposition or inclina-
tion to sin is naturally derived from Adam, and assert that every
child comes into the world like a clean, white piece of paper.
"Mr. Taylor calls the doctrine of original sin a Scripture doc-
trine; and yet when he comes to explain it, with regard to Adam's
posterity, he makes it no sin at all, and allows nothing but that,
upon the sin of Adam, God subjected him and his posterity to tem-
poral sorrow, labour and death:* And these are not punishments
for sin, but primarily designed for the benefit of mankind, con-
sidered as innocent creatures. For, he says, that upon the occasion
of Adam's sin, God appointed our life frail, laborious and sorrowful,
and at length to be concluded by death, not to punish us for another
man's sin, but to lessen temptation.†
"And, therefore, I cannot think that public orthodoxy in teach-
Page 63."
† "Page 68."
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
233
ers can be sufficiently secured barely by men's saying that they
consent to the substance of our Catechism and Confession of Faith,
and differ only in some small circumstantials, leaving it to them to
judge what those circumstantials are: for a man may suppose or
pretend that the ten commandments are the most substantial part
of the Catechism, and that the doctrine of the divinity and satis-
faction of Christ, original sin, &c., are but mere speculative cir-
cumstantial points, upon which no great weight ought to be laid.
Such persons ought at least to declare what particular articles they
do except, so that others may judge whether they are mere cir-
cumstantials or not.
"But then it is difficult, if not dangerous, to give up any one
proper doctrine or article of faith contained in our Confession, for
all the articles of faith in a system or body of divinity have a
necessary relation to and connexion with each other; whoever,
therefore, gives up any one article of faith, must, if he is consistent
with himself, give up another which has a necessary connexion
with it or dependence upon it, and so on till he gives up the whole.
Indeed, some men seem to be partly in one scheme of religion and
partly in another; but such men are always inconsistent with them-
selves; although for want of accurately tracing their own ideas
they are not always sensible of it.
"Some men will pretend to consent to an article of faith, and
yet believe nothing of it, in the true grammatical construction of
the words, and the meaning of the composers; e. g.: Some who
pretend to consent to the thirty-nine articles, by original sin, and
the corruption of human nature, mean nothing but bodily weak-
ness and sickness; and by its deserving God's wrath and damna-
tion, mean nothing but bodily sickness and pain, and the temporal
miseries of this life.
"So the meaning of that article, according to them, is that Adam's
sin is the occasion of our undergoing bodily sickness and weak-
ness, which deserve bodily sickness and pain.
"Condescension, charity and unity, are very excellent things,
when applied to promote the ends of the gospel; and there-
fore it is a pity they should upon any occasion be perverted to
destroy it.
"But condescension has no more to do with articles of faith than
with propositions in the mathematics. And though a man ought
in many cases to give up his own right or interest, yet he cannot
in any case give up the truth of God revealed in his word.
66
Charity is but another name for love, and the consequent effects
of it, in believing or hoping the best concerning any man, which
the nature of the case will allow; and considering how apt cor-
rupt nature is to intermix self-interest, passion and prejudice with
matters of religion, it is a virtue which, in that view, ought to be
much insisted upon: but charity no more consists in inventing or
believing new terms of salvation unknown to the gospel than it
does in believing a sick man will recover, when the symptoms of
234
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
death are evidently upon him. Such charity as that is the great-
est uncharitableness, as it tends to lull men in security to their eter-
nal destruction.
66
Unity in a joint-declared consent to the great and fundamental
principles of religion, and practice of the duties of it, is a matter of
great importance: but without such a consent unity is founded
upon nothing, and can never answer any of the great ends
proposed in the gospel. Men must be agreed at least in the object
of their worship, whether it be the eternal self-existent God, or a
mere creature: and in order to maintain this unity in the Christian
church, there always have been public creeds and confessions of
faith (all agreeing in substance) to which all, especially the teach-
ers, have given their joint consent.
"Neither can those who adhere to the ancient doctrines of the
Christian church, be properly called a party: that odious name
properly belongs to each of those particular sects, which, from
time to time, oppose those doctrines, and thereby make themselves
a party.
"The Bible is indeed the only foundation of our Christian faith;
and all the question is, in what sense we are to understand it: but
so far as any regard is to be had to the judgment of great and
good men in expounding of it (and I think it is an argument of
great self-sufficiency, if not self-conceit, to have none at all), yet
the number and quality of those who have at any time opposed
these doctrines bear no comparison to the vast number of martyrs,
and other eminently wise and good men, who have constantly
maintained them. And the opinion of Arius, Pelagius, Socinus,
Arminius, Foster, Chubb, Taylor, and all their followers, are but
as the small dust of the balance, when put into the scale against the
opinion of the whole Christian church in all ages.
“But I am free, that every man should examine for himself, and
then openly declare what he finds.
"For my part, I have critically and carefully, and I think, with
the utmost impartiality, examined into the doctrines contained in
our Catechism and Confession of Faith, and believe they are fully
and plainly contained in the sacred oracles of truth, perfectly
agrecable to reason, and harmonious with each other; and that
most of them are of the utmost consequence to the salvation of
the souls of men. And therefore look upon myself in duty bound
to do all that lies in my power, to continue and propagate those
doctrines; especially in the college committed to my care, since
that is the fountain from whence our churches must be supplied.
"And I hope that all the ministers of this colony, according to
the recommendation of former synods and later general associ-
ations, will be careful and zealous to maintain and propagate the
same in all our churches: that they will clearly and plainly preach
all the doctrines contained in the sacred oracles of truth, and
especially the more important of them, summed up in our Cate-
chism and Confession of Faith; that they will not endeavour to
DOCTRINES OF NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES.
235
conceal or disguise any of these doctrines, nor shun to declare the
whole counsel of God. That they will be careful not to introduce
into the sacred ministry any but such as appear to be well-fixed in
these principles upon which our churches are established. It is a
pleasure to me to observe, that no person, who has lately been
licensed to preach as a candidate, lies under any suspicion of that
nature."
ESSAY VIII.
CHRISTIAN UNION.*
THIS appears to be the work of a pious, intelligent lawyer, who
was removed by death a few weeks before it issued from the press.
It is dedicated to "The Reverend David Abeel, American Mis-
sionary to South Eastern Asia ;" and breathes, throughout, a spirit.
of fervent attachment to the honour and kingdom of the Redeemer.
No one, we think, can peruse this volume without receiving an
impression of profound respect for the piety and benevolence of the
author. And while we suppose it impossible for a judicious mind
to adopt all his views and anticipations, we are still willing to
believe that what he has written cannot be read without some profit.
His apparent soundness in the faith; his zeal for the honour and
spread of true religion; and the animating hope which he che-
rishes of the speedy union of all who bear the Christian name, can
scarcely fail of warming the heart of every reader who wishes
well to the progress of the religion of Christ in our revolted
world.
We do not differ from our author as to the desirableness and
importance of "Christian Union." If the invisible Church consists
of all those, throughout the world, who are united to Christ by
faith and love; and if the visible Church consists of all those, also
in every part of the world, who profess the true religion, together
with their children, it must, in the very nature of things, be, that
each is one. All real Christians belong to the former. All pro-
fessing Christians belong to the latter. Now, as there is but one
Christ, and but one true Religion, it is manifest that the "body of
Christ can be but one." We, being many, says the apostle, are one
body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
Again, he
asks, The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the
body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread, and one body ;
for we are all partakers of that one bread. Now ye, adds he,
in the same epistle, are the body of Christ, and members in par-
ticular.
Originally published in 1836, in review of "Christian Union; or an Argument
for the abolition of Sects." By Abraham Van Dyke, Counsellor at Law.
CHRISTIAN UNION.
237
Of course this unity, though in a sad degree marred, is not wholly
broken by diversity of denomination. All who profess the true
religion, however divided by place, by names, or by form, are to
be considered as equally belonging to that great family denominat-
ed the Church. The Presbyterian, the Methodist, the Baptist, the
Episcopalian, the Independent, who hold the fundamentals of our
holy religion, and who, of course, "hold the Head," in whatever
part of the globe they may reside, are equally members of the
same visible community; and if they be sincere in their profession,
will all finally be made partakers of its eternal blessings. And the
more closely they hold the "unity of the spirit in the bond of peace”
and love, the more decidedly they are ONE, and one in a sense more
richly significant and precious than can be ascribed to millions who
boast of a mere external and nominal union. They have one Head,
one hope, one baptism; they "all eat the same spiritual meat, they
all drink the same spiritual drink," and will assuredly all meet in the
same heavenly family. They cannot all meet together in the same
sanctuary here below, even if they were disposed to do so; but
this is not the worst. They are not all disposed thus to meet.
They are not all willing to acknowledge one another as fellow-
members of the same body. Yet, in spite of this blindness and
infatuation in regard to their own relation to each other, they are
still one, in a sense, and to a degree, of which they themselves are
not conscious.
We also concur with the author of the work before us in our
estimate of the sin and mischief of every measure which is
unfriendly to this unity, or which tends to make "a schism in the
body." "Nothing," says the eloquent Robert Hall, "more abhor-
rent from the principles and maxims of the sacred oracles can be
conceived, than the idea of a plurality of true churches, neither in
actual communion with each other, nor in a capacity for such
communion. Though this rending of the seamless coat of our
Saviour, this schism in the members of his mystical body, is by far
the greatest calamity which has befallen the Christian interest, and
one of the most fatal effects of the great apostasy foretold by the
sacred penmen, we have been so long familiarized to it, as to be
scarcely sensible of its enormity; nor does it excite surprise or
concern in any degree proportioned to what would be felt by one
who had contemplated the church in the first ages. Christian
societies regarding each other with the jealousies of rival empires,
each aiming to raise itself on the ruin of all others, making extra-
vagant boasts of superior purity, generally in exact proportion to
their departures from it, and scarcely deigning to acknowledge the
possibility of obtaining salvation out of their pale, is the odious
and disgusting spectacle which modern Christianity presents.
The evils which result from this state of division are incalculable.
It supplies infidels with their most plausible topics of invective; it
hardens the consciences of the irreligious; it weakens the hands
of the good, impedes the efficacy of prayer, and is probably the
238
CHRISTIAN UNION.
principal obstruction to that ample effusion of the Spirit which is
essential to the renovation of the world."* In all this we heartily
concur, and wish it were duly impressed on every mind in Chris-
tendom.
We of course, too, agree with our author in all the earnest
wishes expressed by him for the perfect restoration of the unity
of the Church. To every Christian heart the anticipation of that
blessing is unspeakably delightful. Behold, how good and how
pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the
precious ointment upon the head that ran down upon the beard;
even Aaron's beard; that went down to the skirts of his garments ;
as the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the
mountains of Zion; for there the Lord commanded the blessing,
even life for evermore. Yes, when the time shall come, as assur-
edly it will come, when the followers of Christ shall all speak
the same thing—when there shall be no divisions among them; but
when they shall be perfectly joined together in the same mind and
in the same judgment; then every beholder will be satisfied that
it is a blessing worth all the labour and importunate prayer which
can be employed for its attainment.
But when Mr. Van Dyke proceeds to the consideration of the
great problem how the "Union" for which he pleads is to be
brought about, and how difficulties which stand in the way are to be
obviated, we cannot adopt either his confidence, or what we under-
stand to be his plans. He seems indeed in a great measure to
overlook the fact, that although the preservation of peace and
harmony among professing Christians is precious, and ought never
to have been interrupted; yet that the great interests of truth and
righteousness are still more indispensably precious. He seems,
though he professes the contrary, not to have had an adequate
impression of the character of that "wisdom which is from above,
which is FIRST PURE, THEN PEACEABLE." If we are not deceived,
we desire to see the unity of the church of Christ perfectly real-
ized, in all its beauty and power, as much as our author ever did,
and as much as any of his most sanguine friends can do. Yet we
could not, in conscience, recommend that all denominations of
Christians, who profess to hold the fundamentals of religion, in
present circumstances, and with their present views, convictions,
habits and feelings, should throw down all the fences which sepa-
rate them from one another, and unite all their heterogeneous
materials under one name, and one organization. Even if that
name and organization were our own, the proposal would still be
revolting to our judgment. We should regard such an event with
entire disapprobation, for the following reasons.
1. If the individuals composing this multifarious, united mass,
came together without any alteration of opinion or conviction;
each entertaining his own former sentiments on all the points of
* Hall's Works, vol. i., p. 289.
CHRISTIAN UNION.
239
doctrine and order which once separated them, and still resolving
to unite, at every sacrifice, however vital, for the sake of a nomi-
nal and formal union; what could be expected from such a dis-
honest coalition, but a curse instead of a blessing? Every attempt
to reconcile differences among professing Christians, which involves
the relinquishment of truth; or a compromise with important cor-
ruption, either in doctrine or worship; or giving countenance to
what is deemed an injurious departure from what Christ has com-
manded, is undoubtedly criminal and mischievous. We are com-
manded to hold "fast the form of sound words" which we have
received; nay, to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered
to the saints;" and, no doubt, one great purpose for which a visible
church was founded in our world was that it might preserve pure
and entire all such religious truth, worship, and ordinances, as God
hath revealed and appointed in his word; that it might bear a
faithful testimony against the introduction of error, by whomsoever
attempted, into "the household of faith." If so, to surrender any
essential part of the trust committed to it, for the sake of peace, is
to make a sacrifice which the word of God forbids.
We are
required “as much as in us lies to live peaceably with all men."
But there are those with whom we cannot live in peace without
offending our Master in heaven.
2. Let us suppose, however, the case to be different; and then
an objection equally strong against the union which seems to be
contemplated, immediately presents itself. Let us suppose that the
members of all the various denominations which agree to come
together, do so under the impression that all their diversities of
doctrine and order, as long as they do not affect the fundamentals
of religion, strictly so called, are of no acconnt, and ought not to
forbid the most intimate union. What would be the natural effect
of their settling down on this principle? Would it not be to dis-
courage the study of Christian truth; to take away a large part
of their interest in "searching the Scriptures ;" and to terminate at
a stroke, all that "contending earnestly for the faith once delivered
to the saints," to which we just referred, as an expressly com-
manded Christian duty? We can scarcely conceive of anything
more adapted to take off the minds of men from discriminating
views of truth, and thus gradually to undermine enlightened piety,
than unreserved union upon such principles. Show us a people,
by whatever name they may be called, who in regard to doctrine
content themselves with vague generalities; who are equally satis-
fied with Calvinistic, Arminian, and Pelagian preaching; and who
think it wrong to make any difficulty, or even inquiry, respecting
the theological opinions of him who is called to minister to them
in holy things, and we will engage to show you a people of small
and crude knowledge; of superficial piety; and liable to be "
ried about by every wind of doctrine," and the "cunning craftiness
of those who lie in wait to deceive." Almost every chapter of
our pious author shows, that while he pleads for union with all who
car-
240
CHRISTIAN UNION.
hold truth enough to become instrumental in saving the soul, he
would have been himself altogether out of his element in listening
to any other instruction than that which accorded with the pre-
cious system of free grace through the atoning sacrifice of our
divine Redeemer. But, after all,
3. Supposing that such a union of all Christian denominations
could be attained without any dishonest sacrifice, and without any
immediate mischief, what would be the benefit of it? What solid
good would result from it, either to the body, or to the individuals
who might compose it? Would mere coming together produce
genuine Christian affection? Would those who were thus drawn
together, necessarily, or even probably, love one another the more?
We have no doubt that the profound and pious Dr. Owen, the
learned Independent, spoke the truth on this subject, when he said,
"I should be very sorry that any man living should outgo me in
desires that all who fear God throughout the world, especially in
these nations, were of one way, as well as of one heart. I know
that I desire it sincerely. But I do verily believe, that when God
shall accomplish it, it will be the effect of love, not the cause of
love. It will proceed from love, before it brings forth love. There
is not a greater vanity in the world than to drive men into a par-
ticular profession, and then suppose that love will be the necessary
consequence of it; to think that if, by sharp rebukes, by cutting,
bitter expressions, they can but drive men into such and such prac-
tices, love will certainly ensue." If half a dozen families should be
drawn, by ardent attachment to each other, to take up their abode
together in the same spacious mansion, they might live together
in peace and comfort, because the previously existing affection
which drew them together, would dispose them to overlook, or
at any rate to surmount many of the difficulties of their new situation.
But what man in his senses would think of prevailing on the same
number of families, hitherto strangers to each other, and with no
decisive congeniality of feeling, to abandon their separate dwellings,
and all come under the same roof? If he were a thinking man,
and at all instructed by experience, he would expect to find their
peace, their real enjoyment, destroyed, instead of increased, by
their local and nominal union. The fact is, Christian union in name
and outward form is worthless, unless the spirit of Christian love
accompany and pervade it. The nearer different denominations
approach to each other without this, the more apt they will be to
quarrel and fight. We have no doubt that one great feature of the
"latter day glory" will be that the "watchmen on the walls of
Zion," and the great mass of the people of God, will all "see eye
to eye," and walk together in the love of God, and in the consola-
tions of the Holy Ghost. But this harmony will be produced and
maintained by love. Love will pervade the world, binding all its
inhabitants together, and, therefore, all will "speak the same thing,
and walk together in peace and concord. We hope that some now
alive will see the day when all the different classes of Presbyte-
??
CHRISTIAN UNION.
241
rians in the United States, whether of the Dutch Church, the
German Reformed, the Associate, the Associate Reformed, and the
Reformed Presbyterians, shall be united with those of the General
Assembly. In what manner it will be accomplished, whether by
our joining them, or their joining us, we cannot predict; nor do we
care, provided the great interests of truth and holiness be secured
in the union. But we must say, that if it were now proposed by
any one to commence a system of measures for bringing about
such an event at once, we should be found in the opposition; not,
of course, from unfriendliness to the object ultimately aimed at;
but from a deep persuasion that none of the parties are yet ready
to unite; that if they could be prevailed upon to come together, at
present, it would be a calamity instead of a blessing; and that no
union worth attaining can ever be formed, until all the parties shall
be actuated by such a spirit of love, that they can no longer be
kept apart. Then, and not till then, will their union be a real
blessing; and then arguments and importunity to unite will be
wholly unnecessary.
One of the great boasts of the Romish Church is that it is one.
It reproaches Protestants as broken up into sects, wholly incon-
sistent with unity; while it claims for itself to be a perfectly united
body, and lays great stress on this alleged union, as one of the
indubitable marks of the only true Church. But to what, after all,
does their union amount? Is there more of real, Christian, scrip-
tural unity among the Papists than among other denominations
who bear the Christian name? Nay, is there anything like as
much? We utterly deny it. There may be more verbal, nominal,
technical unity among them than among most branches of the
Protestant body; that is, there may be more verbal acknowledg-
ment of a kind of deified individual; more general agreement in
praising and wondering after a human idol; more fixed staring of
all eyes at the great central seat of idolatry, and of unhallowed
dispensations. But is there more knowledge of the truth among
them? more love of the truth? more love of one another? more
love to the Saviour? more holy concurrence in honouring his law,
his atoning blood. his justifying righteousness, his life-giving Spirit?
Is there more enlightened, spiritual communion of saints, with their
living Head, and with one another? Is there more of what the
Scriptures denominate, all "eating the same spiritual meat, and all
drinking the same spiritual drink?" This is the "unity of the
Spirit" which the Bible describes, and which alone either deserves.
the name, or is adapted really to bind the family of Christ together.
Have the Papists more of this than the Protestants, whom they so
studiously vilify? Let those judge who know what the Papacy is.
This claim, like all their other claims, is founded in falsehood and
deception. There is far more real Bible unity among many bodies
of Protestants, with all their apparent discord, than among the
members of that much larger family, who are for ever boasting that
they exceed all others in Christian unity, because they are all
16
242
CHRISTIAN UNION.
equally related by name to the "man of sin," the "son of perdition,"
who shall be consumed with the breath of the Saviour's mouth, and
destroyed with the brightness of his coming."
4. But we would go one step further. Not only do we believe that
different denominations of Christians would find no real advantage in
uniting, until they shall be drawn and bound together by such a spirit
of love, as will make their union a source of pleasure and edification;
but we are persuaded that, as matters now stand, there are many
advantages resulting both to themselves and to the civil community,
from their remaining in a state of separation from each other. We
hope that in attempting to maintain this position, we shall not be
misunderstood. We consider every schism in the body of Christ
as a sin; and of course, can never commend or rejoice in it, in
itself considered. But is it a new doctrine that the infinitely wise
and Almighty Governor of the world, continually overrules error,
and even atrocious crimes, for good? That what ought never to
have happened, yet, having happened, in the adorable providence
of God, is often so bounded, controlled and disposed of as to
result in much benefit on the whole? Surely the wrath of man
shall praise God, and the remainder of wrath he will restrain.
If man were what he ought to be, it would be a great happi-
ness to the world, if all Europe were one mighty monarchy. For
then there would be one system of laws; one equitable, consistent
mode of treating all mercantile and other sojourners; one uniform
circulating medium over the whole continent. But taking man as
he is, what a misfortune would it be to the world, if one such
great overpowering empire governed that whole quarter of the
globe! What systematic and wide-spread oppression would afflict
the human family! Every other portion of the world would be
held in terror. How the matter actually stood when our supposi-
tion was, many centuries ago, in a considerable degree, realized,
all know who have any acquaintance with history. As it is, there
are many powerful monarchies on that continent, which balance
each other's power; which keep one another in check; and thus
make it the interest of all to be mutually respectful, equitable and
accommodating. It is true, these rival monarchies are often
involved in painful and offensive conflicts. Their pride, their ava-
rice, and their various hateful passions, lead to scenes of strife and
war of the most revolting character. These are highly criminal,
no doubt, and deeply to be deplored. But they are less evils than
the unquestioned and gloomy reign of a giant tyranny, brooding
over a continent; without check or balance; without any one
even to say "what doest thou?”
A similar train of thought may be indulged with respect to the
actual divisions in the Church of God. They ought never to have
happened. They never would have happened had it not been for
the pride, the prejudices, the selfishness, and the ambition of
depraved man. They were sinful in the outset. They are sinful
still. There is more or less sin in their daily continuance. Yet
CHRISTIAN UNION.
243
all this may be so, and it may notwithstanding be certain and
manifest that the Almighty King of Zion is continually bringing
good out of them. They exercise a watch and care over one
another analogous to that which is exercised over each other by
the members of the same church. They superintend, and, to a
considerable extent, influence the movements of each other. They
produce in each other, in various ways, a salutary watchfulness
and emulation. Who does not know that the presence and influ-
ence of Protestants when residing in large numbers, and bearing a
respectable character, within the bosom of communities predomi-
nantly Roman Catholic, have been visible, though not often in con-
verting, yet always in more or less restraining and purifying the
corrupt mass around them? Who can doubt that the Bible is
more studied than it would otherwise be when rival denominations
search its pages day and night to find support for their respective
creeds and claims? Who needs to be told that the amicable
efforts and struggles of different sects to maintain their peculiar
opinions, have served to keep the world awake and active, and to
prevent religious society from sinking into a stagnant and pestife-
rous apathy? There is every reason to believe that the established
Church of Scotland, ever since the rise of the Secession body in
that country, has been materially benefited in various ways by
the zeal, the strictness, and the exemplary piety, which generally
characterized the Seceders. And Dr. John Edwards, a learned
divine of the established Church of England, expressly declares
that "If we would but open our eyes, we should see that we are
beholden to the Dissenters for the continuance of a great part of
our theological principles: for if the High Churchmen had no
checks, they would have brought in Popery before this time by their
overvaluing pomp and ceremony in divine worship. So that if
there had been no Dissenters, the Church of England had been
long since ruined."-Preacher, II., p. 133.
Mr. Van Dyck, after urging union among Christians by the
usual popular topics, which are, on the whole, well exhibited, and
always with pious earnestness and ardour, proceeds to answer
objections. Accordingly, he takes up in order, and attempts to
dispose of the objections against his scheme drawn from six
sources as, "1. That, if the proposed union should take place, the
benefit of emulation would be lost. 2. That it would involve a sacri-
fice of principle to unite with Christians who have not the same
faith. 3. That divers denominations are necessary to preserve the
purity of doctrine. 4. That divers denominations are necessary to
operate to advantage upon all classes of the people. 5. The
danger of uniting church and state. 6. That if sects were abolished,
the Church would soon be again divided." In reply to all these
objections our author writes with unabated fluency, ardour, and
confidence; but in several cases, we must say, by no means to our
satisfaction. Some of these objections, we acknowledge, are not
very formidable in their import; but in regard to others, we are
244
CHRISTIAN UNION.
far from being as sanguine as Mr. Van Dyck, that they can be
easily set aside. For example, what he says on the first objection,
viz., that "if the proposed union of all sects should take place, the
benefit of emulation would be lost," appears to us of little weight.
We are not prepared, with some, to condemn all emulation as cri-
minal. If we do not mistake, the inspired Paul, in more than one
or two places, in his Epistles to the Churches, tries to impel Chris-
tians to increased zeal and diligence in duty by setting before them
what others had done, and expressing reluctance that others should
outdo them in laudable zeal and effort. Emulation, we suppose,
like anger, is lawful or wicked, according to circumstances, and
according to its character. The greater part of the emulation in
our world, we take for granted, is unhallowed and utterly indefen-
sible. And even the greater part of that which exists and operates
among professing Christians, we feel willing to unite in condemn-
ing, as corrupt in its origin, and corrupt in its exercise. But what
then? We ask again, Is it a new thing for sin to be overruled for
good? Can any man who has eyes to see, and ears to hear, doubt
that different denominations of Christians have been impelled to
make efforts, and to accomplish an amount of labour which would
by no means have been attempted, if the presence and efforts of
rival sects had not operated as a continual excitement? Condemn
the motive and welcome. You have, in many cases, a right to do
So. But we are so happy as to live under the government of
Zion's Almighty King, who can bring good out of evil, and light
out of darkness. The inspired apostle seems, as we understand
him, to have felt and argued thus. "Some indeed, says he, preach
Christ, even of envy and strife, and some also of good will. What
then? notwithstanding every way, whether in pretence or in truth,
Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."
Now it is evidently no part of our duty to wish that unhallowed
tempers may be indulged, because infinite wisdom and power can
and does bring good out of them. But if we see plainly, that one
hundred thousand Christians, divided into four parts, will accom-
plish, and are accomplishing, four, if not ten times as much as the
same number would accomplish if externally united, supposing the
united body to have the same amount of real piety with the best
portion of the divided body; we say, if this be manifest, while we
ought to mourn over everything unhallowed both in the separa-
tion and in the exercises of the respective divisions, we may surely
rejoice, as the apostle did, in the general result; and pray for the
gift of the Holy Spirit, that everything inconsistent with the will
of God may be taken out of the way.
But we are, if possible, still less satisfied with the manner in
which our author disposes of the second objection, viz.: "That it
would involve a sacrifice of principle to unite with Christians who
have not the same faith." We are quite ready to concede that
there are doctrinal differences among Christians which ought not
to keep them apart; and that even some doctrinal differences not
CHRISTIAN UNION.
245
destitute of importance, but short of fundamental, are entirely con-
sistent with affectionate ecclesiastical communion. But still, when
we find Mr. Van Dyck, after insisting on this, appearing to find
no further difficulty, and to consider his argument as triumphantly
made out, we must say, that thereat we do greatly marvel. The
consideration of a single case, we think, demolishes all that he has
advanced in support of his theory, and demonstrates that his plan
is not feasible. A pious, conscientious Baptist fully coincides in his
doctrinal belief with a pious, orthodox Presbyterian. They can
listen to the same public instruction with cordial pleasure, and unite
in the same prayers with unmingled fervour of devotion. In regard
to all these things they are one in spirit, and could, without any
sacrifice, be one in name and form. But the Baptist conscien-
tiously believes that no baptism is valid but that which is adminis-
tered to adults, and by immersion. He would be glad to be
united with his Presbyterian brother whom he "loves in the truth,”
and to sit down with him at the same sacramental table. But
he is prevented by a conscientious scruple which he can by no
means dismiss. He verily believes that the Presbyterian is not
a baptized man; and of course, according to his view of truth
and duty, he cannot commune with him. On the other hand,
the Presbyterian has equally serious and immovable scruples.
For although he has no doubt that his Baptist friend is a truly
baptized man, and can, therefore, without hesitation, admit him to
occasional communion at his sacramental table; yet he is deeply
persuaded that the Baptist doctrine and practice by which infants
are shut out from all membership and privileges in the Church of
Christ, are not merely unscriptural, and of course wrong, but
amount to a most serious and mischievous error. He is honestly
convinced not only that the Baptist system in relation to this point
is contrary to Scripture; but also that its native tendency is to
place children, who are the hope of the Church, in a situation less
friendly to the welfare of Zion, and less favourable, by far, to their
own salvation, than that in which they are placed by the Paedo-
baptist system; and that its ultimate influence on the rising gene-
ration, on family religion, and on the growth and purity of the
Church, must be deeply injurious. We ask, what is to be done in
this case? It is evident there can be no compromise here, if the
sincere and solemn convictions of each party be such as we have
supposed. And yet such cases exist in great numbers, at the pre-
sent hour. What would be the consequence if large bodies of
Christian professors, thus differing, were to attempt to unite in a
church-state! Could they commune together? Every one sees
that it would be impossible. The Baptist could not indulge, how-
ever strongly his inclination might plead for it, even in occasional
communion with his Presbyterian friend, without relinquishing a
deeply conscientious conviction, not about a speculative, but a
practical matter. And even the Presbyterian, though not restrained
from occasional communion with his Baptist friend, could not
246
CHRISTIAN UNION.
possibly unite with him in a regular church-state, without aban-
doning principles which he regarded as vitally important to the
interests of the Redeemer's kingdom. Upon the plan of Mr. Van
Dyck, we should be utterly non-plussed by such a difficulty. And
yet we see not but that such difficulties must present themselves at
every turn, in attempting to carry into execution the plan for
which our author so earnestly pleads. But we have not room fur-
ther to pursue the train of his reasoning.
He
When we first heard of the publication and character of the
work before us, we were forcibly reminded of a hero in the same
vocation, who flourished about a hundred and seventy or eighty
years ago; who devoted more than half his life assiduously to the
benevolent enterprise; and whose want of success, we fear, is
destined to be again exemplified in the case of the benevolent
American labouring in the same field. We refer to the celebrated
John Dury, a native of Scotland, who was born about the begin-
ning of the seventeenth century, and who, from 1631 to 1674, was
constantly and laboriously engaged in bringing about a general
pacification and union throughout the Protestant world.
devoted himself to this object with an ardour and a perseverance
altogether without a parallel. He seems to have been an honest,
amiable, pious, and learned man; but by no means remarkable for
the soundness of his judgment. He conceived the plan of uniting
all the Lutherans and Reformed in one great body. For this pur-
pose he laboriously travelled through every Protestant country in
Europe; wrote letters; personally addressed the clergy and the
people of both communions; persuaded, entreated, warned, and,
by every variety of means, exerted himself to terminate the strife
and conflicts of Protestants, and to bring them all together under
one general name and form. He took unwearied pains to engage
in this enterprise, kings, princes, and magistrates, as well as
ecclesiastical dignitaries, and all others whom he could approach.
Archbishop Laud at first approved and recommended his plan ;
but afterwards threw difficulties in his way, intending, it would
appear, to use him only as far and as long as he thought he could
employ him as an instrument for promoting prelacy. Bishop Hall
also, and Bishop Bedell, gave him and his enterprise their counte-
nance and recommendation, in the beginning of his career; but how
long they continued to encourage him is not known. Mr. Dury
was bred a Presbyterian, and received in early life Presbyterian
ordination. He was a member of the Westminster Assembly of
Divines, and signed the Solemn League and Covenant; but was
prevailed upon, on the principle that it might facilitate the attain-
ment of his grand object, to submit to a re-ordination in the Church
of England. He spent more than forty years in this benevolent
enterprise; travelled again and again, with wonderful perse-
verance, throughout Great Britain and Ireland, and from one end
to the other of the continent of Europe; consulted Universi-
ties, and when their answers were favourable, communicated
CHRISTIAN UNION.
247
them to the public. He published himself more than twenty books;
some in Latin, for circulation throughout the Continent, and
others in English. After making, for many years, the union
of all the Reformed and the Lutheran Churches his professed
object, he extended his views, and seemed to think the union
of all professing Christians practicable! He alleged, and en-
deavoured to convince those whom he addressed, that all who
could agree to receive the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and
the Ten Commandments, ought to be united in one family. And
finally, appearing to adopt the opinion that all religion consisted in
certain mystical feelings which might be found in connexion with
almost any and every form of doctrinal belief, he seemed to con-
sider scarcely any diversity of opinion as a sufficient ground for
separation.
It is scarcely necessary to say that Mr. Dury, in this enthusiasm
of liberality, found few enlightened and respectable adherents.
The majority of those who favoured his plan belonged to the
Reformed Churches. The great mass of the Lutheran body
opposed him throughout, and many of them with warmth and even
violence. John Matthiae and George Calixtus were almost the
only conspicuous Lutheran divines who fell in with his plan, and
appeared as his advocates. On the whole, there can be no doubt
that Dury's enterprise rather increased alienation than promoted
unity. He wore out his days in unprofitable toil; bore rebuffs,
insults and multiplied troubles with wonderful patience, until he
finally died in obscurity and poverty, neglected by those who had
once encouraged him to go forward in the prosecution of his uto-
pian scheme. Nor was this all. The influence of what was done
on the Lutheran Church was peculiarly unhappy. The publica-
tions of Matthiae, under the title of the Olive Branch, were pub-
licly condemned as pestiferous, and by a royal edict excluded from
Sweden, in which kingdom the author lived. And with regard to
Calixtus, while he endeavoured, as Mosheim remarks, to free the
Church from all sects, he was considered by great numbers of his
brethren as being the father of a new sect, that of the Syncretists;
a sect which was considered as pursuing peace and union at the
expense of divine truth. He became instrumental in throwing the
whole Lutheran body into a most unhappy commotion, which was
a long time in passing away.
Before taking leave of this work, we cannot forbear to speak of
another review of it published in the month of September last, in
a contemporary and highly respected periodical,* from the pen of
the Right Rev. B. B. Smith, Episcopal Bishop of Kentucky.†
*The Literary and Theological Review, conducted by the Rev. Leonard Woods,
Junior.
We are aware that commenting on an anonymous review might be considered as
unusual, and of questionable delicacy. But in the present case, as the writer gives
his name to the public, we suppose there is no more impropriety in referring to it,
than in animadverting on any other publication made under the author's name.
248
CHRISTIAN UNION.
Before reading the article we felt some curiosity to see how a gen-
tleman, once somewhat known as a low-churchman, but since
advanced to the prelacy, would speak of a work by a pious Dutch
Presbyterian, pleading for the union of all Christians. We had
not read far, however, before we perceived that the scope and evi-
dent purpose of the whole, though ostensibly liberal, and conducted
throughout with great respectfulness and delicacy, is as purely
sectarian as possible; and contains, though not in so many words,
yet in spirit, a kind invitation of the whole world into the Episcopal
Church. On the character of this article we take the freedom to
make a few remarks, not in the polemical spirit, but that the imper-
fectly disclosed purpose of Bishop Smith may be distinctly under-
stood; and especially as the periodical work which contains it cir-
culates extensively among Presbyterians.
1. Our first remark in relation to the article in question is, that
one of the most striking ecclesiastical incongruities we can think
of is to find a thorough-going "high-churchman" speaking with
complacency, and with raised expectation, of Christian union.
By high-churchmen every one will understand us to mean those
members of the Episcopal Church who make high and exclusive
claims in favour of their own sect; who maintain confidently that
the power of ordination to the gospel ministry is confined to pre-
latical bishops; that ministers not ordained by them have no valid
commission, and of course no right to administer gospel ordi-
nances; and that, out of the Episcopal denomination, there can be
no lawful ministers; no valid sacraments; in fact, no church, but
all out of the appointed way of salvation, and given over to the
"uncovenanted mercy" of God. That this doctrine is really held
by considerable numbers, both of the clergy and laity of that
denomination, will appear from the following distinct avowal, found
in a manual extensively used and admired among American Epis-
copalians.
"The Judge of all the earth will indeed do right. The grace of God quickens
and animates all the degenerate children of Adam. The mercy of the Saviour
is co-extensive with the ruin into which sin has plunged mankind. And, 'in
every nation, he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of
him.' But where the gospel is proclaimed, communion with the Church by the
participation of its ordinances, at the hands of its duly authorized priesthood, is
the indispensable condition of salvation. Separation from the prescribed govern-
ment, and regular priesthood of the Church, when it proceeds from involuntary
and unavoidable ignorance or error, we have reason to trust, will not intercept
from the humble, the penitent and obedient, the blessings of God's favour. But
when we humbly submit to that priesthood which Christ and his apostles consti-
tuted; when, in the lively exercise of penitence and faith, we partake of the ordi-
nances administered by them, we maintain our communion with that Church
which the Redeemer purifies by his blood, which he quickens by his Spirit, and
whose faithful members he will finally crown with the most exalted glories of his
heavenly kingdom. The important truth which the universal Church has uni-
formly maintained, that, to experience the full and exalted efficacy of the sacra-
ments, we must receive them from a valid authority, is not inconsistent with that
charity which extends mercy to all who labour under involuntary error.
But
great is the guilt and imminent the danger of those who, professing the means of
CHRISTIAN UNION.
249
arriving at the knowledge of the truth, negligently or wilfully continue in a state
of separation from the authorized ministry of the Church, and partake of ordi-
nances administered by an irregular and invalid authority. Wilfully rending the
peace and unity of the Church, by separating from the ministrations of its author-
ized priesthood; obstinately contemning the means which God, in his sovereign
pleasure, hath prescribed for their salvation, they are guilty of rebellion against
their Almighty Lawgiver and Judge; they expose themselves to the awful dis-
pleasure of that Almighty Jehovah, who will not permit his institutions to be con-
ternned, or his authority violated with impunity."*"
In plain English, the scope of these and similar passages in
writings of acknowledged authority in that denomination, is, that
the Episcopal "priesthood" is the only authorized ministry—
that their sacraments are the only valid sacraments—that those
who are out of the Episcopal body are no part of the Christian
Church; that they have no hope founded on "covenanted mercy;"
but however penitent, humble, and deeply spiritual they may be,
the fact that they are not in communion with the Episcopal
Church, proves that they are "aliens from the commonwealth of
Israel, and strangers to the covenant of promise."
In full accordance with this representation, Mr. Grant, the Epis-
copal high-church historian of England, does not scruple to avow
the doctrine which has been stated, in all its length and breadth.
"This opinion," says he, "supposes a charm, a secret virtue, by
which to state an extreme case-a vicious minister of the Church
of England can confer something necessary to salvation, as a sacra-
ment is; while the same office performed by a pious sectary, who
has in his heart devoted himself to God, is an absolute nullity:
After stating the case in this strong and unequivocal manner, he
does not hesitate to declare that, in his opinion, the fact is really
So. Truth is sacred and immutable," says he, "and must be
received, whatever inconvenience may attend its reception."†
66
66
There are, indeed, some high-churchmen whose mode of stating
their opinions in reference to this subject, is somewhat less offen-
sive in terms. They do not undertake decisively to exclude all
others but themselves and the Romanists from the "covenanted
mercies of God;" but they refuse to acknowledge any others.
Their language is,
we know that we are right, and on safe
ground; but we do not know that others are. We do not posi-
tively deny that they are true churches; but we cannot see our
way clear to recognise them as such." There is still a third por-
tion of the general class of high-churchmen, who, maintaining the
Popish doctrine that lay-baptism is valid, and that any body of
baptized persons may properly be called a church, do not deny the
title of churches to Presbyterian assemblies. But while they con-
cede this on most erroneous ground as we suppose-they deny
Companion for the Altar, by J. H. Hobart, afterwards Bishop Hobart, 1804, p.
202-204.
Grant's History of the Church of England, and the Sects dissenting from her.
Vol. ii., 7, 8.
250
CHRISTIAN UNION.
that these churches have any authorized ministers, and contend
that all the claims and acts of such ministers are usurpation and
rebellion.
These are the opinions to which popular parlance has assigned
the title of high-church. The title is just. They are not only
revolting, but really schismatic in their character. We do not
pretend to know how extensively such opinions are cherished by
the ministers and members of the Episcopal Church in the United
States. We have no doubt that many of the best of both cor-
dially reject them, and cultivate towards other churches a fraternal
spirit. Nor do we intend at present to enter into an inquiry
whether these revolting opinions are correct or not. We, of
course, believe them to be both absurd and unscriptural. But that
is not, at present, the question. The question is, can it be consi-
dered as congruous for a man who holds these opinions to talk or
think of promoting "Christian union;" of holding out the olive
branch, in any intelligible sense, to other denominations, when he
regards them all as out of the way of salvation? Now we
happen to know that Bishop Smith freely states it as his opinion,
that non-episcopal ministers have no commission; no authority
whatever to administer gospel ordinances. His plan of union,
then, is, that all other denominations are at liberty, if they please,
to turn Episcopalians; and that, if they do, he will then, and not
till then, regard them favourably, and acknowledge them as Chris-
tians. This is surely a wonderful sacrifice at the shrine of
"Christian union !" The Papist could say this; and he could say
no more.
2. Our second remark is, that Bishop Smith's views of "Chris-
tian union" are such that he is constrained to regret that the reform-
ers ever separated from the Church of Rome. He is such a wor-
shipper of the form of ecclesiastical communion, without its
power, that he seriously asks, "whether one of the grand mistakes.
of the Reformation was not a separation from the Church, instead
of reformation in the Church ?" As if effort after effort to reform
the Church, without going out of it, had not been actually made.
by one noble-minded man after another, for nearly two hundred
years before that time, without success. As if hundreds of men,
some of them among the best on earth, had not been hurried to the
stake, for daring to whisper a doubt concerning the pure and scrip-
tural character of the dominant Church. As if most of the Reform-
ers had not been violently cast out of the Church, instead of first
departing themselves. Nay, as if when Christ the Lord had been
virtually taken away from the Headship of his Church, there was
any scriptural object to be gained by continued "union" with such.
a body. We have no doubt that Bishop Smith in the multitude of
his yearnings towards what appears to be his idol-the Episcopal
succession-wishes there never had been a severance of connexion
with the Church of Rome. He feels probably a little as Arch-
bishop Laud did, when he said, "I do believe the Church of Rome
CHRISTIAN UNION.
251
to be a true Church. Were she not a true Church, it were hard
with the Church of England, since from her the English bishops
derive their apostolic succession." For our part we think the
Reformers did wisely in "coming out from among the Romanists
and being separate." We cannot doubt that in abandoning the
habitations of gross superstition and idolatry, they took the only
feasible course. Necessity impelled them to it. Duty required it.
The Church of Rome, not the Reformers, was the real schismatic,
since she required the friends of the reformation to obey man rather
than God, or go to the stake or gibbet, or go out from her pale.
In this case we may say of "union" as our blessed Lord does of
the holy Sabbath: Union was made for man, not man for union.
It ought to be sacredly and inviolably maintained as long as it can
be made subservient to the great purpose for which it was appointed;
mutual edification in faith and holiness. But when it becomes an
alliance to corruption, idolatry and misery, it has lost both its pur-
pose and its value. It is, undoubtedly, a sin to sacrifice everything
to the name when the substance is gone.
3. Our third remark on Bishop Smith's Review is, that he seems
to hold a doctrine in regard to the essential nature of the "union"
for which he pleads, in which we can by no means concur with
him. "What sort of union" he asks, "amongst the followers of
Christ should be proposed? Shall they be called upon to unite in
some way or other, as they now stand divided; or are they bound
to agree in one outward form of Christianity? Mr. Van Dyck,
and multitudes with him, appear to entertain no other idea of union
amongst Christians, than an agreement that they shall not bite and
devour one another. For our part we most explicitly avow our
conviction, that every attempt to put a stop to the dissensions and
subdivisions which distract the Church, must for ever prove futile,
until Christians are agreed IN ONE OUTWARD FORM OF CHRISTIANITY.
To talk about union in feeling and spirit, whilst there is disunion in
fact, is about as wise as to exhort those to love one another, between
whom occasion of deadly feud actually exists."
We acknowledge that we do not take exactly this view of the
subject. Conscientious and firm as our persuasion is, that the Pres-
byterian form of government and of worship was the form actually
adopted in the apostolic Church, and which ought to be the univer-
sal form; yet we are very far from thinking the adoption of this
form, or of any other single form, by the different existing denomi-
nations, essential to Christian union in its best sense. We think
"THE UNITY OF THE SPIRIT" the most important part of this whole mat-
ter. We confess, indeed, that we love to see union among the fol-
lowers of Christ complete in all its parts, external as well as inter-
nal. We love to find large communities of Christians all" speaking
the same thing," and walking by the same rule and order. But we
cannot doubt that there may be much love, much of the real precious
communion of saints, where there is considerable diversity of exter-
nal order. We are perfectly persuaded that there was more
252
CHRISTIAN UNION.
scriptural, practical "unity of the spirit in the bond of peace,"
between the Church of England and the Presbyterian Churches of
France, Holland, Germany, Geneva, and Switzerland, in the days
of Bucer, Martyr, Bullinger, Calvin, Cranmer, &c., than there is
at this hour between the different portions of the English establish-
ment. What pious Presbyterian would find the least difficulty in
cherishing the most delightful Christian fellowship with such men
as the late Mr. John Newton, Dr. Scott, and other similar worthies
of the Church of England? He would certainly take more plea-
sure in the conversation and ministry of such men, than in those of
some men belonging to his own nominal communion, of less zeal
and spirituality. We do, indeed, anticipate that when the Mil-
lennium shall open on the world, there will be greater uniformity in
the outward aspect, as well as in the interior of the Church of God,
than has ever yet been seen. But we do not feel quite sure that
the uniformity, with regard to external order, will be perfect and
universal. However this may be, we are perfectly satisfied in
cherishing the assurance that the favoured believers of that
age
will be "of one heart and of one way," in love to the Saviour; in
love to one another; in bearing one another's burdens and infirmi-
ties; and in seeking to promote their common happiness, and to
glorify their common God. We do not believe that a conflict or
a thought will ever arise in the minds of the Christians of that
generation respecting ecclesiastical rank or succession. Let any
one glance at the Apocalyptic delineations of that happy period,
and say whether a single stroke of the pencil of inspiration.
appears to point to matters of that kind. The glory of the
blessed Redeemer, and the affection of his people to him and to
one another, evidently occupy and adorn the whole picture.
4. Again, Bishop Smith asks, "whether effacing the scriptural
and primitive distinctions between clerical and lay officers in the
church, has not, by lessening the respect for the sacred order, and
fostering a spirit of misrule and insubordination, greatly tended to
the multiplication of sects ?" Whatever influence this thing may
have had in affecting either the peace or unity of the Church, we
can think of no sect to which the query more strikingly applies
than to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. We
know of scarcely any other denomination than theirs, in the
ecclesiastical assemblies of which laymen are permitted to sit and
give votes, which may be absolutely controlling, without the least
semblance or plea, even on their own showing, for divine authority
in the case. It is well known that the ruling elders of the Presby-
terian Church occupy a place in all their ecclesiastical assemblies.
But then they are not, strictly speaking, in our estimation, laymen;
that is, we consider them as spiritual officers, appointed by Christ
to bear rule, and therefore just as much authorized to sit and act*
* It is well known that in the early Church, soon after the apostles' days, all
church officers, from the highest to the lowest, were called clergymen, to distinguish
them from the body of the people.
CHRISTIAN UNION.
253
in the place assigned to them, as any minister in the whole church.
But our Episcopal brethren, if we understand their system, intro-
duce into all their assemblies, from the Vestry to the General
Convention, numbers of mere laymen invested with high authority,
and yet in whose behalf they do not pretend to plead any divine
appointment or institution.
We cannot but think, therefore, that it
is with a very ill grace that Bishop Smith singles out this feature
in modern times, as favourable to the multiplication of sects, and
the production of insubordination and disorder in the Church. If
he is deliberately of this opinion, he ought to exert himself to alter,
as soon as possible, the constitution of his own church. But we
have no such apprehension from this source as he appears to enter-
tain. We cannot think of any prominent sect in our land that was
commenced, or even planned, by laymen. No, the clergy-we
repeat it-the clergy have been, in almost all cases, the disturbers
and corrupters of the church; and we verily believe that the
greatest danger is now to be apprehended from them. If the
leaders and guides of all denominations were all deeply imbued
with the humble, charitable, disinterested, and truly benevolent
spirit of their Master, we cannot doubt that the greatest obstacle
to "Christian union" would be taken out of the way.
Yet,
5. We have but one more remark, or rather query, to offer on
the view which Bishop Smith appears to take of the subject.
Assuming that there can be no valuable or effectual unity, without
a concurrence in some one external form of organization; that
this is not only important, but essential; he professes, in one
place, the most entire indifference" in what direction these prin-
ciples may guide him." With us," says he, "it would matter
nothing to which of the existing denominations they would con-
duct; or what modifications they would demand of each."
he evidently, in another place, gives us to understand what denomi-
nation he thinks ought to be adopted, and would be adopted, if
proper principles presided over the choice. At this partiality to
his own sect, we are not surprised; nor should we be disposed to
criminate him for it, had his declaration in its favour been much
more pointed and positive. The leading principle which he sup-
poses ought to regulate the choice of this universal denomination
is that which he quotes from Tertullian-" whatever is first is true;
whatever is more recent is spurious." We accede to the general
principle; and have no more doubt that the most faithful "induc-
tion" of historical, and every other kind of testimony, would show
that Presbyterian doctrine, government and worship was "first,"-
was the truly primitive and apostolic form, than we have that the
same "inductive" testimony would show that in the first century
there were Christian Churches planted in Jerusalem, Antioch,
Rome, and Philippi. On this, however, we shall not insist. We
will suppose for argument's sake that the Episcopal form of Church
order were universally adopted in our country in all its parts; that
all the denominations in the United States were prevailed upon,
254
CHRISTIAN UNION.
without one perverse "dissenter" interposing his veto, to assume
the name and adopt the government and formularies of that deno-
mination. Suppose this to be done; and suppose the whole body,
when thus united, to bear the very same character, as to piety,
zeal, humility, and diffusive Christian benevolence, which the body
actually distinguished by that denomination now bears. Would
our country be the better for it? Would the interests of "pure
and undefiled religion" be really promoted? Would a greater
amount of evangelical labour be likely to be accomplished? Would
the poor neglected wanderers "in the highways and hedges" be
more likely to be brought in? Would the conversion of the whole
world to God be likely to be more speedily effected? What would
be its probable influence on the civil government of the country;
on the rights of conscience; and on all the privileges of the citi-
zens? Would such a community, judging from all experience, be
wakeful, active and enterprising in its religious character; or sunk
in the torpor and formality which usually characterize those bodies
from which emulation is gone, and where there are none to call in
question the course pursued? We should have no fear as to any
of these points if the "latter day glory" had begun. The univer
sal prevalence of true religion would be the best universal con-
servative. But the supposition is, that all sects were merged in
one, and the whole remaining, in every other respct, just as they
are. Would the country be safe under snch a transformation?
Would religion be safe? Would the interests of the world be
safe? We trow not. If the denomination in question were our
own, we should say, By no means.
Bishop Smith, in sketching the union, which he seems to con-
template, speaks of each denomination giving up something for the
sake of harmony. It may excite a smile in some of our non-
presbyterian readers, when we say, that, in casting about, in our
own minds, what peculiarity Presbyterians might reasonably be
called upon and feel willing to surrender as a tribute to "Christian
union," we felt deeply at a loss to specify a single particular.
There is not, we will confidently affirm, a denomination of Chris-
tians in the United States, or in the world, more free from offen-
sive claims; more ready to unite with all other denominations in
communion or in effort; or having fewer peculiarities to keep us
asunder from our neighbours. We freely acknowledge the church-
character, and the validity of the ministrations of Congregation-
alists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists, Lutherans, and in short,
of all sects who hold the fundamentals of Christianity. We repel
none of them from our communion; and in all our private and
public ministrations we insist, almost exclusively, on the great
duties of "repentance towards God, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,
and holiness of heart and of life," in which all evangelical Protest-
ants profess substantially to agree. Where one sectarian claim or
statement is made in our pulpits, we may safely venture to say
that fifty are made in the pulpits and writings of our Baptist, Epis-
CHRISTIAN UNION.
255
;
copal, and Methodist brethren. What then, in the proposed mutual
concession for the sake of "union," shall we give up? Our exclu-
sive claims? We have none. Our abuse of other denominatiɔns?
We have none. We are everywhere loaded with calumny, but have
never yet engaged in any other warfare than that of the purest self-
defence. Even our most mild and respectful self-defence, we know,
is made matter of accusation and reproach; but be it so. We can-
not surrender this right. Shall we give up our endeavours to main-
tain a learned ministry, which was, for a long time, matter of accu-
sation with more than one sister denomination? We cannot con-
sent to do this. As it is, our ministry has far too little learning; and
those very churches which once reproached us for our requisitions in
regard to this matter are now adopting similar plans, and are follow-
ing close at our heels in the maintenance of the same system. Shall
we consent, for the sake of universal ecclesiastical amalgamation,
to give up all our rules and efforts for maintaining purity of
doctrine? Here again we must demur. We contend only for
that precious system of grace and truth, which all the leading
Reformers, both in Great Britain and on the continent of Europe,
uniformly maintained. In struggling to defend and propagate the
pure doctrines set forth in our venerated Confession, we contend
for no new or doubtful theories. We contend for the same system
of doctrine which was taught by the Cranmers, the Hoopers, the
Latimers, and the Whitgifts, as well as the Luthers, of the six-
teenth century, and for which several of them laid down their
lives. We believe that, important as the government of the Church
may and ought to be considered, the maintenance of pure gospel
truth is a thousand-fold more important; and that to compromise.
its interests out of regard to any question of ecclesiastical order,
would be a high offence against our Master in heaven, and against
all the interests of his kingdom.
We think we do no injustice to any other portion of Protestant
Christendom, when we say, that we are confident no denomination
of Christians exceeds the Presbyterian Church in genuine Christian
liberality, and in a readiness to unite in Christian effort with all
classes of credible professors of Christianity. Our system is abso-
lutely less exclusive, and more pacific than any other in our
country, which admits the importance of truth at all. We are
really almost the only denomination of Christians in the United
States whose views of truth of the Gospel ministry, and of eccle-
siastical order, present no obstacle to our communing and co-
operating with any and every denomination who hold fast the
essentials of true religion. Nor can we hesitate to assert that
the most conspicuous and edifying examples of such union and
co-operation, within the last twenty years, have been actually
presented by the Presbyterian Church. Why, then, it is, that we
are everywhere calumniated as eminently sectarian in our cha-
racter; why the most mild and respectful attempts to defend our
own opinions, and to show to our members our reasons for differing
256
CHRISTIAN UNION.
from sister denominations around us, are stigmatized as violent and
unprovoked attacks; and why these charges happen to be most
clamorously urged by those of our neighbours whose sectarism is
acknowledged on all hands to be the most rampant and exclusive
in the land; are questions, the responsibility of answering which,
we are glad does not lie at our door.
We agree with Bishop Smith in the opinion that the spirit of
sect is more rife and more powerful at this time than it was some
years ago. We think this has grown out of some of the very
measures prematurely and unwisely adopted to produce the diame
trically opposite effect. And we are persuaded that much that is
now written and done, with the intention of promoting union, is
adapted to retard, rather than promote, the great object recom-
mended in the volume before us. We lament that such should be
the case, but we cannot close our eyes against the fact. Were we
to attempt to offer a set of counsels as to the best means of
pro-
moting "Christian union"-we should say " Be much more
engaged in cherishing a spirit of charity and concord, than in
urging different denominations to come together. Let the strain of
preaching be practical, affectionate, and strictly scriptural, rather
than controversial. Be more intent on describing and inculcating
the religion of the heart, than on pleading the cause of a particular
form of external organization and order. Let each denomination
maintain its own peculiar opinions with regard to doctrine and
discipline, meekly and candidly, but with firmness, without com-
promitting a single dictate of conscience. Study to cultivate inter-
course with other denominations, to converse and pray together,
and co-operate in every pious and benevolent enterprise, as far as
may not be forbidden by conscientious peculiarities. Be very sure
that what is made a term of communion be something distinctly
and clearly taught in the word of God. Let none imagine that the
"Christian union," so much sought after, and so truly desirable,
can be reached at once, or by rapid movements; it must be the
work of time, and brought about by gentle means; just as the
gradual change of a nation's character or language is effected by
almost insensible degrees. And, in the meanwhile, it is not wise
to be for ever harping on the duty of "union." All the world
knows that if we wish to produce in any mind strong emotions,
either of love or hatred, the true way to succeed is not to employ
our time in directly exhorting to the exercise of this emotion; but
in presenting such views of the object in question, as are
adapted favourably to excite and impress. No one was ever
induced to love an object by being scolded and reproached for
not loving it. And they are surely the worst enemies to "Chris-
tian union," who, while they declaim against sectarism, and
paint in strong colours the sin and mischief of multiplied reli-
gious denominations, are constantly "compassing sea and land"
to make proselytes to their own sect, and representing all others as
"aliens from the covenant of God."
CHRISTIAN UNION.
257
That our views in relation to this interesting subject may not be
misapprehended, we will close our protracted remarks by the fol-
lowing brief summary of the conclusions in relation to it, to which
we have come, and which we regard as most scriptural, rational
and safe.
1. All who profess the true religion in its essential characteristics,
belong to the visible Church catholic, notwithstanding the diversity
of forms and names by which they are externally separated; and
ought to be so regarded by all who believe that Christ is one, and
his religion one.
Of course,
2. Entire concurrence in the same outward form of Christianity
is not essential to Christian union, or to the real communion of
saints.
3. Yet everything that tends to divide the body of Christ, or to
interfere with entire harmony among the members of his body, is
sinful and ought to be avoided.
4. The day is coming, and is probably not far distant, when all
the professing people of God will be so united, if not in every point
of external form, yet in spirit, in cordial affection, as to feel that
they are "one body in Christ, and every one members one of
another."
5. The mere quiet, formal coalition of all sects into one body,
and under one name, would not be "Christian union."
6. We cannot look for the consummation of this desirable out-
ward union, nor even reasonably wish it to take place, unless and
until the spirit of sectarism shall be previously slain, and the spirit
of universal charity shall become triumphant in every part of the
Church. Were the union contemplated to come before the esta-
blishment of this, it could not live, much less diffuse its appropri-
ate blessings. Therefore,
7. All attempts to break down the barriers which now divide
professing Christians into different denominations, anterior to the
pouring out upon them the spirit of love, will be of little or no
efficacy in promoting the great object contemplated; perhaps may
even retard its approach. A community of goods once existed in
the Christian Church, and may possibly exist again, when the
spirit of pure and fervent love shall pervade the Church; but if a
proposal were made to restore that community now, when the pre-
vailing spirit of Christendom is so remote from it, it would be con-
sidered as doing discredit, rather than honour, to the cause and
the proposer.
8. Those denominations of Christians which stand aloof from
other Christian Churches, or which refuse, on grounds not sup-
ported by the word of God, to commune with them, are chargeable
with schism. The dominant powers in the Church of England, in
ejecting two thousand of the very best ministers of that Church in
1662, because they refused to conform to unscriptural ceremonies,
were the real schismatics, and not the ejected ministers themselves.
Mr. Locke pronounces that event " fatal to the Church and religion
17
258
CHRISTIAN UNION.
of England, in throwing out a very great number of worthy,
learned, pious and orthodox divines."*
9. The volume before us has appeared a number of years too
soon for the prompt adoption of its principles. We are not yet
prepared for the "abolition of sects." When this precious bless-
ing shall be vouchsafed to the Church, we have no expectation that
it will be brought about by some great man, by discovering the
causes of the opposite evil, and proposing some new and wonder-
ful remedy. It will be the result of the same power, which, when
the disciples were tossed on the heaving sea, and filled with fear,
said to the raging winds and waves, "Peace, be still;" and there
was a great calm. There will probably, however, be no miracle
in the common sense of that word; but the same gracious agency
which blesses the Church now, given in a much larger measure.
Before the Christian community can be ready for a movement of this
kind, the Holy Spirit of sanctification and love must be poured out
upon churches to an extent, and with a power, hitherto unknown
since the day of Pentecost. The spirit of those who are constantly
"scrambling for proselytes;" who are far more anxious to convert
men to their own denomination, than to the knowledge and love of
holiness; and especially the spirit of those who "HATE THE GOS-
PEL, while they LOVE THE CHURCH," must be brought to yield to the
genuine spirit of Christian charity. The miseries of a perishing
world must bear with a hundred-fold more weight than they now
do on the hearts of Christians; and they must feel, with a force
and tenderness of which they at present know little, their supreme.
obligation to send the simple, pure gospel to every creature.
They must be absorbed in the great work of converting the world
to God. Then, and not till then, will sectarism gradually expire.
Then, and not till then, will the exclamation of the early ages be
renewed, BEHOLD HOW THESE CHRISTIANS LOVE ONE ANOTHER !"
The Lord hasten in his time a consummation so devoutly to be
wished! Every Christian heart will say-Amen!
66
* Letter from a Person of Quality. Works, vol. ix., p. 202.
ESSAY IX.
THE DIVISION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN
CHURCH.*
THE measures adopted by the last General Assembly have now
been the subject of constant discussion for more than nine months.
The press has teemed with arguments both for and against their
validity and justice. Almost all our inferior judicatories have
subjected them to a rigid examination, and pronounced an opinion
either in their justification or condemnation. It may therefore be
taken for granted, that the minds of all interested in the matter
are by this time finally settled on the one side or the other. We
are not about to re-open the subject, or to traverse anew the
ground passed over in our number for July last. Since that time,
however, events have occurred which have an important bearing
on the prospects of our church and the duty of its members. To
some of these it is our purpose to call the attention of our readers.
It must constantly be borne in mind that according to the repeated
declaration of the General Assembly, the object of the acts com-
plained of, was the separation of Congregationalism from the Pres-
byterian Church. For this purpose they abrogated the Plan of
Union, and declared that no judicatory composed, agreeably to
that plan, partly of Congregationalists and partly of Presbyterians,
can have a constitutional standing in the Presbyterian church. As
Congregationalism was known to prevail extensively in four of our
synods, the Assembly applied the above principle to them, and
declared that they could not, as at present organized, be any longer
regarded as belonging to our church. Several other synods, within
whose bounds there was more or less of this irregularity, were
directed to correct the evil as far as it was found to exist, so that
all the churches connected with the General Assembly should be
Originally published in 1838, in review of the following works: 1. “Facts and
Observations concerning the organization and state of the Churches in the three
Synods of Western New York, and the Synod of the Western Reserve." By James
Wood.
2. "Legal Opinions respecting the Validity of certain Acts of the General
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church." By Messrs. Wood, Hopkins, and Kent,
1
260
THE DIVISION OF
organized agreeably to the provisions of the constitution. Such
ministers and churches, within the bounds of the excluded synods,
as were strictly Presbyterian in doctrine and order, and should
wish to unite themselves with our church, were directed to apply
to those presbyteries most convenient to their respective locations.
And in case there were any regular presbyteries thus situated, they
were directed to make application to the next General Assembly.*
It is obvious that there were three courses open to those affected
by these measures. The first was to submit to them. This
course was adopted by the synod of New Jersey. In obedience
to the requisition of the General Assembly, they directed
the only presbytery within their bounds embracing Congrega-
tional churches" to take order as soon as it can conveniently be
done, to bring all churches within its bounds to an entire con-
formity with our standards, and to inform such churches that they
can retain their present connexion with the presbytery on no other
terms." "In giving," it is said, "the foregoing direction to the
presbytery of Montrose, the synod have no desire to interfere with
the friendly relations hitherto existing between the presbytery and
the Congregational churches under its care, further than to
separate them from their present connexion, so that they shall not
be considered a constituent part of the said presbytery, nor be
entitled to a vote or representation in it." These resolutions were,
as we understand, adopted unanimously; having received the
support of some of those who, on the floor of the General Assem-
bly, had been most prominent and zealous in resisting the abroga-
tion of the Plan of Union. The same course was open to the
four excluded synods. By separating themselves from their
Congregational and accommodation churches, they could, in
obedience to the General Assembly, apply either as individual
churches or ministers to the most convenient presbytery; or as
presbyteries to the next General Assembly.
* That this is a fair exhibition of the proceedings of the General Assembly is plain
from their own declarations. The Plan of Union is declared to be "an unconstitu-
tional act," and as such it was abrogated. Minutes of the General Assembly, p. 421.
Secondly, it was resolved, "That by the operation of the abrogation of the Plan of
Union of 1901, the synod of the Western Reserve is, and is hereby declared to be, no
longer a part of Presbyterian Church in the United States of America." Thirdly, it
was resolved that in consequence of the abrogation of the Plan of Union, the synods
of Utica, Geneva, and Genesee, "are, and are hereby declared to be, out of the
ecclesiastical connexion of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America."
Minutes, p. 444. Fourthly, the synods of Albany, New Jersey, and Illinois, are
enjoined to correct the "irregularities in church order charged upon their presby-
teries and churches." Min., p. 497. In answer to the Protest of the commissioners
from the presbyteries belonging to the synod of the Western Reserve, the Assembly
say the Assembly of 1801 "had no authority from the constitution to admit officers
from any other denomination of Christians to sit and act in our judicatories; and
therefore no presbytery or synod thus constituted is recognised by the constitution
of our church, and no subsequent General Assembly is bound to recognise them."
"The representatives of these churches, on the accommodation plan, form a consti-
tuent part of these presbyteries as really as the pastors or elders, and this Assembly
can recognise no presbytery thus constituted, as belonging to the Presbyterian church.
The Assembly has extended the operation of the same principle to other synods
which they find similarly constituted." Min., 451.
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
261
This course would indeed require submission to measures which
these brethren regarded as unkind and even unjust; and might for
a time have occasioned many inconveniences. But on the other
hand, it cannot long be regarded either as an injustice or hardship,
that the General Assembly should require that all churches entitled
to representation in our judicatories, and to participation in our
government, should conform to the constitution which they admi-
nister. It was submitted to the option of all the presbyteries
within these synods either to separate from Congregationalism or
from the General Assembly. If they refused to do the former,
they cannot long expect the sympathy of the public, should they be
shut up to the other alternative.
The second course open to these synods, and to those who side
with them, was to act upon the conviction which they avowed
on the floor of the Assembly, that the time had come for an amica-
ble division of the church. It will be recollected that a committee
of ten, five from the majority and five from the minority, was
appointed to effect this object. The committee agreed as to its
expediency, under existing circumstances, and differed only as to
the mode, not the terms of separation. The one party wished it to
be made immediately by the Assembly, the other to have it referred
to the presbyteries. By acting upon their own plan, and requesting
those presbyteries which agreed with them to appoint commis-
sioners to meet and organize as the "General Assembly of the
American Presbyterian Church," the division would have been
effected in their own way. In this manner all contention might
have been avoided, and all questions been amicably adjusted
between the two bodies.
The third method was to assume that the acts in question
were illegal and void, and to determine to proceed as though they
had never been passed. This is the course which has been adopted;
whether wisely or unwisely it is not for us to say. Without
presuming to question either the motives or the wisdom of those
who have advised this course, it may not be out of place to
examine its probable results, and the correctness of some of the
assumptions on which it is publicly defended.
Soon after the rising of the last Assembly, the presbyteries.
particularly interested were called together, and in most instances,
resolved that they would retain their present organization; that
they considered the Plan of Union a sacred compact, and therefore
could not consent to the dissolution of the connexion between them
and the Congregational churches under their care; that they would,
as usual, commission delegates to the next General Assembly, and
instruct them to demand their seats in that body. As far as we know,
not a single presbytery within the four synods has consented to
withdraw from their Congregational churches. Not satisfied with
this separate action of the presbyteries, delegates were appointed
who met in convention at Auburn, August 17, 1837, and resolved
unanimously, that the acts of the General Assembly, disowning the
262
THE DIVISION OF
four synods, "are null and void;" they declared that they consider
the rights accruing to the churches from the Plan of Union to be
inviolable, that "an almost immemorial usage and acquiescence
have committed the original confederated parties by whom the
constitution itself was framed and adopted, to guarantee the validity
of that important pact;" and that these churches "cannot now be
dismembered and disfranchised."* That these brethren had a
perfect right to take this course, no one can doubt. When it was
submitted to their option either to separate from their Congrega-
tional churches, or from the General Assembly, they were certainly
at liberty to make their selection. The question is, whether their
refusal to submit to the abrogation of the Plan of Union is consist-
ent with their continued or renewed connexion with the Presby-
terian church? It certainly cannot be on any other ground than
that the General Assembly had no authority to decree that abroga-
tion, and to order the inferior judicatories to carry it into effect.
This, however, is a position which we are persuaded cannot be
maintained. It is expressly relinquished in the legal opinion given.
by Mr. Wood, and is virtually renounced in that of Chancellor
Kent. These brethren, therefore, have their own lawyers against
them. Besides, there are comparatively few persons, not con-
nected with one or the other of the four synods, who question the
right of the Assembly to abolish the Plan of Union; there are more
who doubt the propriety of the act disowning the synod of the
Western Reserve, and still more who disapprove of that in relation
to the three synods of New York. These brethren, however, can
depend on the co-operation of those only who go the whole length
with them. They have selected the weakest, instead of the
strongest position, at their command. To justify any one to vote
that the commissioners from these synods should take their seats
in the next Assembly, it is not enough that he should disapprove of
the acts by which they were disowned, he must deny the right of
the Assembly to decide that Congregationalists shall no longer sit
and act in our judicatories, or be represented in our General
Assembly. The whole controversy is made to hinge on this one
point. The entire synod of New Jersey has committed itself as to
this matter, by acting in obedience to the command of the Assem-
bly, and requiring the Presbytery of Montrose to carry the abro-
gation of the Plan of Union into effect. Admitting the constitu-
tionality and validity of that abrogation, the synod could not expect
the commissioners from the presbytery of Montrose to be admitted
to their seats in the next Assembly, had the order of the previous
Assembly been disregarded. And we presume that the synods of
Albany and Illinois cannot expect that the delegates from their
mixed presbyteries can be allowed to sit. The Assembly has
declared that "the existence of such presbyteries is recognised
* See Minutes and Address of the Auburn Convention, New York Observer, Octo-
37.
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
263
neither in the former nor the amended constitution of the church,"
and that they can recognise none such. These brethren say they
must recognise them. The controversy is thus narrowed to the
smallest possible limits. Those who think that the Plan of Union
is inviolable, will of course vote for the admission of the delegates
from the mixed presbyteries; but those who think the Assembly
had a right to set it aside, must vote for their exclusion. Here is
a general principle, adopted by the Assembly, applicable not to the
presbyteries of the four synods only, but to all others of a similar
character. Has then the General Assembly a right to say that
they will no longer recognise any presbytery composed partly of
Presbyterians and partly of Congregationalists? This seems to us
a very plain point. Chief Justice Ewing says, an ecclesiastical
body which is not organized in the manner provided and sanctioned
by the constitution of a church, cannot be deemed a constitutional
judicatory of that church.* Our constitution says that "a presby-
tery is a convention of bishops and elders within a certain district;"
these presbyteries are, to a greater or less extent, conventions
of Presbyterian ministers and Congregational laymen. Beyond
doubt, therefore, they are unconstitutionally organized. It has been
attempted to evade this argument by assuming that the Assembly
had a right to set aside the constitution; or that the original error
has been so long acquiesced in, as to be now legally.sanctioned;
or that, admitting the right to repeal the Plan of Union, the
abrogation, though it might prevent the formation of new churches
under its sanction, could not deprive of its benefits those already
formed. The first of these assumptions need not be argued.
For nothing can be plainer than that a body acting under a con-
stitution cannot alter it. A corporation might as well pretend
to change its own charter. The second assumption is much more.
plausible. It is not necessary, however, to argue the question, how
far long continued and general acquiescence can sanction uncon-
stitutional acts. It is enough for our present purpose to show,
that admitting all that can be demanded on this point, does not help
the case.
We may safely grant that the long acquiescence in the
Plan of Union had given it such a sanction, that Congregational
laymen had a legal right to sit and vote in our judicatories, as long
as it continued in force. But how does this prove that they have
the right now it is abrogated? As long ago as 1794, the Assem-
bly formed an agreement with the Association of Connecticut, and
subsequently with those of Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massa-
chusetts, by which the Congregational delegates of these bodies
were allowed to sit and vote in the General Assembly of the Pres-
byterian Church, even in judicial cases. This arrangement was
palpably unconstitutional. And yet during its continuance, the
right of these delegates to vote, sanctioned by silent acquiescence
for ten, twenty, or thirty years, could not, perhaps, on a given
*Halsted's Reports, vol. vii., p. 219.
264
THE DIVISION OF
occasion, be successfully questioned. Now the arrangement is set
aside, have they still this right? May delegates from all these
Associations appear in the next Assembly, and vote on all the great
constitutional questions which may come before it? The supposi-
tion is absurd. And it is no less absurd to maintain that because
Congregationalists had, under the Plan of Union, a right to sit
and vote in our judicatories, therefore they have still the right after
its abrogation.
It is obvious, therefore, these brethren are driven back to the
extreme position that the Plan of Union could not be abrogated,
which they must maintain in the face of common sense and of
their own lawyers; or they must make the scarcely less desperate
assumption, that the effect of the abrogation is only to prevent the
introduction of new Congregational Churches, but cannot affect
our relation to those already connected with us. That is, that the
repeal of a law only forbids its extension, not its continued opera-
tion. The Plan effected a union between us and Congregational-
ists, its abrogation dissolves that union. This is the common
sense view of the case. The Plan says that Christians of another
denomination may sit in our presbyteries, and be represented in all
our church courts; its repeal says that they can do so no longer.
Such is admitted to be the effect of the abrogation of this term of
agreement with the Associations of New England. Such is the
acknowledged operation of the rightful rescinding of any compact
between the different states or churches. If our civil government
had by law allowed the citizens of France or England certain
commercial or political privileges, they might be rightfully enjoyed
as long as the law continued in force, but would necessarily cease
when the law was repealed. Had such citizens for a series of
years been allowed to vote at all our elections, could they continue
to claim the right when the law giving them the privilege was
repealed? Admitting the right to repeal, there can be no question
as to its operation.
We maintain, therefore, that if it be conceded that the General
Assembly had the constitutional authority to abrogate the Plan of
Union, everything is conceded. If the Assembly had a right to
say they will no longer recognise presbyters composed partly of
Presbyterians and partly of Congregationalists, then the whole
case is decided; for it all turns on this one point. All that the
Assembly did is included in that one declaration. They knew
that all the presbyteries of the Western Reserve were thus organ-
ized, and they therefore said they could not any longer regard
them as connected with the Presbyterian Church. They thought
they had sufficient evidence that such was the fact also with regard
to the presbyteries of the three synods in New York; and they
therefore made the same declaration with regard to them. In case,
however, there was a mistake in any instance as to this point, it
was ordered that any presbytery that could make it appear that
its organization was purely Presbyterian, should so report itself to
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
265
the next General Assembly. If the Presbyterians within these
synods, chose to separate themselves from Congregationalists,
they would place themselves out of the scope of the above men-
tioned declaration, and no obstacle was placed in the way of their
being recognised.* The whole question therefore is, whether this
declaration of the General Assembly, with regard to mixed presby-
teries, is constitutional and valid? Can it be that such lawyers as
Mr. Wood and Chancellor Kent have pronounced it to be "illegal
and void" that the General Assembly is bound, to the end of
time, to allow Congregationalists to sit in our judicatories, to
decide on the standing of our ministers, to form and administer
our laws, pronounce authoritatively on our doctrines, while they
themselves neither adopt our Confession of Faith, nor submit to
our form of government? We can scarcely believe this to be
possible. We are prepared to show, not that these distinguished
gentlemen are bad lawyers, but that a false issue has been pre-
sented to them, and that they have consequently given an opinion
which has no relation to the real point in debate. We think it can
be made to appear, that admitting every one of the legal princi-
ples on which their opinion rests, the true point at issue is left
untouched. The error is not in the law, but in the facts. We are
not, therefore, about to enter the lists with these gentlemen as law-
yers, but to show that their clients did not put them in possession
of the real state of the case. It is no presumption on our part to
claim to be better acquainted with the constitution of the Presby-
terian church, and with the acts of the General Assembly, than the
distinguished gentlemen above mentioned.
As far as we can discover, the opinions of Mr. Wood and Chan-
cellor Kent† rest on the following principles and assumptions. 1.
That the Plan of Union was not of the nature of a contract per-
petually binding. 2. That the General Assembly had authority to
form that plan. 3. That long-continued usage and general acqui-
escence forbid its constitutionality being now called into question.
4. That the revision of the constitution, in 1821, after the forma-
tion of the plan, was sufficient to sanction it; no objection having
then been made to it. 5. That the abrogation of the Plan of 1801
could not affect that of 1808, and the churches formed under it.
6. That the acts relating to the four synods were of the nature of
a judicial process. 7. That previous notice and opportunity of
being heard are essential to the validity of any such process. 8.
*The General Assembly say, "The Assembly has made provision for the organi-
zation into presbyteries and annexation to this body of all the ministers and churches
who are thoroughly Presbyterian."-P. 452.
† We do not make any particular reference to the opinion of Mr. Hopkins, for he
expressly waves the great point at issue, viz., "the constitutional right of repealing
the Plan of Union of 1801." However clear and just may be the legal principles
which he advances, they do not, except so far as they are identical with those con-
tained in the opinions of the other gentlemen, appear to us to have any bearing on
the case.
266
THE DIVISION OF
That the repeal of a law cannot annul or impair acts rightfully
done under its authority.
1. As to the first of these points, Mr. Wood is very explicit.
He the Plan of Union was not a compact,
says
(4 so as to render
it obligatory on the General Assembly to carry into effect the mea-
sure, or TO CONTINUE ITS OPERATION ANY LONGER THAN THEY SHOULD
DEEM PROPER. It was a measure originating with and belonging
exclusively to the General Assembly." This is no doubt true.
This concession is all that need be asked. The Assembly has
done nothing more than is here admitted to be within their power.
They have put an end to the operation of the Plan in question.
On this point Chancellor Kent is not so explicit, and, we must take
leave to say, is not quite consistent with himself. He, however,
says expressly: "I am by no means of the opinion that the Pres-
byterian churches were to be always bound by such agreements,
when they are found to be ultimately injurious." This certainly
means that the Presbyterian church was at liberty to set this
agreement aside, when it proved to be injurious. The assent of
the other party, he adds, "could not be decently withheld." At
most, then, there was an error as to courtesy; for no right is vio-
lated in not asking for an assent which the other party had no
right to withhold. The General Assembly, however, agreed with
Mr. Wood, that this was a measure belonging exclusively to them-
selves, and therefore did not think it necessary to make any appli
cation on the subject.
2. These gentlemen think that the formation of this Plan was
within the legitimate authority of the General Assembly. As this
is a point relating to the construction of our own constitution, we
feel at liberty to question the correctness of this opinion. It is on
all hands admitted, that the Assembly has no authority to alter the
constitution in the smallest particular. Does the Plan in question
effect any such alteration? The constitution prescribes one
method in which churches are to be organized and governed, the
Plan prescribes another; the constitution lays down certain essen-
tial qualifications for the members of our judicatories, the Plan
dispenses with them; the constitution grants the right of appeal in
all cases, the Plan denies it. Are not these alterations? We
cannot conceive a plainer point.
3. It is said, however, that long-established usage and general
acquiescence have great effect in determining the rights and
powers of bodies. We admit the principle as thus stated. It
is, however, liable to many limitations. In the first place, it
is applicable only to doubtful cases. "Where the intent of a
statute is plain," say the Supreme Court of the United States,
"nothing is left to construction."* "The constitution fixes
limits to the exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes
* Coxe's Digest of the Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, &c.,
p. 183.
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
267
the orbit in which it must move. Whatever may be the
case in other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt that
every act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is
absolutely void."-P. 167. "The framers of the constitution must
be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and
to have intended what they have said; and in construing the
extent of the powers which it creates, there is no other rule than
to consider the language of the instrument which confers them in
connexion with the purposes for which they were conferred."-P.
177. The rights and liberties of the people could in no country
be preserved, if usage and precedent were allowed to close their
mouths against oppressive and illegal acts. When Charles I.
claimed the right to give to his proclamations the force of law, and
to exact money under the name of benevolences, and without
consent of parliament, he could plead, especially for the former,
the usage of a hundred years. Henry VIII., Elizabeth, James I.
had, over and over, done the same thing. Parliament had been
silent; the people had acquiesced. Had the nation then lost its
rights? Had Magna Charta become, by a contrary usage, a dead
letter? Was Hampden justly condemned for refusing to pay these
exactions? Nine, indeed, out of the twelve judges, decided for usage
against the constitution. But did this alter the matter? Does any
one now think Hampden wrong and the judges right? Under our
own government it is a doubtful point whether congress have a
right to establish a national bank. In this case, the decisions of the
supreme court, the repeated acts of both houses of the legislature,
the long-continued acquiescence of the people, might perhaps be
allowed to settle the matter. But is this the fact? Does the
country feel itself precluded from raising the constitutional objec-
tion? And if, instead of being a doubtful case, it were one of
palpable violation of the constitution, does any one imagine that
the plea of usage and acquiescence would be listened to a moment?
Our General Assembly, though a representative and legislative
body, was long in the habit of inviting any minister, who hap-
pened to be present at its deliberations, to sit and vote as a
corresponding member. No one objected. The thing went on,
year after year, until it became an established usage. At last,
however, when the church was enlarged, it was seen that this
custom operated most unfairly on the distant portions, and was in
fact subversive of the very character of the house as a represent-
ative body. Could usage be pleaded in defence of such a rule,
or against its abrogation? It was in equal violation of the consti-
tution that the Assembly so long allowed the delegates of the New
England Associations to vote in its meetings. For this agreement
long usage might be urged. But does this prove either that the
thing was right, or that the hands of the Presbyterian church were
up so that they must for ever submit to it? John Randolph
said he never could forget that the book of Judges stood just
before the Book of Kings. We do not admit the justice of the
tied
268
THE DIVISION OF
insinuation which he intended to convey by this remark. No
country has less to fear or more to admire in its judges. But we
do believe there is no principle more dangerous to the rights and
liberties of nations and churches, than that usage may be set up
in opposition to express constitutional provisions.
A second limitation is suggested by Chancellor Kent himself,
who says, this assent must be "given understandingly, and with a
full knowledge of the facts." The acquiescence pleaded in behalf
of the Plan of Union was not thus given. As first assented to, it
was regarded as a mere temporary arrangement for a few frontier
churches. It continued to be regarded as such for a long series of
years. The distant portions of the church scarcely ever heard or
thought of it, or had the least idea of the extent to which it had
been carried. When they came to learn that it was the basis of
entire synods containing hundreds of Congregational churches,
they were astonished. This was a state of things of which they
had not the least conception. The churches had no means of
becoming acquainted with these facts. The reports of the western
presbyteries to the General Assembly, the only source of inform-
ation on this subject, do not, except in a few instances, state which
of their churches are Congregational and which are Presbyterian.
Thus in the minutes for last year, there are, we believe, less than
half a dozen churches within the three synods, reported as Congre-
gational, when, as appears from Rev. Mr. Wood's Pamphlet, there
are at least one hundred and seventy-three.* The fidelity, candour
and talent with which this report of Rev. Mr. Wood is prepared,
entitle it to great confidence. He has performed a valuable ser-
vice in spreading the information which it contains before the
public. This is the more important as there seems to be a strong
disinclination, on the part of those concerned, to allow the facts to
be known. The Auburn convention appointed a committee on the
statistics of the three synods, but no detailed report of the result
of their labours, as far as we are informed, has been published.
Seeing, therefore, that the churches generally knew little on this
subject, it would be most unjust to infer acquiescence from igno-
rance. Because the distant presbyteries long assented to here and
there a solitary individual voting as a corresponding member in
the General Assembly, is it believed they would consent, with their
eyes open, to all the neighbouring synods thus voting? In the
present case the churches were ignorant of the facts; they thought
themselves assenting to one thing, which proves to be another.
They thought themselves assenting to a plan for sustaining feeble
churches in "new settlements;" when it turns out to be, in their
estimation, a plan for permanently establishing Congregationalism
in the Presbyterian Church, to the entire subversion of its consti-
tution. The plan, with good intentions no doubt, had been mon-
strously perverted, both by extending and perpetuating it far
* We quote from the second edition as published in the Presbyterian.
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
269
beyond its original intention, and by an open disregard of its most
important provisions. All this was done silently; the churches
knew nothing about it. Can acquiescence, yielded under such cir-
cumstances, be used either in proof of an acknowledgment of the
authority of the Assembly to form the Plan, or in bar of its abro-
gation? The argument from consent is used for both these pur-
poses, though not by Mr. Wood. We are persuaded it is entirely
worthless for either.
4. It is argued that as the constitution was revised and amended
in 1821, and as no objection was then made to the Plan of Union,
it must be regarded as constitutional. Had these gentlemen been
acquainted with the facts in the case, it is hardly possible they
could have advanced this argument. The Plan of Union was
nothing but a series of resolutions on the minutes of the General
Assembly. The revision of the constitution afforded no occasion
to express any opinion on this subject. It was never alluded to.
And we presume there was not a single presbytery in the whole
church that so much as thought of it, when they assented to
amendments proposed to them. It seems to us a monstrous pro-
position that the churches, in assenting to the rule that presbyteries
must consist of ministers and ruling elders, are to be held to have
thereby assented to their being composed of ministers and Con-
gregational laymen. The only use that can be made of the fact
referred to is, to show the church was not sufficiently aware of
the danger of these unions, to lead it to insert an express prohibi-
tion against any such violations of the constitution, on the part of
the General Assembly. This, however, would be so completely a
work of supererogation, that were the constitution to be revised
to-morrow, we do not believe the strictest man in the church would
think it necessary to insert one word on the subject. The silent
revision of the constitution, therefore, affords no argument for the
acknowledgment of the power of the Assembly to form the Plan
of Union, nor for the assent of the churches to that Plan, supposing
it to be a compact.
Mr. Wood uses the fact for the one purpose;
Chancellor Kent for the other.
5. The abrogation of the Plan of Union of 1801, it is said, could
have no effect upon that of 1808, or on the churches received under
it. This has always appeared to us the most extraordinary argu-
ment connected with this whole subject. It is not surprising that
these legal gentlemen, being told that all the Congregational
churches within the three synods came into connexion with us,
under the latter, and not under the former Plan, should say just
what they have said. But it is surprising that the assertion upon
which the argument is founded, should ever have been made.
The Plan of 1808, according to the extracts from the minutes of
the synod of Albany, published in the New York Observer, Sept.
12, 1835, and in the Presbyterian, Sept. 16, 1837, arose out of a
request of the synod of Albany to the General Assembly to sanc-
tion their union and correspondence, upon certain terms, with the
270
THE DIVISION OF
Middle Association, and the Northern Association Presbytery.
To this request the Assembly acceded. The former of these
bodies, according to the report of 1809, embraced twenty-one
churches, the latter, as we understand, about twelve or fifteen.
Here then was permission to receive, on certain conditions, two
definite ecclesiastical bodies, with their thirty-three or thirty-six
churches. Can any one conceive how permission to receive thirty-
six churches can be tortured into a permission to receive two hun-
dred? The number received must indeed far exceed two hundred;
for almost the entire basis of three synods, embracing upwards
of four hundred churches, was the Congregational churches.
of that region.* Yet we are gravely told that all these churches
were received in virtue of the permission to receive the two bodies
just mentioned, with their thirty-six congregations. We do not
understand this; and those who make the assertion are bound to
explain it. What do the Auburn convention mean by saying,
"The WHOLE TERRITORY embracing the three synods of New York
came into connexion with the Presbyterian church, so far as they
were Congregationalists," in virtue of the Plan of 1808. Does
this mean that the Assembly, in consenting to receive two ecclesi-
astical bodies, consented to receive the whole territory covered
by the three synods, and therefore all the churches which then
existed, or have since been formed upon it? If this explanation
is too monstrous to be possible, what does it mean? There is no
clause in the agreement which admits of its indefinite extension
It refers to those two bodies as then constituted, and to no
others. If, then, the Congregational churches within these synods
did not come in under the Plan of 1801, there is not a shadow of
a warrant for the connexion, as it relates to by far the greater por-
tion of them. That plan is the only one which covers the whole
ground. It permitted a union with Congregational churches
wherever found. There is indeed a sense in which this plan does
not reach the case of many, perhaps of most of these churches.
It allowed of a connexion with those congregations only which
were of a mixed character, and which had a standing committee.
as a substitute for a session. In a multitude of cases, however,
churches purely Congregational have been allowed to come in
under its sanction. The stated clerk of the presbytery of Buf
* Dr. Peters said on the floor of the Assembly, that the obligation resulting from
the Plan of Union, " had now been transferred to a body twice, yes, five times as
large as the Association of Connecticut. All these presbyteries and synods were
not only organized on this Plan, but have called our ministers, &c." This was said
in reference to the plan of 1801, when we presume he knew as little of that of 1808
as we did. We refer to the statement merely as an admission of the fact referred to
in the text.
"The Plan of Union being adapted to a state of things where Congregationalists
and Presbyterians were mingled in one congregation, and there being, in fact, in
these churches, no Presbyterians, and none who understood their peculiar discipline,
the churches were not in fact, strictly speaking, admitted on that Plan.
In nine
cases out of ten there were no standing committees, and the only difference between
their then situation and their previous one, was the fact that one of the brethren
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
271
falo says it was "an uniform rule in such cases" to wink at this
irregularity," by considering the whole church the standing com-
mittee."
We think, by the way, that Chancellor Kent would
admit that here was such a "new circumstance" as would justify
the abrogation even of a compact; that an agreement to receive
mixed churches is not an agreement to receive such as are purely
Congregational. The conditions on which this Middle Associa-
tion was received were, 1. That it should assume our name;
though this was not insisted upon. 2. That it should adopt our
standards of doctrine and government. 3. That the congrega-
tions, if they insist upon it, might manage their internal discipline
agreeably to their old method, and that their delegates might sit as
ruling elders. It is doubtful whether these conditions were com-
plied with. Mr. Smith, the stated clerk of the synod of Albany,
says the association acceded to the invitation (which in the first
instance proceeded from themselves), "declining, however, the
terms of adopting the standards." This may indeed be understood
of the internal government of the churches. But if it refers to a
refusal of the ministers to adopt our standards, then the whole thing
is void, and the union never was sanctioned. This Plan then, at
most, was nothing more than the permission to apply that of 1801,
somewhat modified, to two ecclesiastical bodies. That this iso-
lated fact should be made the basis of an obligation to receive all
the Congregational churches in New York, is a perfect absurdity.
Nothing can be plainer than that the General Assembly, in abo-
lishing the Plan of Union, did, according to their own declaration,
state that as the constitution does not recognise presbyteries com-
posed partly of Presbyterians and partly of Congregationalists,
they can no longer recognise them. If this declaration be consti-
tutional and valid, it matters not now where these presbyteries
may be found, whether in Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylva-
nia, Ohio, Illinois, or South Carolina; nor when, nor by what
means they were organized and connected with the Presbyterian
church. All this debate, therefore, about the Plan of 1801 and
that of 1808, as we understand the action of the Assembly, has
nothing to do with the subject.
6. It is assumed that the acts of the General Assembly, relating
to the four synods, were of the nature of a judicial process.
7. That previous notice and opportunity of being heard are
essential to the validity of any such process. These two points
may be considered together. To begin with the latter. The
correctness of the general principle which it states is readily
admitted. There are, however, exceptions to it. The grand
object of a judicial investigation is to arrive at a knowledge of
facts; and the design of the various rules directing how such inves-
occasionally went as a delegate to Presbytery, who was regularly returned in their
minutes as an elder." See the Circular Letter of the Association of Western New
York, N. Y. Evangelist, Nov. 21, 1836. The above statement is made with special
reference to the churches west of the Genesee river.
272
THE DIVISION OF
tigation is to be conducted, is to prevent misapprehension or per-
version of those facts. There may, however, be cases so clear
and notorious as to supersede the necessity of any such investiga-
tion, and to free any court from the obligation to observe those
rules. It is a general principle that no man can be deprived of his
liberty or property but by due process of law. Yet a judge may
send any man to jail without trial, for a contempt committed in
open court. In like manner, were any minister to be guilty of open
profaneness in the presence of his presbytery, he might be sus-
pended or deposed by a simple vote. Or if a presbytery or synod
had publicly and officially rejected the standards of the church,
and avowed heresy, they might be declared out of the church by
a vote of a superior judicatory. In all such cases, however, the
offence must be public and flagrant. We make these remarks, not
because they have any bearing on the present case, but because,
having admitted the principle, it was necessary to state the limit-
ation.
This principle can have nothing to do with the case of the four
synods, except on the assumption that the acts of the Assembly in
relation to them were of a judicial nature. This, however, the
Assembly deny. They state explicitly that they do not intend
"to affect in any way the ministerial standing of any members of
either of the said synods; nor to disturb the pastoral relation in
any church; nor to interfere with the duties or relations of private
Christians in their respective congregations," but simply to declare
in what relation they stand to the Presbyterian church. The
ground of this declaration is not error in doctrine, nor immoralities
in conduct, nor any other judicial offence; it is simply and solely
unconstitutional organization. A General Assembly may assuredly
entertain the question, whether an inferior judicatory is constituted
according to the requirements of our form of government; and a
decision of that question in the negative, is not a judicial decision.
The Assembly first abrogate the Plan of Union, and then say they
consider that abrogation as putting an end to their connexion with
all bodies formed in pursuance of that Plan. This is no more a
judicial process than the severing our connexion with the Reformed.
Dutch church, or the Association of New Hampshire, would be.
The "gross disorders" mentioned in the second resolution, in
relation to the three synods of New York, are not mentioned as the
ground of the declarative act contained in the first resolution, but
merely as an inducement for the immediate decision of the whole
subject. Not one word is said of erroneous doctrine, nor of any
other disorders than those connected with the Plan of Union.*
Assembly simply say that the fact that the Plan has been abused,
greatly increased their desire to put an end to its operation. All
The
*The Assembly say, "Gross disorders which are ascertained to have prevailed in
those synods, it being made clear to us that the Plan of Union itself was never con-
sistently carried into effect by those professing to act under it." The disorders
referred to, therefore, were irregularities connected with that Plan.
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
273
the remarks, therefore, in these legal opinions, about the injustice of
a condemnation founded on vague charges and uncertain rumours,
though true and important, have no relation to the present case.
These synods were not judged on the ground of vague charges,
nor on the evidence of uncertain rumours. They were not judged
at all. The principle that the constitution does not recognise
mixed presbyteries was applied to them; and it was left to their
decision, whether they would continue in this mixed condition and
stay out of the church, or separate from Congregationalism and
come in. They have, it appears, decided for the former.
There are two misapprehensions in Mr. Wood's opinion which
ought to be corrected. He seems to think that the ground of the
decision of the Assembly was the previous, and not the present
condition of these churches and presbyteries. "If a congregation,"
he says, "at present Presbyterian, were originally infidels, that
circumstance would not furnish a reason for cutting them off from
their ecclesiastical connexion." Certainly not. And no church
or presbytery is now cut off, because it once was Congregational.
It is the present mixed character of the ecclesiastical bodies effected
by the action of the Assembly, which was the ground and reason.
of their exclusion.
The second misapprehension is nearly allied to the former, and
runs through the whole opinion. He supposes the declaration of
the Assembly to relate to purely Presbyterian bodies, and to
deprive them of their acknowledged rights. This, however, is not
the fact. No regularly organized church is affected by that decla-
ration except in virtue of its connexion with a mixed presbytery,
and even then, only so far as to require it to seek a new presbyte-
rial connexion. And no regularly organized presbytery is affected
by it, except by being required to make its regularity known. The
Assembly has not assumed the power of cutting off any regular
ecclesiastical body. It has simply said it will no longer recognise
mixed ones. Churches being connected with the Assembly only
through their presbyteries, they can, even when regular, maintain
that connexion in no other way than being connected with a
regular presbytery. If their presbytery be disowned, they must
join another, if they wish to continue the connexion. If a Presby-
terian church, no matter how regular it may be, should put itself
under the care of an Association, or any other body not in con-
nexion with the General Assembly, it would be separated from us.
And by parity of reason, if it continues in connexion with a body
which the Assembly say they can no longer recognise, it forfeits
its rights. But then it is its own act, not that of the Assembly.
8. Finally, it is said the repeal of a law cannot annul or impair
acts rightfully done under its authority. This, too, we cheerfully
admit.
The law, however, must be a constitutional one; other-
wise it is no law; it is a nullity. Our new-school brethren pro-
nounce certain acts of the last Assembly null and void. If so,
would it be right to deprive their commissioners of a seat in the
18
274
THE DIVISION OF
next Assembly, under its authority? They no doubt agree with
us that nothing can be valid which rests upon an unconstitutional
enactment. The principle above stated, however, has no applica-
tion to the present case. The Assembly do not propose to annul
or impair any acts rightfully done, even under the Plan of Union.
No church or presbytery is to be cast off because it was originally
organized under that Plan. The Assembly propose to act on the
simple principle that the repeal of a law puts an end to its author-
ity. It was formerly the law, whether right or wrong, that Con-
gregationalists might sit in our presbyteries and be represented in
the General Assembly. This is the law no longer. Of course
they cannot now thus sit, or be thus represented. This is the
whole case.
It is a case with but one point in it. Has the Gene-
ral Assembly a right to put an end to the Plan of Union? or, is it
bound to the end of time, to allow Congregationalists to be repre-
sented in all our church courts, and to make laws for us, to which
they will not themselves submit? On this point the judgment of
Mr. Wood is clear and explicit. "But supposing," he says, "the
assent of the Association to have been indispensable: when it was
given they had nothing further to do with the Plan. It then became
the measure of the General Assembly alone, to be dropped, or
acted upon, or modified, as they should deem advisable." It is upon
this undoubted right the Assembly have acted. Nor have they gone
beyond it. They have simply declared they will no longer
allow what that Plan freely permitted. If therefore commission-
ers come up as the representatives in whole or in part of Congre-
gational churches, that is, delegated by presbyteries in which those
churches are entitled to a vote, they cannot, consistently with the
abrogation of that Plan, be allowed to take their seats. Should
any one deny the propriety or justice of Presbyterians thus refus
ing to be governed by Christians of another denomination, when
they conscientiously believe their doctrines and discipline are
thereby seriously endangered, he certainly is entitled to his opinion,
but we cannot think it worth while to try to convince him of his
error.
We think we have now redeemed our promise, to show that the
conclusions at which these legal gentlemen have arrived, are
founded on false assumptions as to facts.* All the legal principles
which they advance may be freely admitted, without at all affect-
ing the real question at issue. One of them expressly, the other
virtually, concedes the point on which the whole case depends.
* There cannot be a clearer proof of the ignorance in which these gentlemen were
left of the proceedings of the Assembly than the following remark of Mr. Wood.
'The dissolution of the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia," he says, " is, I think,
subject to the same objection of want of notice and opportunity of defence." This
act of the Assembly is thus placed in the same category with those relating to the
four synods, though it is of an entirely different character. The dissolution of a
presbytery does not disconnect its members with the Presbyterian church. The
erection, division, or dissolution of presbyteries, occurs more or less every year, and
in the regular operation of our system.
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
275
܂܂
They admit that the General Assembly had the right to disconnect.
itself from the trammels of the Plan of Union; to resolve that they
would no longer carry it into effect; that they could not allow
Congregationalists, or their representatives, any longer to take
part in the government of the Presbyterian church. If this is
constitutional, valid, and proper, the case appears to us to be decid-
ed. Every presbytery within the four synods is, more or less, of
a mixed character. Their commissioners, therefore, must appear
as the representatives of Congregationalists as well as of Presby-
terians, and consequently can be entitled to their seats only on the
assumption that the abrogation of the Plan of Union is illegal and
void.
Supposing this first step, marked out in the course proposed by
our new-school brethren, to be decided by the commissioners from
all mixed presbyteries, being refused a seat in the next Assembly,
what is to be the next step? This has not been very clearly
stated. It has, however, been often said, and, if we understand
the meaning of the resolutions of several of their public bodies,
publicly intimated, that it is proposed that these commissioners.
and those who agree with them, should withdraw and organize
themselves as the true General Assembly of the Presbyterian
church in the United States. We do not know that this measure
will be attempted. It is, however, so important, that it may not
be improper to inquire for a moment into its probable results.
There would then be two bodies, each claiming to be the General
Assembly. We are not lawyers enough to say how the point at
issue between them might be brought before a civil tribunal, but
we presume a question as to the ownership of some property
might easily be raised, which should turn on this point. Suppos-
ing this to be done, how would the case stand?
It is on all hands admitted that the only point for the court to
decide, is, to whom the property in controversy belongs. In order
that any claimants should make out their ownership to the pro-
perty of a religious society, or to any part of it, they must make
it appear that they are members of that society. Mr. Wood tells
us, "Though a religious society has an equitable beneficial inte-
rest in property held in trust for them, yet they take it, not in their
individual, but in their social capacity; they take it as members,
and only so long as they have the qualifications of members."*
Again, on p. 54, he says, "An individual having an interest in pro-
perty thus held, has not a vested interest. He is benefited by it
in his social capacity, and when he of himself and others with him,
forming a party, cease to be members, from whatever cause, of
that particular society, they cease to have an interest in the pro-
perty of that society." Governor Williamson, the other counsel
in this case, teaches the same doctrine. "If they withdraw and
* See the Arguments of the Counsel of John Hendrickson, in a case (the Quaker
case) decided in the court of chancery of New Jersey, p. 9.
276
THE DIVISION OF
establish a new society, they cease to be members of the
original society, and they cease to have any claim to the property
when they cease to be members, their claim being merely as mem-
bers, not as individuals." P. 164.
•
and retain
What then is necessary to constitute membership? Being the
majority of the individuals of which the society was composed,
does not decide the point. Suppose the majority of a Protestant
society should become Roman Catholics or Mahommedans, would
they constitute the original society, or continue members of it?
This is a point very plain in itself, and happily one on which the
authorities are very explicit and united. Mr. Wood tells us,
“That when a majority of a church secede
those that
remain, though a minority, constitute the church
the property belonging thereto." "The secession of the majority
of the members would have no other effect than a temporary
absence would have on a meeting which had been regularly sum-
moned." P. 54. "It matters not," says Mr. Williamson, "how
many go, or how many stay; if five remain, or if only one remain,
the trust must remain for the benefit of that one. . Suppose
the majority of the meeting had become Presbyterians, would they
still be the same preparative meeting, or could they take the pro-
perty with them ?" P. 110. "The principle of majority has never
been made the ground of decision in the case of a schism in a
congregation or religious society. Such a principle is not to be
found in our law books or systems of equity." P. 166. If this
point does not depend upon numbers, upon what does it depend?
There are two things necessary to membership in a religious soci-
ety, adherence to its doctrines and submission to its discipline.
This also is very plain. The doctrines of many religious socie-
ties are the same; as, for example, the Reformed Dutch, the Pres-
byterian, the German Reformed. A member of the one is not, on
that account, a member of the other. And though he maintains
the same doctrines, if he disconnect himself from one society and
either joins, or in connexion with others organizes another, his
membership with the former, and all the rights accruing from it,
cease of course. It is hardly necessary to quote authorities for a
truth so obvious. When a certain portion of the Dutch church
withdrew and claimed to be the true Reformed Dutch church, the
case was decided against them on this very ground. They had
separated from the constituted authorities of the church, and
thereby forfeited their membership, though they retained their doc-
trines. "These persons," says Chief Justice Ewing," after they
withdrew, did not continue members of the Reformed Dutch
church simply because they held the same religious faith and
tenets with the members of that ecclesiastical body."*
Where there is in any religious society a regular series of
depending judicatories, as in our case, the session, presbytery, synod
* See Halsted's Reports, vol. vii., p. 214.
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
277
and General Assembly, the question of membership depends on
communion with the supreme judicatory. A session or presbytery,
not in communion with the true General Assembly, is not a session
or presbytery of the Presbyterian Church. In the society of
Friends there are preparative, monthly, quarterly, and yearly
meetings in regular subordination; hence a preparative meeting,
not in connexion with the regular yearly meeting, does not belong
to that society. This was the point on which the great Quaker
case, so often referred to, principally turned. J. H., the treasurer
of the preparative meeting of Chesterfield, had loaned $2000 to
T. S., the interest of which he had received for a series of years.
In 1828, however, a schism occurred in that meeting. One party,
the orthodox, withdrew, the other, being the majority, remained
and appointed S. D. their treasurer. Here then were two trea-
surers, both claiming the right to receive from T. S. the interest
on the loan of $2000. T. S. applies to the Court of Chancery to
compel them to decide their claims, that he might know to whom to
pay the money. The immediate question for the court to decide
was, who was the true treasurer; and this of course depended
on which was the true preparative meeting. To determine this
it was inquired which is in connexion with the yearly meeting
through the intervening links of a regular monthly and quarterly
meeting? It then appeared that there were two bodies claiming
to be the regular yearly meeting, the one meeting in Arch street,
the other in Green street, Philadelphia. The preparative meeting
of Chesterfield, of which J. H. was treasurer, was in connexion
with the former; that of which S. D. was treasurer, was in con-
nexion with the latter. The question now was, which was the
true yearly meeting? the orthodox in Arch street, or the Hicksites
in Green street? On the decision of this question the whole case
depended. It appeared that for more than a hundred years, there
had been a yearly meeting of the society in Philadelphia, con-
tinued by regular appointment. This meeting was held in 1827
at the prescribed time and place, both parties being present and
participating in the business; and when it adjourned, it was appointed
to meet at the same time and place on the following year. Accord-
ingly a body did thus meet in 1828. This was the orthodox meet-
ing. In the meantime, however, the opposite party, dissatisfied with
the proceedings of the meeting of 1827, had appointed a yearly
meeting to be held at a different time and at a different place from
those prescribed at the regular adjournment of the yearly meeting
of 1827. Agreeably to this appointment, a yearly meeting assem-
bled in Green street, claiming to be the ancient yearly meeting of
the society of Friends. Here then were two bodies laying claim
to the same character. As the orthodox meeting in Arch street
met agreeably to adjournment, at the time and place regularly pre-
scribed, the presumption was of course in its favour. Those who
called the other meeting, and its defenders, were obliged to assume
and to attempt to prove, that the regular yearly meeting of 1827
278
THE DIVISION OF
had, by its proceedings, destroyed itself, and therefore that the
meeting assembled by its direction, in 1e28, was not the regular
successor of the ancient yearly meeting of the society. As they
failed in this attempt, judgment was given against them.
In like manner, on the supposition that our new-school brethren
should organize themselves as the General Assembly, to substan-
tiate their claim they must prove that the body from which they
withdrew has forfeited its legal existence. The burden must lie
on them. The presumption of course will be in favour of the
body which shall assemble agreeably to the requisition of the
General Assembly of 1837, and be constituted in the ordinary
manner. This presumption will be greatly strengthened by the
fact, that these brethren must recognise its character, by claiming
their seats in it as the General Assembly. They will be driven
therefore to prove that its refusal to admit them destroys its nature,
so that it ceases to be what it was before that refusal, the General
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the United States. It
matters not where the controversy about property may begin;
whether it be a suit between two sets of trustees of an individual
congregation, or between two men, each claiming to be the trea-
surer of the General Assembly; to this point it must come, and
upon this hinge the case must turn. Is the General Assembly
destroyed by its refusal to acknowledge the rights of the delegates
from mixed presbyteries to take their seats as members? Must it
continue to allow Congregationalists to take part in the govern-
ment of our church, or cease to be the General Assembly?
It appears from what has already been said, that the decision of
this question cannot depend upon the number of delegates who may
choose to withdraw. It matters not whether they are a minority
or majority; if they have a quorum behind, it is the General
Assembly, unless it can be proved to have destroyed itself. As
courts of chancery have the right to protect trusts and to prevent
their abuse or perversion, it is certainly possible for the highest
authority of a church so to act as to forfeit its claim to the pro-
perty of the society which it represents. In order to this, how-
ever, it must openly renounce either the faith or discipline of the
society. Had the yearly meeting of 1827, of which the Hicksites
complained, and from which they separated, declared themselves
Presbyterians or Episcopalians, they could no longer be regarded
as the yearly meeting of the society of Friends. Majorities are
not omnipotent. "They have no power," says Mr. Wood, "to
break up the original landmarks of the institution. They have no
power to divert the property held by them in their social capacity
from the special purpose for which it was bestowed. They could
not turn a Baptist society into a Presbyterian society, or a Quaker
into an Episcopalian society. They could not pervert an institu-
tion and its funds formed for trinitarian purposes, to anti-trinitarian
purposes." P. 53. Mr. Williamson says, " If the superior churches
change their doctrines, the subordinate ones are not bound to
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
279
change theirs. If a part of the head changes its doctrines, and a
part of the subordinate branches change theirs also, then those
who separate and form a new head, will lose their right to the pro-
perty; but if there is no dispute about doctrine, those who sepa-
rate from the head will be considered as seceders, and will lose the
benefit of the property. If the whole head changes its religious
principles, the society which separates from it, and adheres to the
religious principles of the society, will not lose its rights." P. 165.
A case strongly confirming this last position is cited by Mr. Wood,
p. 55. A large part of a congregation left the jurisdiction of one
of the Scotch synods. But they claimed to hold the property on
the ground that they were the true church, inasmuch as they
adhered to the original doctrines of the church, and they alleged
that the synod had departed from those doctrines. The court
below decided in favour of the party who still adhered to the synod.
In the House of Lords where Lord Eldon presided, the court under
his advice decided, that if these allegations of the seceders were
true, they were entitled to the property, notwithstanding their
secession. It being determined. however, that there was no depar-
ture from the faith of the church on the part of the synod, judg-
ment was given against the seceders. We admit, therefore, that
it is possible for the supreme judicatory of the church to take such
a course as to forfeit their character and authority, and to justify
a portion of its members in withdrawing from it as no longer the
supreme judicatory of the church to which they belong. It is obvi-
ous, however, that nothing short of such a dereliction of the
doctrines or order of the church as is a real rejection of its faith or
form of government, can work such a result. It is not pretended
that the Assembly has departed from the doctrines of the Confes-
sion of Faith; the only question therefore can be, whether the rejec-
tion of the delegates from mixed presbyteries is so inconsistent
with our form of government, that the Assembly, which decides on
such a measure, ceases to be the General Assembly of the Presby-
terian church? Nothing short of this will suffice to establish the
claim of the opposite party. "If this new society have separated
from us," says Governor Williamson, "if they have withdrawn;
if they cannot show that the original meeting was dissolved, they
can have no claim to the property." P. 164. It is not enough,
therefore, that the court should disapprove of any particular act of
the Assembly, thinking it uncalled for or severe; they must pro-
nounce that it is a secession from the Presbyterian church; that it
is such a renunciation of its doctrines or discipline as to justify its
being deprived of its legal existence and privileges. As the simple
question is, Which of the conflicting bodies is the General Assem-
bly? the new one cannot be recognised as such, except on the
assumption that the old one is destroyed; destroyed too by the exer-
cise of an undoubted constitutional right, viz. that of judging of the
qualifications of its own members. This right is inherent in every
representative and legislative body, and is essential to its indepen-
280
THE DIVISION OF
66
dence and purity. It is a right, moreover, from the exercise of
which there is no appeal. To whom can an excluded member
of the House of Commons look for redress from its decision
that he is not entitled to a seat? To what court can the repre-
sentatives elect from Mississippi now appeal from what they
regard as an unjust decision of the House of Representatives,
denying them their right as members? What would our religious
liberties be worth, if this privilege were denied to religious bodies?
if they were not allowed to say who do, and who do not conform
to the standards of their church? or if every decision of an
Episcopal convention, or Methodist conference, were liable to be
brought under the review of the secular courts? "While the
law," says Mr. Wood, "protects individuals, it would be short-
sighted indeed if it did not protect religious societies in their social
capacity." They are to be protected in the maintenance of their
doctrines and discipline, and in the preservation of their property.
How," he asks, "are they to be protected in these important
particulars? By guaranteeing to them the power of purgation, of
lopping off dead and useless branches, of clearing out those who
depart essentially from the fundamental doctrines and discipline of
the society." P. 5. That is, by guaranteeing to them the right
of judging of the qualifications of their own members. This right
has ever been respected. "In determining the great question of
secession (and of course of membership) the court," says the same
legal authority," always looks to the highest ecclesiastical tribunal,
which exercises a superintending control over the inferior judica-
tories." P. 56. He refers to a case in New York, in which it
was decided" that the adjudication of the highest ecclesiastical
tribunal upon this matter (the standing and membership of a minis-
ter) was conclusive on the subject." He quotes also from Halsted's
Reports to prove that the dissatisfied party cannot get clear of
such decision "by changing their allegiance." In the case
referred to, Chief Justice Ewing says, that civil courts are bound
to give respect and effect to the constitutional decisions of eccle-
siastical judicatories, "without inquiring into the truth or suffici
ency of the alleged grounds of the sentence." 7 Halsted, p. 220.
"The decision of the church judicatory would not be final, if
we may afterwards examine its merits.
If we ask, as
we doubtless may do, by what warrant individuals exercise the
powers and duties of ministers, elders and deacons (who were the
trustees of the property in controversy), they may answer, by an
election, appointment, or call, the validity of which has been
decided and sustained by the superior judicatory to which the
congregation is subordinate. Such being the fact, ulterior inquiry
on our part is closed, and I think with much propriety and wisdom."
P. 223. There would be no security for church property if this
principle were not admitted. What would be thought of a decision
which should strip Trinity Church of its property for an act
sanctioned as regular and constitutional by all the authorities of
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
281
the Episcopal Church? We have in our own church many men
who are avowed anti-sectarians; who think that the barriers
which separate the different denominations of Christians should be
broken down. It is a possible case, that men of these opinions
should have on some occasion, an accidental majority in the
General Assembly. Suppose they should avail themselves of the
opportunity to enact a Plan of Union, by which, not the favoured
Congregationalist only, but the Episcopalian, the Baptist, and even
the Papist, should be allowed to sit and vote in all our presbyteries.
This would be hailed with delight by many as the commencement
of a new era, as the adoption of "a principle that could stand the
test of the millennium." Would it then be all over with the Pres-
byterian Church? Must its General Assembly forfeit its existence
and be deprived of all its property, should it repeal this Plan, and
refuse to recognise presbyteries thus constituted? We have no
fear that any decision so subversive of established principles, so
destructive of the rights and liberties of ecclesiastical bodies will
ever be made.
We should think the monstrous injustice of any decision which
could answer the purpose of our new-school brethren, must alarm
the conscience of the most obdurate man in the country. Here, in
the event supposed, are two bodies claiming to be the General
Assembly. The one, continued by regular succession, is the repre-
sentative of those by whom almost the whole of the property held
by their trustees has been contributed. The other, the represent-
ative of some three or four hundred Congregational churches, and
of about an equal number of Presbyterian ones, most of which
were originally Congregational. It is proposed to apply for a
decision which shall declare this mixed body the true Presbyterian
Church, and as such entitled to all the property collected and
funded by the other party! And for what reason? Because the
regular Assembly has resolved not to allow Congregationalists to
vote, or to be represented in Presbyterian judicatories. We doubt
not that every good man on the opposite side would rather see
the property at the bottom of the ocean, than that any such deci-
sion should be made.
ESSAY X.
SLAVERY.*
EVERY one must be sensible that a very great change has, within
a few years, been produced in the feelings, if not in the opinions
of the public in relation to slavery. It is not long since the
acknowledgment was frequent at the south, and universal at the
north, that it was a great evil. It was spoken of in the slave-
holding states, as a sad inheritance fixed upon them by the cupidity
of the mother-country in spite of their repeated remonstrances.
The known sentiments of Jefferson were reiterated again and again
in every part of his native state; and some of the strongest
denunciations of this evil, and some of the most ardent aspirations.
for deliverance from it ever uttered in the country, were pro-
nounced, but a few years since, in the legislature of Virginia. A
proposition to call a convention, with the purpose of so amending
the constitution of the state as to admit of the general emancipa-
tion of the slaves, is said to have failed in the legislature of Ken-
tucky by a single vote.† The sentiments of the northern states
had long since been clearly expressed, by the abolition of slavery
within their limits. That the same opinions and the same feelings
continued to prevail among them, may be inferred, not only from
the absence of all evidence to the contrary, but from various
decisive indications of a positive character. In the year 1828 a
resolution was passed by an almost unanimous vote in the legisla-
ture of Pennsylvania, instructing their Senators in Congress to
endeavour to procure the passage of a law abolishing slavery in
the District of Columbia. In 1829 a similar resolution was adopt-
ed by the assembly of New York. In 1828 a petition to this effect
was presented to Congress, signed by one thousand inhabitants of
the District itself; and the House of Representatives instructed
the proper committee, in 1829, to inquire into the expediency of
ning."
Originally published in 1836, in review of " Slavery. By William E. Chan-
It is probable that many reasons combined to make a convention desirable to
those who voted for it. But to get rid of slavery, was said to be one of the most
prominent.
SLAVERY.
283
the measure.*
How altered is the present state of the country!
Instead of lamentations and acknowledgments, we hear from the
south the strongest language of justification. And at the north,
opposition to the proceedings of the anti-slavery societies seems
to be rapidly producing a public feeling in favour of slavery itself.
The freedom of discussion, the liberty of the press, and the
right of assembling for consultation, have in some cases been
assailed, and in others trampled under foot by popular violence.
What has produced this lamentable change? No doubt, many
circumstances have combined in its production. We think, how-
ever, that all impartial observers must acknowledge, that by far
the most prominent cause is the conduct of the abolitionists. They
indeed naturally resist this imputation; and endeavour to show its
injustice by appealing to the fact that their opinions of slavery have
been entertained and expressed by many of the best men of former
days. This appeal, however, is by no means satisfactory. The
evil in question has been produced by no mere expression of
opinion. Had the abolitionists confined themselves to their pro-
fessed object, and endeavoured to effect their purpose by arguments
addressed to the understandings and consciences of their fellow-
citizens, no man could have any reason to complain. Under ordi-
nary circumstances, such arguments as those presented on this
subject in Dr. Wayland's Elements of Moral Science, and in Dr.
Channing's recent publication, would have been received with
respect and kindness in every part of the country. We make this
assertion, because the same sentiments, more offensively, and less
ably urged, have heretofore been thus received.
It is not by argument that the abolitionists have produced the
present unhappy excitement. Argument has not been the charac-
teristic of their publications. Denunciations of slaveholding, as
man-stealing, robbery, piracy, and worse than murder; consequent
vituperation of slaveholders as knowingly guilty of the worst of
crimes; passionate appeals to the feelings of the inhabitants of the
northern states; gross exaggerations of the moral and physical
condition of the slaves, have formed the staple of their addresses
to the public. We do not mean to say that there has been no
calm and Christian discussion of the subject. We mean merely to
state what has, to the best of our knowledge, been the predominant
character of the anti-slavery publications. There is one circum-
stance which renders the error and guilt of this course of conduct
chargeable, in a great measure, on the abolitionists as a body, and
even upon those of their number who have pursued a different
course. We refer to the fact that they have upheld the most
extreme publications, and made common cause with the most
reckless declaimers. The wildest ravings of the Liberator have
been constantly lauded; agents have been commissioned whose
great distinction was a talent for eloquent vituperation; coincidence
of opinion as to the single point of immediate emancipation has
Jay's Inquiry, pp. 157, 161.
284
SLAVERY.
been sufficient to unite men of the most discordant character.
There is in this conduct such a strange want of adaptation
between the means and the end which they profess to have in
view, as to stagger the faith of most persons in the sincerity of
their professions, who do not consider the extremes to which even
good men may be carried, when they allow one subject to take
exclusive possession of their minds. We do not doubt their sin-
cerity; but we marvel at their delusion. They seem to have
been led by the mere impulse of feeling, and a blind imitation of
their predecessors in England, to a course of measures, which,
though rational under one set of circumstances, is the height
of infatuation under another. The English abolitionists addressed
themselves to a community, which, though it owned no slaves,
had the power to abolish slavery, and was therefore responsible
for its continuance. Their object was to rouse that community to
immediate action. For this purpose they addressed themselves
to the feelings of the people; they portrayed in the strongest
colours the misery of the slaves; they dilated on the gratuitous
crime of which England was guilty in perpetuating slavery, and
did all they could to excite the passions of the public. This was the
very course most likely to succeed, and it did succeed. Suppose,
however, that the British parliament had no power over the subject;
that it rested entirely with the colonial Assemblies to decide whether
slavery should be abolished or not. Does any man believe the
abolitionists would have gained their object? Did they in fact
make converts of the planters? Did they even pretend that such
was their design? Every one knows that their conduct pro-
duced a state of almost frantic excitement in the West India
Islands; that so far from the public feeling in England producing
a moral impression upon the planters favourable to the condition
of the slaves, its effect was directly the reverse. It excited them
to drive away the missionaries, to tear down the chapels, to mani-
fest a determination to rivet still more firmly the chains on their
helpless captives, and to resist to the utmost all attempts for their
emancipation or even improvement. All this was natural, though
it was all, under the circumstances, of no avail, except to rouse the
spirit of the mother country, and to endanger the result of the
experiment of emancipation, by exasperating the feelings of the
slaves. Precisely similar has been the result of the efforts of the
American abolitionists as it regarded the slaveholders of America.
They have produced a state of alarming exasperation at the south,
injurious to the slave and dangerous to the country, while they
have failed to enlist the feelings of the north. This failure has
resulted, not so much from diversity of opinion on the abstract
question of slavery, or from want of sympathy among northern
men in the cause of human rights, as from the fact, that the com-
mon sense of the public has been shocked by the incongruity and
folly of hoping to effect the abolition of slavery in one country, by
addressing the people of another. We do not expect to abolish des-
SLAVERY.
285
success.
potism in Russia, by getting up indignation-meetings in New York.
Yet for all the purposes of legislation on this subject, Russia is not
more a foreign country to us than South Carolina. The idea of induc-
ing the southern slaveholder to emancipate his slaves by denuncia-
tion, is about as rational as to expect the sovereigns of Europe to
grant free institutions, by calling them tyrants and robbers. Could
we send our denunciations of despotism among the subjects of those
monarchs, and rouse the people to a sense of their wrongs and a
determination to redress them, there would be some prospect of
But our northern abolitionists disclaim with great ear-
nestness all intention of allowing their appeals to reach the ears
of the slaves. It is therefore not to be wondered at, that the
course pursued by the anti-slavery societies should produce exas-
peration at the south, without conciliating sympathy at the north.
The impolicy of their conduct is so obvious, that men who agree
with them as to all their leading principles, not only stand aloof
from their measures, but unhesitatingly condemn their conduct.
This is the case with Dr. Channing. Although his book was writ-
ten rather to repress the feeling of opposition to these societies,
than to encourage it, yet he fully admits the justice of the principal
charges brought against them. We extract a few passages on this
subject. "The abolitionists have done wrong, I believe; nor is
their wrong to be winked at, because done fanatically, or with
good intentions; for how much mischief may be wrought with
good designs! They have fallen into the common error of enthu-
siasts, that of exaggerating their object, of feeling as if no evil
existed but that which they opposed, and as if no guilt could be
compared with that of countenancing and upholding it. The tone
of their newspapers, as far as I have seen them, has often been
fierce, bitter, and abusive." P. 133. "Another objection to their
movements is, that they have sought to accomplish their object by
a system of agitation; that is, by a system of affiliated societies
gathered, and held together, and extended, by passionate elo-
quence."
"The abolitionists might have formed an association;
but it should have been an elective one. Men of strong princi-
ples, judiciousness, sobriety, should have been carefully sought as
members. Much good might have been accomplished by the co-
operation of such philanthropists. Instead of this, the abolition-
ists sent forth their orators, some of them transported with fiery
zeal to sound the alarm against slavery through the land, to gather
together young and old, pupils from schools, females hardly arrived
at years of discretion, the ignorant, the excitable, the impetuous, and
to organize these into associations for the battle against oppression.
Very unhappily they preached their doctrine to the coloured people,
and collected these into societies. To this mixed and excitable mul-
titude, minute, heart-rending descriptions of slavery were given in the
piercing tones of passion; and slaveholders were held up as mon-
sters of cruelty and crime." P. 136. "The abolitionists often speak
of Luther's vehemence as a model to future reformers. But who,
286
SLAVERY.
that has read history, does not know that Luther's reformation was
accompanied by tremendous miseries and crimes, and that its pro-
gress was soon arrested? and is there not reason to fear, that the
fierce, bitter, persecuting spirit, which he breathed into the work,
not only tarnished its glory, but limited its power? One great
principle which we should lay down as immovably true, is, that if
a good work cannot be carried on by the calm, self-controlled,
benevolent spirit of Christianity, then the time for doing it has not
come. God asks not the aid of our vices. He can overrule them
for good, but they are not the chosen instruments of human hap-
piness." P. 138.
"The adoption of the common system of agita-
tion by the abolitionists has proved signally unsuccessful. From
the beginning it created alarm in the considerate, and strengthened
the sympathies of the free states with the slaveholder. It made
converts of a few individuals, but alienated multitudes. Its influ-
ence at the south has been evil without mixture. It has stirred
up bitter passions and a fierce fanaticism, which have shut
every ear and every heart against its arguments and persuasions.
These effects are the more to be deplored, because the hope of
freedom to the slave lies chiefly in the dispositions of his master.
The abolitionist indeed proposed to convert the slaveholders; and
for this end he approached them with vituperation and exhausted
on them the vocabulary of abuse! And he has reaped as he
sowed." P. 142.
Unmixed good or evil, however, in such a world as ours, is a
very rare thing. Though the course pursued by the abolitionists
has produced a great preponderance of mischief, it may incident-
ally occasion no little good. It has rendered it incumbent on
every man to endeavour to obtain, and, as far as he can, to com-
municate definite opinions and correct principles on the whole
subject. The community are very apt to sink down into indiffe-
rence to a state of things of long continuance, and to content them-
selves with vague impressions as to right and wrong on important
points, when there is no call for immediate action. From this
state the abolitionists have effectually roused the public mind.
The subject of slavery is no longer one on which men are allowed
to be of no mind at all. The question is brought up before all our
public bodies, civil and religious. Almost every ecclesiastical
society has in some way been called to express an opinion on the
subject; and these calls are constantly repeated. Under these
circumstances, it is the duty of all in their appropriate sphere, to
seek for truth, and to utter it in love.
"The first question," says Dr. Channing, "to be proposed by a
rational being, is not what is profitable, but what is right. Duty
must be primary, prominent, most conspicuous, among the objects
of human thought and pursuit. If we cast it down from its supre-
macy, if we inquire first for our interests and then for our duties,
we shall certainly err. We can never see the right clearly and
fully, but by making it our first concern.
Right is the
SLAVERY.
287
supreme good, and includes all other goods. In seeking and
adhering to it, we secure our true and only happiness. All pros-
perity, not founded on it, is built on sand. If human affairs are
controlled, as we believe, by almighty rectitude and impartial
goodness, then to hope for happiness from wrong doing is as insane
as to seek health and prosperity by rebelling against the laws of
nature, by sowing our seed on the ocean, or making poison our
common food. There is but one unfailing good; and that is,
fidelity to the everlasting law written on the heart, and re-written
and republished in God's word.
"Whoever places this faith in the everlasting law of rectitude
must, of course, regard the question of slavery, first and chiefly,
as a moral question. All other considerations will weigh little
with him compared with its moral character and moral influences.
The following remarks, therefore, are designed to aid the reader
in forming a just moral judgment of slavery. Great truths, inalien-
able rights, everlasting duties, these will form the chief subjects
of this discussion. There are times when the assertion of great
principles is the best service a man can render society. The pre-
sent is a moment of bewildering excitement, when men's minds
are stormed and darkened by strong passions and fierce conflicts;
and also a moment of absorbing worldliness, when the moral law
is made to bow to expediency, and its high and strict requirements
are decried or dismissed as metaphysical abstractions, or imprac-
ticable theories. At such a season to utter great principles with-
out passion, and in the spirit of unfeigned and universal good will,
and to engrave them deeply and durably on men's minds, is to do
more for the world than to open mines of wealth, or to frame the
most successful schemes of policy."
No man can refuse assent to these principles. The great ques-
tion, therefore, in relation to slavery is, what is right? What are
the moral principles which should control our opinions and con-
duct in regard to it? Before attempting an answer to this ques-
tion, it is proper to remark, that we recognise no authoritative rule
of truth and duty but the word of God. Plausible as may be the
arguments deduced from general principles to prove a thing to be
true or false, right and wrong, there is almost always room for
doubt and honest diversity of opinion. Clear as we may think the
arguments against despotism, there ever have been thousands of
enlightened and good men, who honestly believe it to be of all
forms of government the best and most acceptable to God. Un-
less we can approach the consciences of men, clothed with some
more imposing authority than that of our own opinions and argu-
ments, we shall gain little permanent influence. Men are too
nearly upon a par as to their powers of reasoning and ability to
discover truth, to make the conclusions of one mind an authorita-
tive rule for others. It is our object, therefore, not to discuss the
subject of slavery upon abstract principles, but to ascertain the
scriptural rule of judgment and conduct in relation to it. We do
288
SLAVERY.
not intend to enter upon any minute or extended examination of
scriptural passages, because all that we wish to assume, as to the
meaning of the word of God, is so generally admitted as to render
the laboured proof of it unnecessary.
It is on all hands acknowledged that at the time of the advent
of Jesus Christ, slavery in its worst forms prevailed over the
whole world. The Saviour found it around him in Judea; the
apostles met with it in Asia, Greece and Italy. How did they
treat it? Not by the denunciation of slave-holding as necessarily
and universally sinful. Not by declaring that all slaveholders
were men-stealers and robbers, and consequently to be excluded
from the church and the kingdom of heaven. Not by insisting on
immediate emancipation. Not by appeals to the passions of men
on the evils of slavery, or by the adoption of a system of univer-
sal agitation. On the contrary, it was by teaching the true nature,
dignity, equality and destiny of men; by inculcating the principles
of justice and love; and by leaving these principles to produce
their legitimate effects in meliorating the condition of all classes
of society. We need not stop to prove that such was the course
pursued by our Saviour and his apostles, because the fact is in
general acknowledged, and various reasons are assigned by the
abolitionists and others, to account for it. The subject is hardly
alluded to by Christ in any of his personal instructions. The
apostles refer to it, not to pronounce upon it as a question of
morals, but to prescribe the relative duties of masters and slaves.
They caution those slaves who have believing or Christian mas-
ters, not to despise them because they were on a perfect religious
equality with them, but to consider the fact that their masters
were their brethren, as an additional reason for obedience. It is
remarkable that there is not even an exhortation to masters to
liberate their slaves, much less is it urged as an imperative and
immediate duty. They are commanded to be kind, merciful and
just; and to remember that they have a Master in heaven. Paul
represents this relation as of comparatively little account. "Let
every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art
thou called being a servant (or slave), care not for it; though,
should the opportunity of freedom be presented, embrace it.
These external relations, however, are of little importance, for
every Christian is a freeman in the highest and best sense of the
word, and at the same time is under the strongest bonds to Christ."
1 Cor. vii., 20-22. It is not worth while to shut our eyes to
these facts. They will remain, whether we refuse to see them
and be instructed by them or not. If we are wiser, better, more
courageous than Christ and his apostles, let us say so; but it will
do no good, under a paroxysm of benevolence, to attempt to tear
the Bible to pieces, or to extort, by violent exegesis, a meaning
foreign to its obvious sense. Whatever inferences may be fairly
deducible from the fact, the fact itself cannot be denied that Christ
and his inspired followers did treat the subject of slavery in the
SLAVERY.
289
manner stated above. This being the case, we ought carefully to
consider their conduct in this respect, and inquire what lessons
that conduct should teach us.
We think no one will deny that the plan adopted by the Saviour
and his immediate followers must be the correct plan, and there-
fore obligatory upon us, unless it can be shown that their circum-
stances were so different from ours, as to make the rule of duty
different in the two cases. The obligation to point out and esta-
blish this difference rests of course upon those who have adopted
a course diametrically the reverse of that which Christ pursued.
They have not acquitted themselves of this obligation. They do
not seem to have felt it necessary to reconcile their conduct with
his; nor does it appear to have occurred to them, that their violent
denunciation of slaveholding and of slaveholders is an indirect
reflection on his wisdom, virtue, or courage. If the present course
of the abolitionists is right, then the course of Christ and the apos-
tles was wrong. For the circumstances of the two cases are, as far
as we can see, in all essential particulars the same. They appeared
as teachers of morality and religion, not as politicians. The same
is the fact with our abolitionists. They found slavery authorized
by the laws of the land.
So do we. They were called upon to
receive into the communion of the Christian Church, both slave-
owners and slaves. So are we. They instructed these different
classes of persons as to their respective duties. So do we. Where
then is the difference between the two cases? If we are right in
insisting that slaveholding is one of the greatest of all sins; that it
should be immediately and universally abandoned as a condition of
church communion, or admission into heaven; how comes it that
Christ and his apostles did not pursue the same course? We see
no way of escape from the conclusion that the conduct of the
modern abolitionists, being directly opposed to that of the authors
of our religion, must be wrong, and ought to be modified or aban-
doned.
An equally obvious deduction from the fact above referred to, is,
that slaveholding is not necessarily sinful. The assumption of the
contrary is the great reason why the modern abolitionists have
adopted their peculiar course. They argue thus: slaveholding is
under all circumstances sinful; it must, therefore, under all circum-
stances, and at all hazards, be immediately abandoned. This rea-
soning is perfectly conclusive. If there is error anywhere, it is in
the premises and not in the deduction. It requires no argument to
show that sin ought to be at once abandoned. Everything, there-
fore, is conceded which the abolitionists need require, when it is
granted that slaveholding is in itself a crime. But how can this
assumption be reconciled with the conduct of Christ and the apos-
tles? Did they shut their eyes to the enormities of a great offence
against God and man? Did they temporize with a heinous evil
because it was common and popular? Did they abstain from even
exhorting masters to emancipate their slaves, though an imperative
19
290
SLAVERY.
duty, from fear of consequences? Did they admit the perpetrators
of the greatest crimes to the Christian communion? Who will
undertake to charge the blessed Redeemer and his inspired follow-
ers with such connivance at sin, and such fellowship with iniquity?
Were drunkards, murderers, liars, and adulterers, thus treated?
Were they passed over without even an exhortation to forsake
their sins? Were they recognised as Christians? It cannot be
that slaveholding belongs to the same category with these crimes;
and to assert the contrary is to assert that Christ is the minister
of sin.
This is a point of so much importance, lying as it does at the
very foundation of the whole subject, that it deserves to be atten-
tively considered. The grand mistake, as we apprehend, of those
who maintain that slaveholding is itself a crime, is, that they do
not discriminate between slaveholding in itself considered, and its
accessories at any particular time or place. Because masters may
treat their slaves unjustly, or governments make oppressive laws
in relation to them, is no more a valid argument against the law-
fulness of slaveholding, than the abuse of parental authority, or the
unjust political laws of certain states, is an argument against the
lawfulness of the parental relation, or of civil government. This
confusion of points so widely distinct, appears to us to run through
almost all the popular publications on slavery, and to vitiate their
arguments. Mr. Jay, for example, quotes the second article of the
constitution of the American Anti-Slavery Society, which declares
that "slaveholding is a heinous crime in the sight of God," and then,
to justify this declaration, makes large citations from the laws of
the several southern States, to show what the system of slavery is
in this country, and concludes by saying, "This is the system
which the American Anti-Slavery Society declares to be sinful,
and ought therefore to be immediately abolished." There is, how-
ever, no necessary connexion between his premises and conclusion.
We may admit all those laws which forbid the instruction of slaves;
which interfere with their marital or parental rights; which sub-
ject them to the insults and oppression of the whites, to be in the
highest degree unjust, without at all admitting that slaveholding
itself is a crime. Slavery may exist without any one of these con-
comitants. In pronouncing on the moral character of an act, it is
obviously necessary to have a clear idea of what it is; yet how few
of those who denounce slavery have any well defined conception
of its nature! They have a confused idea of chains and whips, of
degradation and misery, of ignorance and vice, and to this complex
conception they apply the name slavery, and denounce it as the
aggregate of all moral and physical evil. Do such persons suppose
that slavery as it existed in the family of Abraham, was such as their
imaginations thus picture to themselves? Might not that patri-
arch have had men purchased with his silver, who were well
clothed, well instructed, well compensated for their labour, and in
all respects treated with parental kindness? Neither inadequate
SLAVERY.
291
remuneration, physical discomfort, intellectual ignorance, moral
degradation, is essential to the condition of a slave. Yet if all
these ideas are removed from the commonly received notion of
slavery, how little will remain. All the ideas which necessa-
rily enter into the definition of slavery are deprivation of personal
liberty, obligation of service at the discretion of another, and the
transferable character of the authority and claim of service of
the master.* The manner in which men are brought into this
condition, its continuance, and the means adopted for securing the
authority and claim of masters, are all incidental and variable.
They may be reasonable or unreasonable, just or unjust, at differ-
ent times and places. The question, therefore, which the abolition-
ists have undertaken to decide, is, not whether the laws enacted in
the slaveholding states in relation to this subject are just or not,
but whether slaveholding, in itself considered, is a crime.
confusion of these two points has not only brought the abolitionists
into conflict with the scriptures, but it has, as a necessary conse-
quence, prevented their gaining the confidence of the north, or
power over the conscience of the south. When southern Chris-
tians are told that they are guilty of a heinous crime, worse than
piracy, robbery or murder, because they hold slaves, though
they know that Christ and his apostles never denounced slave-
holding as a crime, never called upon men to renounce it as a
condition of admission into the church, they are shocked and
offended, without being convinced. They are sure that their
accusers cannot be wiser or better than their divine Master, and
their consciences are untouched by denunciations which they know,
if well founded, must affect not them only, but the authors of the
religion of the Bible.
The argument from the conduct of Christ and his immediate
followers seems to us decisive on the point, that slaveholding, in
itself considered, is not a crime. Let us see how this argument
has been answered. In the able "Address to the Presbyterians of
Kentucky, proposing a plan for the instruction and emancipation
of their slaves, by a committee of the synod of Kentucky," there
is a strong and extended argument to prove the sinfulness of slavery
as it exists among us, to which we have little to object. When,
however, the distinguished drafter of that address comes to answer
the objection, "God's word sanctions slavery, and it cannot there-
fore be sinful," he forgets the essential limitation of the proposition
which he had undertaken to establish, and proceeds to prove that
the Bible condemus slaveholding, and not merely the kind or sys-
tem of slavery which prevails in this country. The argument
drawn from the scriptures, he says, needs no elaborate reply. If
the Bible sanctions slavery, it sanctioned the kind of slavery which
then prevailed; the atrocious system which authorized masters to
*
Paley's definition is still more simple: "I define," he says, "slavery to be an
obligation to labour for the benefit of the master, without the contract or consent of
the servant." Moral Philosophy, book iii., ch. 3.
292
SLAVERY.
starve their slaves, to torture them, to beat them, to put them to
death, and to throw them into their fish ponds. And he justly asks,
whether a man could insult the God of heaven worse than by say-
ing he does not disapprove of such a system? Dr. Channing pre-
sents strongly the same view, and says, that an infidel would be
labouring in his vocation in asserting that the Bible does not con-
demn slavery. These gentlemen, however, are far too clear-sighted
not to discover, on a moment's reflection, that they have allowed
their benevolent feelings to blind them to the real point at issue.
No one denies that the Bible condemns all injustice, cruelty, oppres-
sion, and violence. And just so far as the laws then existing author-
ized these crimes the Bible condemned them. But what stronger
argument can be presented to prove that the sacred writers did
not regard slaveholding as in itself sinful, than that while they con-
demn all unjust or unkind treatment (even threatening) on the part
of masters towards their slaves, they did not condemn slavery itself?
While they required the master to treat his slave according to the
law of love, they did not command him to set him free. The
The very
atrocity, therefore, of the system which then prevailed, instead of
weakening the argument, gives it tenfold strength. Then, if ever,
when the institution was so fearfully abused, we might expect to
hear the interpreters of the divine will saying that a system which
leads to such results is the concentrated essence of all crimes, and
must be instantly abandoned on pain of eternal condemnation.
This, however, they did not say, and we cannot now force them to
say it. They treated the subject precisely as they did the cruel
despotism of the Roman emperors. The licentiousness, the injus
tice, the rapine and murders of those wicked men, they condemned
with the full force of divine authority; but the mere extent of
their power, though so liable to abuse, they left unnoticed.
Another answer to the argument in question is, that "The New
Testament does condemn slaveholding, as practised among us, in
the most explicit terms furnished by the language in which the
sacred penmen wrote." This assertion is supported by saying that
God has condemned slavery, because he has specified the parts
which compose it and condemned them, one by one, in the most
ample and unequivocal form.* It is to be remarked that the saving
clause, " slaveholding as it exists among us," is introduced into the
statement, though it seems to be lost sight of in the illustration and
confirmation of it which follow. We readily admit, that if God
does condemn all the parts of which slavery consists, he condemns
slavery itself. But the drafter of the address has made no attempt.
to prove that this is actually done in the sacred scriptures. That
many of the attributes of the system, as established by law in this
country, are condemned, is indeed very plain; but that slavehold-
ing in itself is condemned, has not been and cannot be proved.
The writer, indeed, says, "The Greek language had a word cor-
* Address, &c., p. 20.
SLAVERY.
293
responding exactly, in signification, with our word servant, but it
had none which answered precisely to our term slave. How then
was an apostle writing in Greek, to condemn our slavery? How
can we expect to find in scripture, the words slavery is sinful,'
when the language in which it is written contained no term which
expressed the meaning of our word slavery?" Does the gentleman
mean to say the Greek language could not express the idea that
slaveholding is sinful? Could not the apostles have communicated
the thought that it was the duty of masters to set their slaves free?
Were they obliged from paucity of words to admit slaveholders
into the Church? We have no doubt the writer himself could,
with all ease, pen a declaration in the Greek language void of all
ambiguity, proclaiming freedom to every slave upon earth, and
denouncing the vengeance of heaven upon every man who dared
to hold a fellow creature in bondage. It is not words we care for.
We want evidence that the sacred writers taught that it was
incumbent on every slaveholder, as a matter of duty, to emancipate
his slaves (which no Roman or Greek law forbade), and that his
refusing to do so was a heinous crime in the sight of God. The
Greek language must be poor indeed if it cannot convey such ideas.
Another answer is given by Dr. Channing. "Slavery," he says,
"in the age of the apostle, had so penetrated society, was so
intimately interwoven with it, and the materials of servile war
were so abundant, that a religion, preaching freedom to its victims,
would have armed against itself the whole power of the State?
Of consequence, Paul did not assail it. He satisfied himself with
spreading principles, which, however slowly, could not but work
its destruction." To the same effect, Dr. Wayland says,
"The
gospel was designed, not for one race or one time, but for all men
and for all times. It looked not at the abolition of this form of evil
for that age alone, but for its universal abolition. Hence the
important object of its author was to gain it a lodgment in every
part of the known world; so that, by its universal diffusion among
all classes of society, it might quietly and peacefully modify and
subdue the evil passions of men; and thus, without violence, work
a revolution in the whole mass of mankind. In this manner alone
could its object, a universal moral revolution, be accomplished.
For if it had forbidden the evil without subduing the principle, if it
had proclaimed the unlawfulness of slavery, and taught slaves to
resist the oppression of their masters, it would instantly have
arrayed the two parties in deadly hostility throughout the civilized
world; its announcement would have been the signal of a servile
war; and the very name of the Christian religion would have been
forgotten amidst the agitations of universal bloodshed. The fact,
under these circumstances, that the gospel does not forbid slavery,
affords no reason to suppose that it does not mean to prohibit it,
much less does it afford ground for belief that Jesus Christ intended
to authorize it." 99
* Elements of Moral Science, p. 225.
294
SLAVERY.
Before considering the force of this reasoning, it may be well to
notice one or two important admissions contained in these extracts.
First, then, it is admitted by these distinguished moralists, that the
apostles did not preach a religion proclaiming freedom to slaves;
that Paul did not assail slavery; that the gospel did not proclaim
the unlawfulness of slaveholding; it did not forbid it. This is
going the whole length that we have gone in our statement of
the conduct of Christ and his apostles. Secondly, these writers
admit that the course adopted by the authors of our religion
was the only wise and proper one.
Paul satisfied himself, says
Dr. Channing, with spreading principles, which, however slowly,
could not but work its destruction. Dr. Wayland says, that
if the apostles had pursued the opposite plan of denouncing
slavery as a crime, the Christian religion would have been
ruined: its very name would have been forgotten. Then how
can the course of the modern abolitionists, under circumstances
so nearly similar, or even that of these reverend gentlemen
themselves, be right? Why do not they content themselves with
doing what Christ and his apostles did? Why must they proclaim
the unlawfulness of slavery? Is human nature so much altered,
that a course which would have produced universal bloodshed,
and led to the very destruction of the Christian religion in one age,
is wise and Christian in another?
Let us, however, consider the force of the argument as stated.
above. It amounts to this. Christ and his apostles thought slave-
holding a great crime, but they abstained from saying so for fear
of the consequences. The very statement of the argument, in its
naked form, is its refutation. These holy men did not refrain from
condemning sin from a regard to the consequences. They did
not hesitate to array against the religion which they taught,
the strongest passions of men. Nor did they content themselves
with denouncing the general principles of evil; they condemned
its special manifestations. They did not simply forbid intemperate
sensual indulgence, and leave it to their hearers to decide what
did or what did not come under that name. They declared
that no fornicator, no adulterer, no drunkard, could be admitted into
the kingdom of heaven. They did not hesitate, even, when a little
band, a hundred and twenty souls, to place themselves in direct
and irreconcilable opposition to the whole polity, civil and reli-
gious, of the Jewish state. It will hardly be maintained that
slavery was at that time more intimately interwoven with the
institutions of society, than idolatry was. It entered into the
arrangements of every family; of every city and province, and of
the whole Roman empire. The emperor was the Pontifex Maxi-
mus; every department of the state, civil and military, was
pervaded by it. It was so united with the fabric of the govern-
ment that it could not be removed without effecting a revolution
in all its parts. The apostles knew this. They knew that to
denounce polytheism was to array against them the whole power
SLAVERY.
295
of the state. Their divine Master had distinctly apprised them of
the result. He told them that it would set the father against the
son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daugh-
ter, and the daughter against the mother; and that a man's enemies
should be those of his own household. He said that he came not
to bring peace but a sword, and that such would be the opposition
to his followers, that whosoever killed them, would think he did God
service. Yet in view of these certain consequences the apostles
did denounce idolatry, not merely in principle, but by name. The
result was precisely what Christ had foretold. The Romans,
tolerant of every other religion, bent the whole force of their
wisdom and arms to extirpate Christianity. The scenes of blood-
shed which century after century followed the introduction of the
gospel, did not induce the followers of Christ to keep back or
modify the truth. They adhered to their declaration that idolatry
was a heinous crime. And they were right. We expect similar
conduct of our missionaries. We do not expect them to refrain
from denouncing the institutions of the heathen as sinful, because
they are popular, or intimately interwoven with society. The
Jesuits, who adopted this plan, forfeited the confidence of Chris-
tendom, without making converts of the heathen. It is, therefore,
perfectly evident that the authors of our religion were not with-
held by these considerations, from declaring slavery to be unlawful.
If they did abstain from this declaration, as is admitted, it must
have been because they did not consider it as in itself a crime.
No other solution of their conduct is consistent with their truth or
fidelity.
Another answer to the argument from scripture is given by Dr.
Channing and others. It is said that it proves too much; that it
makes the Bible sanction despotism, even the despotism of Nero.
Our reply to this objection shall be very brief. We have already
pointed out the fallacy of confounding slaveholding itself with the
particular system of slavery prevalent at the time of Christ, and
shown that the recognition of slaveholders as Christians, though
irreconcilable with the assumption that slavery is a heinous crime,
gives no manner of sanction to the atrocious laws and customs
of that age in relation to that subject. Because the apostles
admitted the masters of slaves to the communion of the church,
it would be a strange inference that they would have given
this testimony to the Christian character of the master who
oppressed, starved, or murdered his slaves. Such a master
would have been rejected as an oppressor, or murderer, how-
ever, not as a slaveholder. In like manner, the declaration
that government is an ordinance of God, that magistrates are
to be obeyed within the sphere of their lawful authority;
that resistance to them, when in the exercise of that authority, is
sinful; gives no sanction to the oppression of the Roman emperors,
or to the petty vexations of provincial officers. The argument
urged from scripture in favour of passive submission, is not so
296
SLAVERY.
exactly parallel with the argument for slavery, as Dr. Channing
supposes. They agree in some points, but they differ in others.
The former is founded upon a false interpretation of Rom. xiii.,
1-3; it supposes that passage to mean what it does not mean,
whereas the latter is founded upon the sense which Dr. C. and
other opponents of slavery admit to be the true sense.
This must
be allowed to alter the case materially. Again, the argument for
the lawfulness of slaveholding is not founded on the mere injunc
tion, "Slaves, obey your masters," analogous to the command,
"Let every soul be subject to the higher powers," but on the fact
that the apostles did not condemn slavery; that they did not require
emancipation; and that they recognised slaveholders as Christian
brethren. To make Dr. Channing's argument of any force, it
must be shown that Paul not only enjoined obedience to a despotic
monarch, but that he recognised Nero as a Christian. When this
is done, then we shall admit that our argument is fairly met, and
that it is just as true that he sanctioned the conduct of Nero as that
he acknowledged the lawfulness of slavery.
The two cases, however, are analogous as to one important point.
The fact that Paul enjoins obedience under a despotic government,
is a valid argument to prove, not that he sanctioned the conduct of
the reigning Roman emperor, but that he did not consider the pos-
session of despotic power a crime. The argument of Dr. C. would
be far stronger, and the two cases more exactly parallel, had one
of the emperors become a penitent believer during the apostolic
age, and been admitted to the Christian church by inspired men,
notwithstanding the fact that he retained his office and authority.
But even without this latter decisive circumstance, we acknow-
ledge that the mere holding of despotic power is proved not to be
a crime by the fact that the apostles enjoined obedience to those
who exercised it. Thus far the arguments are analogous; and
they prove that both political despotism and domestic slavery
belong in morals to the adiaphora, to things indifferent. They may
be expedient or inexpedient, right or wrong, according to circum-
stances. Belonging to the same class, they should be treated in
the same way. Neither is it to be denounced as necessarily sinful,
and to be abolished immediately under all circumstances and at all
hazards. Both should be left to the operation of those general
principles of the gospel, which have peacefully meliorated politi-
cal institutions, and destroyed domestic slavery throughout the
greater part of Christendom.
The truth on this subject is so obvious that it sometimes escapes
* It need hardly be remarked that the command to obey magistrates, as given in
Rom. xiii., 1-3, is subject to the limitation stated above. They are to be obeyed as
magistrates; precisely as parents are to be obeyed as parents, husbands as bus-
bands. The command of obedience is expressed as generally, in the last two cases,
as in the first. A magistrate beyond the limits of his lawful authority (whatever that
may be) has, in virtue of this text, no more claim to obedience, than a parent who,
on the strength of the passage, "Children, obey your parents in all things," should
command his son to obey him as a monarch or a pope.
SLAVERY.
297
unconsciously from the lips of the most strenuous abolitionists.
Mr. Birney says, "He would have retained the power and author-
ity of an emperor; yet his oppressions, his cruelties, would have
ceased; the very temper that prompted them would have been
suppressed his power would have been put forth for good
and not for evil."* Here everything is conceded. The pos-
session of despotic power is thus admitted not to be a crime,
even when it extends over millions of men, and subjects their
lives as well as their property and services to the will of an
individual. What becomes then of the arguments and denuncia-
tions of slave-holding, which is despotism on a small scale?
Would Mr. Birney continue in the deliberate practice of a crime
worse than robbery, piracy, or murder? When he penned the
above sentiment, he must have seen that neither by the law of God
nor of reason is it necessarily sinful to sustain the relation of master
over our fellow creatures; that if this unlimited authority be used
for the good of those over whom it extends and for the glory of
God, its possessor may be one of the best and most useful of men.
It is the abuse of this power for base and selfish purposes which
constitutes criminality, and not its simple possession. He may say
that the tendency to abuse absolute power is so great that it ought
never to be confided to the hands of men. This, as a general rule,
is no doubt true, and establishes the inexpediency of all despotic
governments whether for the state or the family. But it leaves
the morality of the question just where it was, and where it was
seen to be, when Mr. Birney said he could with a good conscience
be a Roman emperor, i. e., the master of millions of slaves.
The consideration of the Old Testament economy leads us to the
same conclusion on this subject. It is not denied that slavery was
tolerated among the ancient people of God. Abraham had ser-
vants in his family who were bought with his money," Gen.
xvii., 13. “ Abimelech took sheep and oxen, and men servants,
and maid servants, and gave them unto Abraham." Moses,
finding this institution among the Hebrews and all surrounding
nations, did not abolish it. He enacted laws directing how slaves
were to be treated, on what conditions they were to be liberated,
under what circumstances they might, and might not, be sold; he
recognises the distinction between slaves and hired servants.
(Deut. xv., 18); he speaks of the way by which these bondmen
might be procured; as by war, by purchase, by the right of credit-
orship, by the sentence of a judge, by birth; but not by seizing
on those who were free, an offence punished by death. The fact
that the Mosaic institutions recognised the lawfulness of slavery is
a point too plain to need proof, and is almost universally admitted.
Quoted by Pres. Young, p. 45, of the Address, &c.
On the manner in which slaves were acquired, compare Deut. xx., 14; xxi.,
10, 11; Ex. xxii., 3; Neh. v, 4, 5; Gen. xiv., 14; xv., 3; xvii., 23; Num. xxxi.,
18, 35; Deut xxv., 44, 46.
As to the manner in which they were to be treated, see Lev. xxv., 39-53;
Ex. xx., 10; xxii., 2-S; Deut. xxv., 4-6, &c., &c.
298
SLAVERY.
Our argument from this acknowledged fact is, that if God allowed
slavery to exist, if he directed how slaves might be lawfully
acquired, and how they were to be treated, it is in vain to contend
that slaveholding is a sin, and yet profess reverence for the scrip-
tures. Every one must feel that if perjury, murder, or idolatry,
had been thus authorized, it would bring the Mosaic institutions
into conflict with the eternal principles of morals, and that our
faith in the divine origin of one or the other must be given up.
Dr. Channing says, of this argument also, that it proves too much.
"If usages sanctioned under the Old Testament, and not forbidden
under the New, are right, then our moral code will undergo a sad
deterioration. Polygamy was allowed to the Israelites, was the
practice of the holiest men, and was common and licensed in the
age of the apostles. But the apostles nowhere condemn it, nor
was the renunciation of it made an essential condition of admission
into the Christian Church." To this we answer, that so far as
polygamy and divorce were permitted under the old dispensation,
they were lawful, and became so by that permission; and they
ceased to be lawful when the permission was withdrawn, and a
new law given. That Christ did give a new law on this subject
is abundantly evident.* With regard to divorce, it is as explicit
as language can make it; and with regard to polygamy it is so
plain as to have secured the assent of every portion of the Christian
Church in all ages. The very fact that there has been no diversity
of opinion or practice among Christians with regard to polygamy,
is itself decisive evidence that the will of Christ was clearly reveal-
ed on the subject. The temptation to continue the practice was as
strong, both from the passions of men, and the sanction of prior
ages, as in regard to slavery. Yet we find no traces of the tolera-
tion of polygamy in the Christian Church, though slavery long
continued to prevail. There is no evidence that the apostles
admitted to the fellowship of Christians, those who were guilty of
this infraction of the law of marriage. It is indeed possible that
in cases where the converts had already more than one wife, the
connexion was not broken off. It is evident this must have occa-
sioned great evil. It would lead to the breaking up of families, the
separation of parents and children, as well as husbands and wives.
Under these circumstances the connexion may have been allowed
to continue. It is, however, very doubtful whether even this was
permitted. It is remarkable that among the numerous cases of
*“The words of Christ (Matt. xix., 9) may be construed by an easy implication.
to prohibit polygamy: for if whoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another,
committeth adultery,' he who marrieth another without putting away the first, is no
less guilty of adultery: because the adultery does not consist in the repudiation of
the first wife (for, however unjust and cruel that may be, it is not adultery), but in
entering into a second marriage during the legal existence and obligation of the first.
The several passages in St. Paul's writings, which speak of marriage, always suppose
it to signify the union of one man with one woman."-Paley's Moral Phil., book iii.,
chap. 6.
SLAVERY.
299
conscience connected with marriage, submitted to the apostles,
this never occurs.
Dr. Channing uses language much too strong when he says that
polygamy was common and licensed in the days of the apostles. It
was contrary both to Roman and Grecian laws and usages, until the
most degenerate periods of the history of those nations. It was very
far from being customary among the Jews, though it might have
been allowed. It is probable that it was, therefore, comparatively
extremely rare in the apostolic age. This accounts for the fact that
scarcely any notice is taken of the practice in the New Testament.
Wherever marriage is spoken of it seems to be taken for granted, as
a well understood fact, that it was a contract for life between one
man and one woman; compare Rom. vii., 2, 3; 1 Cor. vii., 1, 2,
39. It is further to be remarked on this subject that marriage is a
positive institution. If God had ordained that every man should
have two or more wives instead of one, polygamy would have
been lawful. But slaveholding is denounced as a malum in se;
as essentially unjust and wicked. This being the case, it could at
no period of the world receive the divine sanction, much less
could it have continued in the Christian Church, under the direc-
tion of inspired men, when there was nothing to prevent its imme-
diate abolition. The answer then of Dr. Channing is unsatisfac-
tory; first, because polygamy does not belong to the same cate-
gory in morals as that to which slaveholding is affirmed to belong;
and secondly, because it was so plainly prohibited by Christ and
his apostles as to secure the assent of all Christians in all ages of
the Church.
It is, however, argued that slavery must be sinful because it
interferes with the inalienable rights of men. We have already
remarked that slavery, in itself considered, is a state of bondage,
and nothing more. It is the condition of an individual who is
deprived of his personal liberty, and is obliged to labour for
another, who has the right to transfer this claim of service at
pleasure. That this condition involves the loss of many of the
rights which are commonly and properly called natural, because
belonging to men, as men, is readily admitted. It is, however,
incumbent on those who maintain that slavery is, on this account,
necessarily sinful, to show that it is criminal, under all circum-
stances, to deprive any set of men of a portion of their natural
rights. That this broad proposition cannot be maintained, is evi-
dent. The very constitution of society supposes the forfeiture of
a greater or less amount of these rights, according to its peculiar
organization. That it is not only the privilege, but the duty of
men to live together in a regularly organized society, is evident
from the nature which God has given us; from the impossibility of
every man living by and for himself, and from the express declara-
tions of the word of God. The object of the formation of society
is the promotion of human virtue and happiness; and the form in
which it should be organized, is that which will best secure the
300
SLAVERY.
attainment of this object. As, however, the condition of men is
so very various, it is impossible that the same form should be
equally conducive to happiness and virtue under all circumstances.
No one form, therefore, is prescribed in the Bible, or is universally
obligatory. The question which form is, under given circum-
stances, to be adopted, is one of great practical difficulty, and
must be left to the decision of those who have the power to decide,
on their own responsibility. The question, however, does not
depend upon the degree in which these several forms may encroach
on the natural rights of men. In the patriarchal age, the most
natural, the most feasible, and perhaps the most beneficial form of
government was by the head of the family. His power by the
law of nature, and the necessity of the case, extended without any
other limit than the general principles of morals, over his children,
and in the absence of other regular authority, would not terminate
when the children arrived at a particular age, but be continued
during life. He was the natural umpire between his adult offspring
-he was their lawgiver and leader. His authority would naturally
extend over his more remote descendants, as they continued to
increase, and on his death, might devolve on the next oldest of the
family. There is surely nothing in this mode of constituting society
which is necessarily immoral. If found to be conducive to the
general good, it might be indefinitely continued. It would not
suffice to render its abrogation obligatory, to say that all men are
born free and equal; that the youth of twenty-one had as good a
right to have a voice in the affairs of the family as the aged patri-
arch; that the right of self-government is indefeasible, &c. Un-
less it could be shown that the great end of society was not
attainable by this mode of organization, and that it would be more
securely promoted by some other, it would be an immorality to
require or to effect the change. And if a change became, in
the course of time, obviously desirable, its nature and extent would
be questions to be determined by the peculiar circumstances of
the case, and not by the rule of abstract rights. Under some
circumstances it might be requisite to confine the legislative
power to a single individual; under others to the hands of a few;
and under others to commit it to the whole community. It would
be absurd to maintain, on the ground of the natural equality of
men, that a horde of ignorant and vicious savages should be organ-
ized as a pure democracy, if experience taught that such a form
of government was destructive to themselves and others. These
different modes of constituting civil society are not necessarily
either just or unjust, but become the one or the other according to
circumstances; and their morality is not determined by the degree
in which they encroach upon the natural rights of men, but on the
degree in which they promote or retard the progress of human
happiness and virtue. In this country we believe that the general
good requires us to deprive the whole female sex of the right of
self-government. They have no voice in the formation of the
SLAVERY.
301
laws which dispose of their persons and property. When mar-
ried, we despoil them almost entirely of a legal existence, and
deny them some of the most essential rights of property. We
treat all minors much in the same way, depriving them of many
personal and almost all political rights, and that too though they
may be far more competent to exercise them aright than many
adults. We, moreover, decide that a majority of one may make
laws for the whole community, no matter whether the numerical
majority have more wisdom or virtue than the minority or not.
Our plea for all this is, that the good of the whole is thereby most
effectually promoted. This plea, if made out, justifies the case.
In England and France they believe that the good of the whole
requires that the right of governing, instead of being restricted to
all adult males, as we arbitrarily determine, should be confined to
that portion of the male population who hold a given amount of
property. In Prussia and Russia, they believe with equal confi-
dence, that public security and happiness demand that all power
should be in the hands of the king. If they are right in their
opinion, they are right in their practice. The principle that social
and political organizations are designed for the general good, of
course requires they should be allowed to change, as the progress
of society may demand. It is very possible that the feudal system
may have been well adapted to the state of Europe in the middle
ages. The change in the condition of the world, however, has
gradually obliterated almost all its features. The villain has
become the independent farmer; the lord of the manor, the simple
landlord; and the sovereign liege, in whom, according to the
fiction of the system, the fee of the whole country vested, has
become a constitutional monarch. It may be that another series.
of changes may convert the tenant into an owner, the lord into a
rich commoner, and the monarch into a president. Though these
changes have resulted in giving the people the enjoyment of a
larger amount of their rights than they formerly possessed, it is not.
hence to be inferred that they ought centuries ago to have been
introduced suddenly or by violence. Christianity "operates as
alterative." It was never designed to tear up the institutions of
society by the roots. It produces equality not by prostrating trees
of all sizes to the ground, but by securing to all the opportunity of
growing, and by causing all to grow, until the original disparity is
no longer perceptible. All attempts, by human wisdom, to frame
society, of a sudden, after a pattern cut by a rule of abstract rights,
have failed; and whether they had failed or not, they can never
be urged as a matter of moral obligation. It is not enough there-
fore, in order to prove the sinfulness of slaveholding, to show that
it interferes with the natural rights of a portion of the community.
It is in this respect analogous to all other social institutions. They
are all of them encroachments on human rights, from the freest
democracy to the most absolute despotism.
It is further to be remarked that all these rights suppose corres-
302
SLAVERY.
ponding duties, and where there is an incompetence for the duty,
the claim to exercise the right ceases. No man can justly claim
the exercise of any right to the injury of the community of which
he is a member. It is because females and minors are judged
(though for different reasons) incompetent to the proper discharge
of the duties of citizenship, that they are deprived of the right of
suffrage. It is on the same principle that a large portion of the
inhabitants of France and England are deprived of the same pri-
vilege. As it is acknowledged that the slaves may be justly
deprived of political rights on the ground of their incompetency
to exercise them without injury to the community, it must be
admitted, by parity of reason, that they may be justly deprived of
personal freedom, if incompetent to exercise it with safety to soci-
ety.
If this is so, then slavery is a question of circumstances,
and not a malum in se. It must be borne in mind that the object
of these remarks is not to prove that the American, the British, or
the Russian form of society is expedient or otherwise; much less.
to show that the slaves in this country are actually unfit for free-
dom, but simply to prove that the mere fact that slaveholding inter-
feres with natural rights, is not enough to justify the conclusion
that it is necessarily and universally sinful.
Another very common and plausible argument on this subject is,
that a man cannot be made a matter of property. He cannot be
degraded into a brute or chattel without the grossest violation of
duty and propriety; and that as slavery confers this right of property
in human beings it must, from its very nature, be a crime. We
acknowledge the correctness of the principle on which this argu-
ment is founded, but deny that it is applicable to the case in hand.
We admit that it is not only an enormity, but an impossibility, that
a man should be made a thing, as distinguished from a rational and
moral being. It is not within the compass of human law to alter
the nature of God's creatures. A man must be regarded and
treated as a rational being even in his greatest degradation. That
he is, in some countries and under some institutions, deprived of
many of the rights and privileges of such a being, does not alter
his nature. He must be viewed as a man under the most atrocious
system of slavery that ever existed. Men do not arraign and try
on evidence, and punish on conviction either things or brutes.
Yet slaves are under a regular system of laws which, however
unjust they may be, recognise their character as accountable
beings. When it is inferred from the fact that the slave is called
the property of his master, that he is thereby degraded from his rank
as a human being, the argument rests on the vagueness of the term
property. Property is the right of possession and use, and must of
necessity vary according to the nature of the objects to which it
attaches. A man has property in his wife, in his children, in his
domestic animals, in his fields and in his forests. That is, he has
the right to the possession and use of these several objects accord-
ing to their nature. He has no more right to use a brute as a log
SLAVERY.
303
of wood, in virtue of the right of property, than he has to use a
man as a brute. There are general principles of rectitude obliga-
tory on all men, which require them to treat all the creatures of
God according to the nature which he has given them. The man
who should burn his horse because it was his property, would
find no justification in that plea either before God or man. When
therefore it is said that one man is the property of another, it can
only mean that the one has a right to use the other as a man, but not
as a brute or as a thing. He has no right to treat him as he may law-
fully treat his ox, or a tree. He can convert his person to no use to
which a human being may not, by the laws of God and nature, be
properly applied. When this idea of property comes to be ana-
lysed, it is found to be nothing more than a claim of service either
for life or for a term of years. This claim is transferable, and is
of the nature of property, and is consequently liable for the debts
of the owner, and subject to his disposal by will or otherwise. It
is probable that the slave is called the property of his master in the
statute books, for the same reason that children are called the
servants of their parents, or that wives are said to be the same
person with their husbands and to have no separate existence of
their own. These are mere technicalities designed to facilitate
certain legal processes. Calling a child a servant does not alter
his relation to his father; and a wife is still a woman, though the
courts may rule her out of existence. In like manner where the
law declares that the slave shall be deemed and adjudged to be a
chattel personal in the hands of his master, it does not alter his
nature, nor does it confer on the master any right to use him in a
manner inconsistent with that nature. As there are certain moral
principles which direct how brutes are to be used by those to whom
they belong, so there are fixed principles which determine how a
man may be used. These legal enactments, therefore, are not
intended to legislate away the nature of the slave as a human being;
they serve to facilitate the transfer of the master's claim of service,
and to render that claim the more readily liable for his debts.
The transfer of authority and claim of service from one master to
another, is in principle analogous to transfer of subjects from one
sovereign to another. This is a matter of frequent occurrence.
By the treaty of Vienna, for example, a large part of the inhabit-
ants of central Europe changed masters. Nearly half of Saxony
was transferred to Prussia; Belgium was annexed to Holland. In
like manner Louisiana was transferred from France to the United
States. In none of these cases were the people consulted. Yet
in all a claim of service more or less extended was made over from
one power to another. There was a change of masters. The
mere transferable character of the master's claim to the slave does
not convert the latter into a thing, or degrade him from his rank as
human being. Nor does the fact that he is bound to serve for life
produce this effect. It is only property in his time for life, instead
304
SLAVERY.
of for a term of years. The nature of the relation is not deter-
mined by the period of its continuance.
It has, however, been argued that the slave is the property of his
master, not only in the sense admitted above, but in the sense assumed
in the objection, because his children are under the same obligation
of service as the parent. The hereditary character of slavery, how-
ever, does not arise out of the idea of the slave as a chattel or thing,
a mere matter of property: it depends on the organization of society.
In England one man is born a peer, another a commoner; in Russia
one is born a noble, another a serf; here one is born a free citizen,
another a disfranchised outcast (the free coloured man), and a
third a slave. These forms of society, as before remarked, are
not necessarily, or in themselves, either just or unjust; but become
the one or the other, according to circumstances. Under a state
of things in which the best interests of the community would be
promoted by the British or Russian organization, they would be
just and acceptable to God; but under circumstances in which
they would be injurious, they would be unjust. It is absolutely
necessary, however, to discriminate between an organization
essentially vicious, and one which, being in itself indifferent, may
be right or wrong according to circumstances. On the same
principle, therefore, that a human being in England is deprived by
the mere accident of birth, of the right of suffrage; and in Russia
has the small portion of liberty which belongs to a commoner, or
the still smaller belonging to a serf; in this country one class is
by birth invested with all the rights of citizenship, another
(females) is deprived of all political and many personal rights, and
a third of even their personal liberty. Whether this organization
is right or wrong is not now the question. We are simply
showing that the fact that the children of slaves become by birth
slaves, is not to be referred to the idea of the master's property in
the body and soul of the parent, but results from the form of
society, and is analogous to other social institutions, as far as the
principle is concerned, that the children take the rank, or the
political or social condition of the parent.
We prefer being chargeable with the sin of wearisome repe-
tition, to leaving any room for the misapprehension of our meaning.
We, therefore, again remark that we are discussing the mere
abstract morality of these forms of social organization, and not
their expediency. We have in view the vindication of the
character of the inspired writings and inspired men from the charge
of having overlooked the blackest of human crimes, and of having
recognised the worst of human beings as Christians. We say,
therefore, that an institution which deprives a certain portion of the
community of their personal liberty, and places them under obliga-
tion of service to another portion, is no more necessarily sinful than
one which invests an individual with despotic power (such as Mr.
Birney would consent to hold); or than one which limits the
right of government to a small portion of the people, or restricts
SLAVERY.
305
it to the male part of the community. However inexpedient, under
certain circumstances, any one of these arrangements may be, they
are not necessarily immoral, nor do they become such, from the
fact that the accident of birth determines the relation in which one
part of the community is to stand to the other. In ancient Egypt,
as in modern India, birth decided the position and profession of
every individual. One was born a priest, another a merchant,
another a labourer, another a soldier. As there must always be
these classes, it is no more necessarily immoral to have them all
determined by hereditary descent, than it was among the Israelites
to have all the officers of religion from generation to generation
thus determined; or that birth should determine the individual.
who is to fill a throne or occupy a seat in parliament.
""*
Again, Dr. Wayland argues, if the right to hold slaves be
conceded,
"there is of course conceded all other rights necessary
to insure its possession. Hence, inasmuch as the slave can be
held in this condition only while he remains in the lowest state
of mental imbecility, it supposes the master to have the right
to control his intellectual development just as far as may be
necessary to secure entire subjection. He reasons in the same
way to show that the religious knowledge and even eternal
happiness of the slave, are as a matter of right conceded to the
power of the master, if the right of slaveholding is admitted. The
utmost force that can be allowed to this argument is, that the right
to hold slaves includes the right to exercise all proper means to
insure its possession. It is in this respect on a par with all other
rights of the same kind. The rights of parents to the service of
their children, of husbands to the obedience of their wives, of
masters over their apprentices, of creditors over their debtors,
of rulers over their subjects, all suppose the right to adopt
proper means for their secure enjoyment. They, however,
give no sanction to the employment of any and every means
which cruelty, suspicion, or jealousy, may choose to deem
necessary, nor of any which would be productive of greater
general evil than the forfeiture of the rights themselves.
cording to the ancient law even among the Jews, the power
of life and death was granted to the parent; we concede only the
power of correction. The old law gave the same power to the
husband over the wife. The Roman law confided the person and
even life of the debtor to the mercy of the creditor. According
to the reasoning of Dr. Wayland, all these laws must be sanctioned,
if the rights which they were deemed necessary to secure, are
acknowledged. It is clear, however, that the most unrighteous
means may be adopted to secure a proper end, under the plea of
necessity. The justice of the plea must be made out on its own
grounds, and cannot be assumed on the mere admission of the
priety of the end aimed at. Whether the slaves of this country
* Elements of Moral Science, p. 221.
Ac-
pro-
20
306
SLAVERY.
may be safely admitted to the enjoyments of personal liberty, is a
matter of dispute: but that they could not, consistently with the
public welfare, be intrusted with the exercise of political power,
is on all hands admitted. It is, then, the acknowledged right of the
state to govern them by laws in the formation of which they have
no voice. But it is the universal plea of the depositaries of irre-
sponsible power, sustained too by almost universal experience, that
men can be brought to submit to political despotism only by being
kept in ignorance and poverty. Dr. Wayland, then, if he concedes
the right of the state to legislate for the slaves, must, according to
his own reasoning, acknowledge the right to adopt all the means
necessary for the security of this irresponsible power, and of con-
sequence that the state has the right to keep the blacks in the
lowest state of degradation. If he denies the validity of this argu-
ment in favour of political despotism, he must renounce his own
against the lawfulness of domestic slavery. Dr. Wayland himself
would admit the right of the Emperor of Russia to exercise a
degree of power over his half civilized subjects, which could not
be maintained over an enlightened people, though he would be
loath to acknowledge his right to adopt all the means necessary to
keep them in their present condition. The acknowledgment,
therefore, of the right to hold slaves, does not involve the acknow-
ledgment of the right to adopt measures adapted and intended to
perpetuate their present mental and physical degradation.
We have entered much more at length into the abstract argu-
ment on this subject than we intended. It was our purpose to
confine our remarks to the scriptural view of the question. But
the consideration of the objections derived from the general prin-
ciples of morals, rendered it necessary to enlarge our plan. As it
appears to us too clear to admit of either denial or doubt, that the
scriptures do sanction slaveholding; that under the old dispensa-
tion it was expressly permitted by divine command, and under the
New Testament is nowhere forbidden or denounced, but on the
contrary, acknowledged to be consistent with the Christian cha-
racter and profession (that is, consistent with justice, mercy, holi-
ness, love to God and love to man), to declare it to be a heinous
crime, is a direct impeachment of the word of God. We, there-
fore, felt it incumbent upon us to prove, that the sacred scriptures
are not in conflict with the first principles of morals; that what
they sanction is not the blackest and basest of all offences in the
sight of God.
To do this, it was necessary to show what slavery
is, to distinguish between the relation itself, and the various cruel
or unjust laws which may be made either to bring men into it, or
to secure its continuance; to show that it no more follows from
the admission that the scriptures sanction the right of slavehold-
ing, that they, therefore, sanction all the oppressive slave-laws of
any community, than it follows from the admission of the propriety
of parental, conjugal, or political relations, that they sanction all the
SLAVERY.
307
conflicting codes by which these relations have at different peri-
ods and in different countries been regulated.
We have had another motive in the preparation of this article.
The assumption that slaveholding is itself a crime, is not only an
error, but it is an error fraught with evil consequences. It not
merely brings its advocates into conflict with the scriptures, but it
does much to retard the progress of freedom; it embitters and
divides the members of the community, and distracts the Christian
church. Its operation in retarding the progress of freedom is ob-
vious and manifold. In the first place, it directs the battery of the
enemies of slavery to the wrong point. It might be easy for them
to establish the injustice or cruelty of certain slave-laws, where
it is not in their power to establish the sinfulness of slavery itself.
They, therefore, waste their strength. Nor is this the least evil.
They promote the cause of their opponents. If they do not discri-
minate between slaveholding and the slave-laws, it gives the slave-
holder not merely an excuse but an occasion and a reason for
making no such distinction. He is thus led to feel the same convic-
tion in the propriety of the one that he does in that of the other.
His mind and conscience may be satisfied that the mere act of hold-
ing slaves is not a crime. This is the point, however, to which
the abolitionist directs his attention. He examines their argu-
ments, and becomes convinced of their inconclusiveness, and is
not only thus rendered impervious to their attacks, but is exaspe-
rated by what he considers their unmerited abuse. In the mean-
time his attention is withdrawn from far more important points;
the manner in which he treats his slaves, and the laws enacted for
the security of his possession. These are points on which his
judgment might be much more really convinced of error, and his
conscience of sin.
In the second place, besides fortifying the position and strength-
ening the purpose of the slaveholder, the error in question divides
and weakens the friends of freedom. To secure any valuable
result by public sentiment, you must satisfy the public mind and
rouse the public conscience. Their passions had better be allowed
to rest in peace. As the anti-slavery societies declare it to be their
object to convince their fellow-citizens that slaveholding is neces-
sarily a heinous crime in the sight of God, we consider their
attempt as desperate, so long as the Bible is regarded as the rule
of right and wrong. They can hardly secure either the verdict
of the public mind or of the public conscience in behalf of this
proposition. Their success hitherto has not been very encourag-
ing, and is certainly not very flattering, if Dr. Channing's account
of the class of persons to whom they have principally addressed
their arguments, is correct. The tendency of their exertions, be
their success great or small, is not to unite, but to divide. They
do not carry the judgment or conscience of the people with them.
They form, therefore, a class by themselves. Thousands who
earnestly desire to see the south convinced of the injustice and
308
SLAVERY.
consequent impolicy of their slave-laws, and under this conviction,
of their own accord, adopting those principles which the Bible
enjoins, and which tend to produce universal intelligence, virtue,
liberty and equality, without violence and sudden change, and which
thus secure private and public prosperity, stand aloof from the aboli-
tionists, not merely because they disapprove of their spirit and mode
of action, but because they do not admit their fundamental principle.
In the third place, the error in question prevents the adoption of
the most effectual means of extinguishing the evil. These means
are not the opinions or feelings of the non-slaveholding states, nor
the denunciation of the holders of slaves, but the improvement,
intellectual and moral, of the slaves themselves. Slavery has but
two natural and peaceful modes of death. The one is the increase
of the slave population until it reaches the point of being unpro-
ductive. When the number of slaves becomes so great that the
master cannot profitably employ them, he manumits them in self-
defence. This point would probably have been reached long ago,
in many of the southern states, had not the boundless extent of the
south-western sections of the Union presented a constant demand
for the surplus hands. Many planters in Virginia and Maryland,
whose principles or feelings revolt at the idea of selling their slaves
to the south, find that their servants are gradually reducing them
to poverty, by consuming more than they produce. The number.
however, of slaveholders who entertain these scruples is compara-
tively small. And as the demand for slave labor in the still unoc-
cupied regions of the extreme south-west is so great, and is likely to
be so long continued, it is hopeless to think of slavery dying out by
becoming a public burden. The other natural and peaceful mode
of extinction, is the gradual elevation of the slaves in knowledge,
virtue, and property, to the point at which it is no longer desirable
or possible to keep them in bondage. Their chains thus gradually
relax, until they fall off entirely. It is in this way that Christianity
has abolished both political and domestic bondage, whenever it has
had free scope. It enjoins a fair compensation for labour; it
insists on the moral and intellectual improvement of all classes of
men; it condemns all infractions of marital or parental rights; in
short, it requires not only that free scope should be allowed to
human improvement, but that all suitable means should be employed
for the attainment of that end. The feudal system, as before
remarked, has in a great measure been thus outgrown in all the
European states. The third estate, formerly hardly recognised as
having an existence, is becoming the controlling power in most of
those ancient communities. The gradual improvement of the
people rendered it impossible and undesirable to deprive them of
their just share in the government. And it is precisely in those
countries where this improvement is most advanced that the feudal
nstitutions are the most completely obliterated, and the general
prosperity the greatest. In like manner the gospel method of
extinguishing slavery is by improving the condition of the slave.
SLAVERY.
309
The grand question is, How is this to be done? The abolitionist
answers, by immediate emancipation. Perhaps he is right, per-
haps he is wrong; but whether right or wrong, it is not the prac-
tical question for the north. Among a community which have
the power to emancipate, it would be perfectly proper to urge that
measure on the ground of its being the best means of promoting
the great object of the advancement of human happiness and
virtue. But the error of the abolitionists is, that they urge this
measure from the wrong quarter, and upon the wrong ground.
They insist upon immediate abolition because slavery is a sin, and
its extinction a duty. If, however, slaveholding is not in itself
sinful, its abolition is not necessarily a duty. The question of duty
depends upon the effects of the measure, about which men may
honestly differ. Those who believe that it would advance the
general good, are bound to promote it; while those who believe
the reverse, are equally bound to resist it. The abolitionists, by
insisting upon one means of improvement, and that on untenable
ground, are most effectually working against the adoption of any
other means, by destroying the disposition and power to employ
them. It is in this way that the error to which we have referred
throughout this article, is operating most disadvantageously for the
cause of human liberty and happiness. The fact is, that the great
duty of the south is not emancipation, but improvement. The
former is obligatory only as a means to an end, and therefore, only
under circumstances where it would promote that end. In like
manner the great duty of despotic governments is not the im-
mediate granting of free institutions, but the constant and assiduous
cultivation of the best interests (knowledge, virtue and happiness)
of the people. Where free institutions would conduce to this
object, they should be granted, and just so far and so fast as this
becomes apparent.
Again, the opinion that slaveholding is itself a crime must
operate to produce the disunion of the states, and the division of
all ecclesiastical societies in this country. The feelings of the
people may be excited violently for a time, but the transport soon
passes away. But if the conscience is enlisted in the cause, and
becomes the controlling principle, the alienation between the
north and the south must become permanent. The opposition to
southern institutions will be calm, constant, and unappeasable.
Just so far as this opinion operates, it will lead those who entertain
it to submit to any sacrifices to carry it out, and give it effect.
We shall become two nations in feeling, which must soon render
us two nations in fact. With regard to the church its operation
will be much more summary. If slaveholding is a heinous crime,
slaveholders must be excluded from the church. Several of our
judicatories have already taken this position. Should the General
Assembly adopt it, the church is, ipso facto, divided. If the opinion
in question is correct, it must be maintained, whatever are the con-
sequences. We are no advocates of expediency in morals. We
310
SLAVERY.
have no more right to teach error in order to prevent evil, than
we have a right to do evil to promote good. On the other hand,
if the opinion is incorrect, its evil consequences render it a duty to
prove and exhibit its unsoundness. It is under the deep impres-
sion that the primary assumption of the abolitionists is an error,
that its adoption tends to the distraction of the country, and the
division of the church; and that it will lead to the longer con-
tinuance and greater severity of slavery, that we have felt con-
strained to do what little we could towards its correction.
We have little apprehension that any one can so far mistake our
object, or the purport of our remarks, as to suppose either that we
regard slavery as a desirable institution, or that we approve of the
slave laws of the southern states. So far from this being the case,
the extinction of slavery, and the melioration of those laws, are as
sincerely desired by us, as by any of the abolitionists. The ques-
tion is not about the continuance of slavery, and of the present
system, but about the proper method of effecting the removal of
the evil. We maintain, that it is not by denouncing slaveholding
as a sin, or by universal agitation at the north, but by the improve-
ment of the slaves. It no more follows that because the master
has a right to hold slaves, he has a right to keep them in a state of
degradation in order to perpetuate their bondage, than that the
Emperor of Russia has a right to keep his subjects in ignorance
and poverty, in order to secure the permanence and quiet posses-
sion of his power. We hold it to be the grand principle of the
Gospel, that every man is bound to promote the moral, intellectual
and physical improvement of his fellow men. Their civil or poli-
tical relations are in themselves matters of indifference. Monarchy,
aristocracy, democracy, domestic slavery, are right or wrong as they
are, for the time being, conducive to this great end, or the reverse.
They are not objects to which the improvement of society is to be
sacrificed; nor are they strait-jackets to be placed upon the public
body to prevent its free development. We think, therefore, that
the true method for Christians to treat this subject, is to follow the
example of Christ and his apostles in relation both to despotism
and slavery. Let them enforce as moral duties the great principles
of justice and mercy, and all the specific commands and precepts
of the scriptures. If any set of men have servants, bond or free,
to whom they refuse a proper compensation for their labour, they
violate a moral duty and an express command of scripture. What
that compensation should be, depends on a variety of circum-
stances. In some cases the slaveholder would be glad to com-
pound for the support of his slaves by giving the third or half of
the proceeds of his estate. Yet this at the north would be
regarded as a full remuneration for the mere labour of production.
Under other circumstances, however, a mere support would be
very inadequate compensation; and when inadequate, it is unjust.
If the compensation be more than a support, the surplus is the
property of the labourer, and cannot morally, whatever the laws
SLAVERY.
311
may say, be taken from him. The right to accumulate property
is an incident to the right of reward for labour. And we believe
there are few slaveholding countries in which the right is not prac-
tically acknowledged, since we hear so frequently of slaves pur-
chasing their own freedom. It is very common for a certain
moderate task* to be assigned as a day's work, which may be
regarded as the compensation rendered by the slave for his sup-
port. The residue of the day is at his own disposal, and may be
employed for his own profit. We are not now, however, con-
cerned about details. The principle that "the labourer is worthy
of his hire" and should enjoy it, is a plain principle of morals and
command of the Bible, and cannot be violated with impunity.
Again, if any man has servants or others whom he forbids to
marry, or whom he separates after marriage, he breaks as clearly
a revealed law as any written on the pages of inspiration, or on
the human heart. If he interferes unnecessarily with the authority
of parents over their children, he again brings himself into collision
with his Maker. If any man has under his charge children, appren-
tices, servants, or slaves, and does not teach them, or cause them
to be taught the will of God; if he deliberately opposes their
intellectual, moral, or religious improvement, he makes himself a
transgressor. That many of the laws of the slaveholding states
are opposed to these simple principles of morals, we fully believe;
and we do not doubt that they are sinful and ought to be rescinded.
If it be asked what would be the consequence of thus acting on
the principles of the gospel, of following the example and obeying
the precepts of Christ, we answer, the gradual elevation of the
slaves in intelligence, virtue and wealth; the peaceable and speedy
extinction of slavery; the improvement in general prosperity of
all classes of society, and the consequent increase in the sum of
human happiness and virtue. This has been the result of acting
on these principles in all past ages; and just in proportion as they
have been faithfully observed. The degradation of most eastern
nations, and of Italy, Spain, and Ireland, are not more striking
examples of the consequences of their violation, than Scotland,
England, and the non-slaveholding States are of the benefits of
their being even imperfectly obeyed. Men cannot alter the laws
of God. It would be as easy for them to arrest the action of the
force of gravity as to prevent the systematic violation of the prin-
ciples of morals being productive of evil.
Besides the two methods mentioned above, in which slavery dies
a natural and easy death, there are two others by which, as history
teaches us, it may be brought to an end. The one is by the non-
slaveholders, in virtue of their authority in the state to which the
slaves and their masters belonged, passing laws for its extinction.
Of this, the northern states and Great Britain are examples. The
*We heard the late Dr. Wisner, after his long visit to the south, say, that the
usual task of a slave in South Carolina and Georgia was about the third of a day's
work for a northern labourer.
312
SLAVERY.
.
other is by servile insurrections. The former of these two methods
is of course out of the question, as it regards most of the southern
states; for in almost all of them the slave-owners have the legisla-
tive power in their own hands. The south, therefore, has to choose
between emancipation by the silent and holy influence of the
gospel, securing the elevation of the slaves to the stature and
character of freemen, or to abide the issue of a long continued
conflict against the laws of God. That the issue will be disas-
trous there can be no doubt. But whether it will come in the
form of a desolating servile insurrection, or in some other shape,
it is not for us to say. The choice, however, is between rapidly
increasing millions of human beings educated under moral and
religious restraints, and attached to the soil by the proceeds of
their own labour, or hordes of unenlightened barbarians. If the
south deliberately keep these millions in this state of degradation,
they must prepare themselves for the natural consequences, what-
ever they may be.
It may be objected that if the slaves are allowed so to improve
as to become freemen, the next step in their progress is that they
should become citizens. We admit that it is so. The feudal serf
first became a tenant, then a proprietor invested with political
power. This is the natural progress of society, and it should be
allowed thus freely to expand itself, or it will work its own destruc-
tion. If a tree is not allowed to grow erect and in its natural
shape, it will become crooked, knotted and worthless, but grow it
must. This objection would not be considered of any force, if the
slaves in this country were not of a different race from their mas
ters. Still they are men; their colour does not place them beyond
the operation of the principles of the gospel, or from under the
protection of God. We cannot too frequently remember, that it
is our province to do right, it is God's to overrule results.* Let
then the north remember that they are bound to follow the exam-
ple of Christ in the manner of treating slavery, and the south,
that they are bound to follow the precepts of Christ in their
manner of treating their slaves. If both parties follow the Sa-
viour of men, both will contribute to the promotion of human
excellence and happiness, and both will have reason to rejoice in
the result.
* If the fact that the master and slave belong to different races, precludes the pos-
sibility of their living together on equal terms, the inference is, not that the one has
a right to oppress the other, but that they should separate. Whether this should be
done by dividing the land between them and giving rise to distinct communities, or
by the removal of the inferior class on just and wise conditions, it is not for us to say.
We have undertaken only to express an opinion as to the manner in which the Bible
directs those who look to it for guidance to treat this difficult subject, and not to trace
out a plan to provide for ulterior results. It is for this reason we have said nothing
of African colonization, though we regard it as one of the noblest enterprises of
modern benevolence.
ESSAY XI.
ABOLITIONISM.*
and
If.
USAGE often gives a comprehensive word a limited sense.
in our day, and in this country, you ask a man whether he is an
abolitionist, he will promptly answer no, though he may believe
with Jefferson that slavery is the greatest curse that can be inflicted
on a nation; or with Cassius M. Clay, that it is destructive of
industry, the mother of ignorance, opposed to literature, antago-
nist to the fine arts, destructive of mechanical excellence; that it
corrupts the people, retards population and wealth, impoverishes
the soil, destroys national wealth, and is incompatible with consti-
tutional liberty. A man may believe and say all this, as many of
the wisest and best men of the South believe and openly avow,
yet be no abolitionist. If every man who regards slavery as an
evil, and wishes to see it abolished, were an abolitionist, then nine
tenths of the people of this country would be abolitionists. What
then is an abolitionist? He is a man who holds that slaveholding
is a great sin; and consequently that slaveholders should not be
admitted to the communion of the church, and that slavery should
immediately, under all circumstances, and regardless of all conse-
quences, be abolished. Slaveholding," says the second article of
the American Anti-slavery Society, "is a heinous crime in the
sight of God," and "ought therefore to be immediately abolished."
"The question," says the Reviewer of Dr. Junkin's pamphlet, "now
in process of investigation among American churches, is this, and
no other: Are the professed Christians in our respective connex-
(C
Originally published in 1844, in review of the following works: 1. "The
Integrity of our National Union vs. Abolitionism. An argument from the Bible, in
proof of the position; that believing masters ought to be honoured and obeyed by
their servants, and tolerated in, not excommunicated from the Church of God, being
part of a speech delivered before the Synod of Cincinnati, on the subject of Slavery.
September 19th and 20th, 1843. By Rev. George Junkin, D.D., President of
Miami University."
2. "The Contrast, or the Bible vs. Abolitionism: an Exegetical Argument. By
Rev. William Graham, Pastor of the Second Presbyterian church, Oxford, Ohio."
3. "A Review of the Rev. Dr. Junkin's Synodical Speech, in Defence of American
Slavery, with an outline of the Bible argument against Slavery."
4. "Line of Demarcation between the Secular and Spiritual Kingdoms. By the
Rev. William Wisner, D.D."
314
ABOLITIONISM.
ions who hold their fellow men as slaves, thereby guilty of a sin
which demands the cognisance of the church, and after due admo-
nition, the application of discipline?" P. 17. This question aboli-
tionists answer in the affirmative; all other men in the negative.
Every party has a character as well as a creed. Whatever it is
that holds them together as a party, gives them a common
spirit, which again leads to characteristic measures and modes of
action. If the bond of union is coincidence of opinion on some
great principle in politics, religion or morals, then the characteris-
tic spirit of the party will be determined by the nature of that
opinion. If we look at the great parties in England, the Tory,
Whig and Radical, we shall see they have each its own charac
ter, arising out of their distinctive principles. The Tory desires
to see political power confined to the holders of property; the
Whigs to the educated classes; the Radicals would have it extend-
ed to the whole population without regard to their intellectual or
moral condition; and we see amidst the diversity of individual
character, arising from a thousand different sources, a cominon
spirit belonging to these several parties, arising from the distinctive
principle of each. The correctness of this remark is still more
obvious with regard to religious parties; because religious truth
has a more direct and powerful influence on the character of men
than mere political opinions. We not only see the great divisions
of the Christian world, the evangelical, ritual, and rationalistic,
exhibiting strongly-marked peculiarities, arising from the radically
different views of doctrine which they entertain, but the minute
subdivisions of the large classes have each its own distinctive
character. It is impossible that the difference between the Calvi-
nist and the evangelical Arminian should not manifest itself both in
the state of their hearts and in outward acts. And who can shut
his eyes to the influence exerted by the New Divinity, in all its
modifications, as it has existed in this country? The spirit of cen-
soriousness, of denunciation, of coarse authoritative dealing, and
the whole array of new measures, were the natural fruit of the
peculiar doctrines of one class of the advocates of the New Divi-
nity, and especially of their opinion that a change of heart was a
change of purpose, which a man could effect as easily as change
his route on a journey. If, again, a party is constituted by a parti
cular opinion on any question of morals, its character will depend
upon the nature of that opinion. We e may take as an illustration
of this point the temperance society. The opinion that the use
of spirituous liquors was in this age and country of evil tendency,
and ought to be discountenanced by a general determination of
the friends of temperance to abandon such use, had nothing in it
anti-scriptural, nothing malevolent. So long, therefore, as this
opinion continued the bond of union of the associated friends of
temparence, their spirit was benevolent, and their measures mild.
But as soon as the doctrine was embraced that the use of intoxi-
cating liquors was in itself sinful, then poison was infused into the
ABOLITIONISM.
315
whole organization. Then every man who drank a glass of wine
was a sinner, and was to be made a subject of ecclesiastical disci-
pline. Then the holy Scriptures were put to the torture to make
them utter the new doctrine; and those to whose ears this utter-
ance was not sufficiently distinct, made bold hypothetically to
denounce them, and to blaspheme the Saviour of the world. Then
a spirit of censoriousness, of defamation, and of falsehood, seized
those in whom the virus had produced its full effect, making
upon
their publications an opprobrium and a nuisance.
We have in modern abolitionism another illustration of this
same truth. That slavery, like despotism, in its very nature, sup-
poses a barbarous or partially civilized condition of at least one
portion of society; that it ought not and cannot, without gross
injustice, be rendered permanent; that the means of moral and
intellectual culture should be extended to slaves, and to the subjects
of despotic governments, and the road of improvement be left
open before them, is an opinion which any man may hold, and
which we believe is in fact held by ninety-nine hundredths of all
the intelligent and good men on the face of the earth. And that
opinion may and ought to be made the foundation of wise and
appropriate measures for carrying it into effect. But let a man
adopt the opinion that slaveholding is "a heinous crime in the sight
of God," and what is the result? Then he must regard every
slaveholder as a criminal, to be denounced and treated accordingly;
no matter how humble, meek, holy, heavenly-minded, just, benevo-
lent, that slaveholder may be; no matter how parental in the treat-
ment of his slaves, how assiduous in their religious improvement,
how anxious to secure their preparation for freedom, he is, by the
mere fact of holding slaves, proved to be a hypocrite, a malevolent
and wicked man. Now such a judgment cannot be held without
perverting the moral sense of the man who holds it. He must
force himself to call evil good and good evil. The exhibition of
Christian character, which ought to command confidence and
affection, and in every healthful mind does command them, must
excite in the mind poisoned by that false opinion disgust and hatred.
A holy slaveholder is in his view as much a contradiction as a holy
murderer; and he cannot therefore regard a slaveholder as a good
But if (as what sane man can doubt?) he may be a sincere
Christian, to be in a state of mind which forbids our recognising
him as such, is to be morally diseased or deranged. According to
genuine High Church doctrine, every man baptized and in com-
munion with "the church," is a Christian, and no man not in such
communion can be a Christian, or go to heaven. But as it often
happens that many in "the church" are openly wicked, and many
out of it are eminently holy, the High Churchman, if sincere and
consistent, must regard the former with complacent feelings of
Christian brotherhood, and the latter with aversion. It is, how-
ever, one of the most certain marks of a true Christian, to recog-
nise and love the Christian character in others, and it is one of the
man.
316
ABOLITIONISM.
surest marks of an unrenewed heart, to feel aversion to those who
are the true followers of Christ. The influence, therefore, of High
Church principles on those who entertain them, must, from the
nature of the case, be evil, and such all experience shows to be the
fact. The fundamental principle of modern abolitionism must
produce the same effect, on those who really embrace it. It
must lead them to hate good men; it must cause them to shut their
eyes to truth; to harden themselves against the plain manifestations
of excellence. All this produces an unnatural conflict in their own
minds. Their principle leads to the conclusion that the slaveholder is
a "heinous criminal," they see however that he is sometimes a good
man; they will not give up their principle nor the conclusion to
which it leads, they are therefore forced to deny what they see to
be true. This exasperates them and leads to the most unnatural
exaggeration of what they call the crime of slaveholding, in order
to satisfy their conscience, and justify them to themselves in their
hatred and denunciation of good men. This sometimes goes so
far as to produce complete moral derangement, when malice
assumes in the view of the moral maniac, the appearance and cha-
racter of benevolence, and cursing and bitterness sound in his ears
like the accents of love. Our country has furnished more than
one example of this kind, and the perverting influence of the funda-
mental error of the party is as manifest as day in the moral state
of the great body of those in whom it exists as a practical princi-
ple.
It is no doubt true that no man's character is formed by one
opinion; and therefore there are many who belong to the general
class of abolitionists, who are in spirit and conduct, exemplary
men. This, however, is no disproof of the evil tendency of the
distinguishing principle of the party. In many minds it exists as
little more than a speculation; in others its influence is counter-
acted by natural disposition, by the power of other and right opi-
nions, and by the grace of God. But in itself, and as far as it is
allowed to operate, it is evident that a principle which makes the
man who entertains it, regard and denounce good men, who really
love and serve the Lord Jesus Christ, as heinous criminals, unfit
for Christian communion, must pervert the heart, and, where it has
its full effect, destroy all semblance of religion. It is not invidi-
ous, nor otherwise improper, to appeal to the spirit and conduct of
a party in illustration of the tendency of their distinctive doctrine,
and while we admit, as above stated, that there are many good
men among the abolitionists, we regard it as a notorious fact, that
the spirit of the party, as a party, is an evil spirit; a spirit of rail-
ing, of bitterness, of exaggeration; a spirit which leads to the per-
version of facts, and to assertions which often shock the common
sense and moral feelings of the community. What but a spirit
which blinds the mind, and perverts the heart, could lead, for exam-
ple, to the assertion that in our country a minister, without injury
to his character, could tie up his slave on Sabbath morning, and
ABOLITIONISM.
317
having inflicted a cruel punishment, leave him suspended, go to
church, preach the gospel, and administer the Lord's Supper, and
then return to inflict additional stripes on the lacerated back of
his wretched victim. To assert that a clergyman may be a hypo-
crite, or a forger, or a murderer, or a monster of cruelty, would
not shock the common sense of men, for such things have been and
may well be again; but to assert as characterizing the Christian
people in our southern states, that a minister may without injury
to his standing among them be guilty of atrocious cruelty, is a
flagrant falsehood, which none but a fanatic could utter, and none
but fanatics believe. And fanaticism, be it remembered, is only
one form of the malignant passions. Speaking then in general
terms, the spirit of the party, as manifested in their publications, is
fierce, bitter and abusive,* as might be expected from the nature
of their fundamental principle. Contrast with this for a moment
the case of the early Christians. They were obliged to separate
from the community in which they lived, to form a party by them-
selves, to denounce idolatry as a great sin, and idolaters as unfit
for Christian Communion. But as their distinctive doctrines were
true, the moral influence of those doctrines upon themselves was
good; it did not render them as a class fierce, bitter and abusive;
they were mild, kind, and conciliatory. The same thing may be
said of the modern Christian missionaries in every part of the
world and of every denomination. Though surrounded by the
abominations of heathenism, and in continued conflict with error,
they are not exasperated men, dealing in denunciations and abuse.
The reason why their minds are composed, and in the exercise of
benevolent affections, is that truth, and not error, is the principle
which controls them. They are not called upon to do violence to
their own moral judgments; they are not forced to treat the good
as though they were wicked; and to justify themselves by saying
that in despite of all appearances to the contrary, the men and
things which they denounce, must be evil. If then it is true, that
the spirit of the abolitionists, as a party, and speaking in the gene-
ral, is an evil spirit, it is a decisive proof that their distinctive doc-
trine as a party is a false doctrine. For we are commanded to
judge of things by their fruits.
Another collateral proof of the fallacy of their peculiar views,
is that they have failed to command the assent of the great body
of the intelligent and pious men of the country. Every great
moral truth has a self-evidencing light. To the ignorant or
depraved it may sometimes be difficult to communicate such
* This is substantially admitted even by Dr. Channing, who is claimed as the great
ornament of their party.
"The abolitionists have done wrong, I believe: nor is
their wrong to be winked at, because done fanatically, or with good intentions; for
how much mischief may be wrought with good designs! They have fallen into the
common error of enthusiasts [fanatics?], that of exaggerating their object, of feeling
as if no evil existed but that which they opposed, and as if no guilt could be com-
pared with that of countenancing and upholding it. The tone of their newspapers,
as far as I have seen them, has often been fierce, bitter and abusive."-Slavery.
By William E. Channing, p. 183.
318
ABOLITIONISM.
truths; that is, to make them distinct objects in their apprehension.
But when understood or perceived they are of necessity perceived
to be true. And the object of discussion on such doctrines, is not
to prove them, but to state them; to present them as they are
before the moral judgment of the mind; for the only way in
which we can know a thing to be right or wrong is by seeing it
to be the one or the other. No man was ever led to the percep-
tion of the moral evil of a thing, by arguing from its effects. He
may see that a thing, indifferent in itself, is wrong under circum-
stances which make it productive of evil; and he may have his
impression of the degree in which a thing is morally wrong,
greatly influenced by observing its effects; but all things right or
wrong in themselves are immediately perceived in their true cha-
racter by every human mind, as soon as they are fairly presented
to it, or clearly apprehended. It is indeed admitted that the moral
judgment of men is often influenced by their interests, or by their
previous moral condition. These causes operate, however, by
either diverting the attention from the true object, so that it is rot
in fact properly perceived; or by affecting favourably or other-
wise the sensibility of the soul, and thus modifying the moral emo-
tions by whose light and under whose guidance the judgment of
the mind is formed. The question whether heretics should be put
to death, if it could be presented clearly to dispassionate men,
could receive but one answer. The reason why some affirm and
others deny the propriety of such executions, is, that entirely dif-
ferent questions are really before their minds. To a Protestant
the question is, whether a man in the exercise of a discretion for
which he is responsible to God alone, can justly be punished for
the wrong exercise of that discretion, by those who have neither
the competency nor right to sit in judgment on the case.
That
question every human being must answer in the negative. But to
a genuine Romanist, the question is, whether a man who is guilty
of an atrocious crime should be punished at the discretion of those
who are infallible in judgment on such matters, and who have full
authority to carry their judgment into effect. This again is a
question which every man must answer in the affirmative. The
fact, therefore, that men make different answers to questions
involving grave points in morals, is no disproof of the self-evidenc-
ing light of moral truth; and of the legitimate authority with
which it commands assent when it is clearly presented to the
mind. This being admitted, we say that the fact that the great
mass of the intelligent and pious men of the country reject the
doctrine that "slaveholding is a heinous crime in the sight of God,"
is proof that it is false. For this fact cannot be accounted for by
saying they do not understand the question; that the thing denied
is not rightly conceived of, or is not clearly presented to their
minds. Every man knows what slaveholding is; and men know
what they mean when they deny that it is in its very nature crimi-
nal. Nor can it be said, that this judgment arises from want of
ABOLITIONISM.
319
attention to the subject. There are many things to which even
good men give an indolent assent as right, which, when they come
to consider, they see to be wrong. This was the case with the
slave-trade, and many other instances of a similar nature might be
adduced. There are also many things which are long regarded
as right, because they really are right upon the assumption of the
correctness of the principles adopted by those who pronounce the
judgment. Thus putting heretics to death is right, on the assumption
of the infallibility of the church, and of its right to enforce its judg-
ments by civil penalties. In the present case the judgment of the
conscience of the country on the subject of slaveholding, cannot be
set aside on the ground of want of consideration. The matter
has been discussed in every way for a series of years, and that
judgment is becoming the more fixed, the more it is enlightened.
Nor can this judgment be invalidated by attributing it to self-
interest. We readily admit that if a man is personally interested
in the decision of a question, he is not a fair judge in the case.
The landholders in England sincerely believe the corn laws to be
beneficial; the manufacturers as sincerely believe the reverse.
Among ourselves, the growers of cotton honestly hold one system
of political economy, and the growers of hemp another. It is
hardly possible for a man, whose interests are deeply involved in any
question, to avoid allowing his mind to dwell unduly upon those
considerations which favour the decision which he desires, nor is
he qualified to give the opposite considerations their proper weight.
But we deny that the great body of intelligent and good men in
this country are under the bias of interest, in the judgment which
they give concerning slavery. They have no selfish interest in
the matter. Those dwelling in non-slaveholding States might
arrive at the conclusion that slaveholding is a sin, without endan-
gering any of their personal interests, or disquieting their consci-
ence in the least. They are just as free from selfish bias in the
case as though sitting in judgment on the despotism of Russia.
The unbiased judgment, therefore, of the great mass of intelligent
and pious men in this country that slaveholding is not a crime,
given after due consideration, is itself an argument not to be
gainsaid, against the primary principle of the abolitionists.
It may be asked how we know that such is the judgment of the
intelligent and good men of the country? The answer is, that
is a conceded point. What is more common here or abroad than
the assertion that the church and the clergy in this country, are
the great enemies of abolition? What topic of denunciation is
more frequent in all the publications of the party than the corrup-
tion of the church on this subject, and how loud the complaints
that no church has yet been brought up to take ground with the
abolitionists ? Now we suppose no one, not even an abolitionist,
will deny that the church, meaning thereby all in this great
country who profess to be the followers of Christ, comprises a
large portion of the intelligence and piety of the country;` and as
320
ABOLITIONISM.
to the educated men not included among the members of the church,
it is plain that a still smaller portion belong to the ranks of abolition-
ism. No church (i. e., denomination of Christians) of any consider-
ation for numbers, has adopted the principle that slaveholders as
such should be excluded from Christian communion. The Con-
gregationalists of New England, the Episcopalians, the Presbyte-
rians, the Baptists, the Methodists, have one and all refused to
sanction the unscriptural doctrine on which the whole structure of
moral abolitionism rests. Now we consider it little less than
preposterous to assume that a mere fraction of the great family of
Christians should, on a simple question of morals, be in the right,
and the great mass of their brethren, with the same advantages for
forming a correct judgment, in the wrong.
But have not the abolitionists the voice of the church in Great
Britain in their favour? Far from it. There is indeed a great
deal of loose declamation, and no little fanatical zeal on this subject
prevailing in that country. But when did any denomination of
Christians in Great Britain assume the ground that slaveholders
should be excluded from the church? We are not aware that the
missionaries of the Church of England, or of the Church of Scot-
land, or of the Independents, or of the Methodists, or of the
Baptists, or of the Moravians, operating in countries where slavery
existed, were ever directed or authorized to act upon the principle
of debarring all slaveholders from the table of the Lord. That is
a step towards the subversion of the scriptures as a rule of faith
and practice, yet to be taken. And the day we trust is far distant
when this form of benevolent infidelity shall receive the sanction
of any of the great bodies into which the church is now divided.
Strong as these arguments against the doctrine of the abolition-
ists, derived from its necessary and actual effects, and from the
judgment of the great mass of competent judges, are, we admit they
would be driven to the wind by one clear declaration of scripture
in its favour. Let God be true, but every man a liar. Into this
scriptural argument, however, we cannot persuade ourselves to
enter at any length, because the matter does not admit of argument.
It is as plain as it can be made. A few years ago, when a spirit of
fanaticism seized the friends of temperance, much learning was
expended in the attempt to prove that the Bible condemned as
sinful even the moderate use of intoxicating liquor. Now what
has become of that doctrine? The plain sense of the scripture,
like a mighty stream, has borne away all the learned rubbish so
laboriously raked together, and would have done so had no attempt
been made, able and conclusive as those attempts were, to remove
that rubbish by other means. In like manner the scriptures do so
plainly teach that slaveholding is not in itself a crime, that it is a
mere waste of time to attempt to prove it; and a great deal worse
than a waste of time to attempt to make them teach the contrary.
It will of course be admitted that what God has at any time
sanctioned cannot be evil in its own nature. If, therefore, it can
ABOLITIONISM.
321
be shown that God did permit his people under the old dispensa-
tion to be slaveholders, slaveholding in itself cannot be a heinous
crime. It will further be admitted that anything permitted under
the old economy, and which the apostles continued to permit to
those whom they received into the church, cannot be a crime
justifying exclusion from Christian communion.
That God did under the old dispensation permit his people to
hold slaves is proved not only by the fact that Abraham was, with
the implied permission of God, a slaveholder, but especially by the
fact that through Moses that permission was expressly granted, the
class of persons who might be held in slavery designated, the differ-
ent ways in which they might be reduced to a state of bondage
pointed out, and laws enacted as to the manner in which they were
to be treated. All these are plain matters of fact, admitted, as far
as we know, by every man, woman and child, who ever read the
Bible, until the lurid day of modern illumination. These facts are
abundantly proved by Dr. Junkin and Mr. Graham in the pamph-
lets which stand in the margin of this article, and to which we refer
any of our readers who have any doubt on the subject. We shall
content ourselves with merely citing a few passages from the laws
of Moses, allowing them to speak for themselves.
"A
What however is a slave? Before determining whether slavery
is recognised in the Bible, we must know what slavery is.
slave," says the reviewer of Dr. Junkin's pamphlet, "is a human
being who is made an article of property." And this is the defini-
tion usually given by abolitionists. The gravamen of the charge
against slavery is, that it makes a man a thing in distinction from
a person. This charge is an absurdity in the very terms of it; and
yet we doubt not that it is some obscure feeling of the outrage to
human nature involved in making “a man a thing," that is the source
of much of the horror commonly expressed on this subject; and
the reason of the ready credence often given to the doctrine that
"slaveholding is a heinous crime." It would indeed be a great
crime, and moreover a great miracle, if it involved making things
of human beings. Under no system of slave-laws that ever
existed is a slave regarded otherwise than as a person, that is, an
intelligent moral agent. Those very laws, atrocious as they often
are, by holding the slave responsible for his acts, suppose him to be
a human being. The abolitionists impose upon themselves and
others by not defining what they mean by property, and by not
determining the sense in which one man can be said to be the pro-
perty of another man. Property is simply the right of possession
and use; the right of having and using. From the necessity of
the case, as well as from the laws of God, this right must vary
according to the nature of its object. If a man has property in
land, he must use it as land, and he cannot use it as anything else.
If he has property in an animal he can use it only as an animal;
and if he has property in a man, he can use him only as a man.
And as the use he may make of an animal is regulated by its
21

322
ABOLITIONISM.
66
nature and by the laws of God; so his property in a man gives
him no right to treat him contrary to his nature, or to act towards
him with injustice. If one man has property in another he must
still treat him as a human being; if he kills him he is guilty of mur-
der; if he insults or wounds him he is guilty of cruelty; if he
shuts him out from the gospel, he will find the blood of a soul upon
his hands; if he keep him in ignorance, he is guilty of gross injus-
tice. The right of property, even if admitted, gives no right to do
any of the things just mentioned. It gives in some cases the
power to do them, just as the right of a parent to the control of his
children gives him the power of rendering them miserable, of
depriving them of the gospel, and of bringing them up in igno-
rance. But it confers no right to do these things. It is the con-
fused notion which they entertain of the right of property which
leads the writers on this subject into most of their false reasoning.
If," says the Reviewer before quoted, " A may justly hold B as
property, as he holds his land, cattle, &c.; it necessarily follows.
that A may justly sell B to be separated from his wife, and B's
children to be separated from their parents." P. 59. He might
as well say, that because a man may justly hold cattle as property,
as he holds his lands or trees, therefore he may justly treat his
cattle as if they were made of wood. His property in cattle gives
him no right to use them in any way in which sentient creatures
ought not to be used; and his property in a man gives him no
right to use him, in any way in which a rational, immortal
being, his equal in the sight of God, may not properly be used.
The right of property is merely the right to have and to use
a thing according to its nature; and as a man has a rational,
moral, and social nature, it is no more an incident of the right
of property in him, that these attributes may be disregarded,
than it is an incident of the right of property in an ox or horse
that their nature as sentient creatures may be disregarded.
What men have the power to do, in virtue of the relation in which
they stand to others, and what they have a right to do in virtue of
that relation, are two very different things, which abolitionists con-
stantly confound. As already remarked, the parental relation
gives a man the power to do a thousand things he has no right to
do; so the relation between master and slave, assuming it to be a
perfectly righteous one, gives the former the power to do many
things which that relation cannot justify. The only right of pro-
perty which one man has or can have in another, is a right to his
services; just as his right of property in a horse is a right to have
and use him as a horse. And as the obligation arises out of
ownership in the latter case, to provide for the wants of the horse,
as a sentient creature, so the obligation arises out of the ownership
in the former case, to provide for the wants of the man, not only
as a sentient, but as a rational, moral, social and immortal being.
And as the man who, on the plea of ownership, should neglect the
wants of his horse, would be self condemned; so the man who,
ABOLITIONISM.
323
on a similar plea, neglects the infinitely more pressing wants of his
slave, as a rational creature, will be condemned by the united
judgment of God and man. If abolitionists could disabuse their
minds of their crude ideas on the subject of property, though they
might find they had lost almost all their stock in trade, they would
at least have the satisfaction of understanding what they are writing
about, and might be induced to adopt wiser measures for accom-
plishing their object.
It follows from what has been said of the right of property, as
consisting in the right of having and using, that it may be trans-
ferable. It is not necessarily so, as a man may have a full right
to have and use a thing, when he cannot transfer that right to
another. This is often the case when a certain property is attach-
ed to an office or a title. In other cases the right of transfer may
be restricted by certain conditions; as when slaves are bound to
the soil. Their owner can sell them only on condition of selling
the land on which they live. The price he receives is not the
mere value of the land, but the value of the land together with the
value of his right to the service of those living upon it. In ordi-
nary cases, however, the right of property is transferable. If I
have a right to the possession or use of anything, I may give, or
sell, or bequeathe that right to another. Of course, however, I can
give only what I possess; and as my right of property in a man
is and can be nothing more than the right to his services, that is all
I can transfer to another; and this right must go with all the
responsibilities which of necessity attach to it; the responsibility
of providing for his wants as a man, who has a soul as well as a
body. When, therefore, we speak of buying and selling men, all
that is or can be meant is the transfer of this right of service ; a
right of necessity limited and defined by the nature of the being
whose services are to be rendered. A man's right to the services
of another may be unconditional, so that he may transfer it at any
time or to any person; or it may be so limited that he can trans-
fer it only when he transfers the land on which the man lives; or
his right may extend to only a part of his time, as in the case of
the old feudal tenures; or to a particular kind of service only, such
as that due from a feudal proprietor to his lord, or from a subject
to his sovereign. But whatever the right is, it is generally trans-
ferable, and therefore we find subjects passing from one sovereign
to another, serfs from one landlord to another, and slaves from one
master to another and in all these cases, which in principle are
the same, there is nothing more than the transfer of the right of
service.
Another obvious remark which flows from what has been said is,
that the nature of the relation between a master and his slaves does
not depend upon the mode in which that relation is constituted, or
upon the time it is to continue. Any man who is the property of
another man, is, by the admitted definition of the term, a slave.
It matters not, as far as the nature of the relation is concerned,
324
ABOLITIONISM.
whether that right of property was acquired by gift, inheritance or
purchase; and if by purchase, it matters not whether the man was
sold by himself, or his parents, or by a former owner, or by the
state in punishment of some crime. The validity and justice of a
man's title to any property, do indeed depend upon the iminediately
prior title whence it is derived. And if the proposition of the
abolitionists was that the right of property in man, unless acquired
in a proper way, cannot be justly claimed or exercised, it would be
perfectly harmless. It would be analogous to a declaration that
landholding under a fraudulent title is unjust. But would it hence
follow that landholding is a heinous crime? Their proposition
is that slaveholding is a crime; and their argument is that one
man cannot rightfully own another man; that from his nature
man cannot be an article of property; and they attempt to sustain
this argument from scripture by trying to show that the Bible, so
far from authorizing one man's owning another, expressly forbids
it. Having shown that ownership in man includes and can include
nothing more than a right to his services, our object in this para-
graph is to prove the fallacy of the above argument, by showing
first that it is so broad as to include all modes of acquiring this
right of property, since it condemns the thing itself; and secondly,
that when they come to the scriptures, they attempt to evade their
authority by resting their condemnation not on the thing itself, not
on the mere fact of one man's owning another, but on the particu
lar mode in which he acquires his right as owner, and on the length
of time he exercises it But if the fundamental principle of the
abolitionists is correct, it obviously makes no difference how the
relation of master and slave is constituted. However ownership
in man is acquired, it must, according to their doctrine, be unjust
and offensive to God. If a man reduced to poverty, not knowing
how to obtain a support, comes to another and offers to serve him
all his life, if the law of the land recognises such a contract, he
becomes a slave; he belongs to his master in the fullest sense in
which one man can belong to another. This is what the Egyp-
tians did, when under the pressure of famine, having sold every-
thing they had, they came to Joseph and said: Buy us and our
land for bread; and Joseph gave them bread and said, Behold I
have bought you and your land for Pharaoh. Here is an instance
of the relation of master and slave constituted by voluntary con-
tract. And there are numerous cases of a like kind recorded in
scripture on a less extensive scale. Now suppose that a man who
had in this way acquired the right of property to a number of
men, should, as a gift or for money, transfer that right to another,
would its nature be altered by the transfer? Would the men be
more slaves in the second case than in the former? Would the
first master be entitled to lift clean hands to God, and the second
be a man-stealer, and everything else that abolitionists call slave-
holders? It is perfectly obvious that the nature of the relation or
their principle, does not depend on the mode in which it is con-
ABOLITIONISM.
325
stituted. If a man sells himself he is as much a slave as if sold by
another man, and consequently the abolitionists cannot evade the
authority of the sacred scriptures, by saying (though without evi-
dence) that the slaves the Israelites were permitted to hold, sold
themselves. Suppose they did, their masters were still slaveholders,
and therefore, according to their doctrine, guilty of a heinous crime
against God.
Nor does the nature of the relation between master and slave
depend on the length of time for which it is to continue. A man sold
for a term of years is as much a slave as a man sold for life. This
is evident from the definition of the word slave, as one who belongs
to another; from the usage of scripture and of human laws on the
subject. In most of the states in which slavery has been abolished,
it was enacted that slaves born after a certain year should be free
at the age of twenty-one or twenty-five years. Until that age they
were slaves; subject to all the laws relating to that class of persons.
It hence follows, that if the Bible sanctioned slaveholding for a
term of years, it sanctioned what abolitionists condemn as a
heinous crime. The validity of the argument therefore against
the abolitionists, drawn from the laws of Moses, does not depend
on the question whether the slaves there spoken of sold themselves,
or whether their bondage was perpetual or ceased at the year of
Jubilee. If they were sold so as to belong to another man for life
or for a term of years, they were for the time being slaves.
If the abolitionists turn round and say their arguments are
directed against involuntary and perpetual bondage, we answer,
1. That such is not the fact. Their denunciations are directed
against slaveholding, against making men property, an article of
traffic to be bought and sold. But a slave who sold himself, as
the Egyptians did, may be sold by his master for life or a term of
years, as well as a man who was born a slave. And, therefore,
their arguments are not in point of fact confined to slavery which
is involuntary and perpetual. 2. In a multitude of cases in our
own country and elsewhere, slaves prefer to remain the property
of their masters, secure of an abundant support, when in health,
and of a comfortable maintenance in sickness and old age. In all
such cases, slaveholding is not a heinous crime, if involuntary bon-
dage alone is slavery. Yet it is notorious that the class of slave-
holders whose slaves prefer to remain such, are not exempted
from the denunciations of the abolitionists. They are considered
as holding an unlawful relation to their fellow men, as much
as though they were living in adultery or in any other
acknowledged crime. The very question as stated by the aboli-
tionists is, whether those professing Christians who hold slaves are
guilty of a sin which calls for the censure of the church? 3. This
change of position is of course a concession that slaveholding is
not in itself a sin. A man may be an article of property, he may
be bought and sold, he may be a slave, provided he only consents
to be so. Slaveholding, then, is like landholding, right or wrong,
326
ABOLITIONISM.
according to circumstances. The propriety of both depends on the
validity of the title. It is sinful for a man to keep possession of a
piece of land, to which he has no other title than force or fraud;
and it is sinful for one man to hold another as a slave unless he
has a legitimate title to his services. The whole question now is,
what is a legitimate title? Abolitionists are forced, inconsistently
indeed, to admit that consent of parties confers a good title. But
can such title be acquired in no other way? A full answer to that
question would require a thorough examination of the origin of the
right of property, and of the circumstances which rightfully give
one man a claim, more or less extended, to the services of another.
Such an examination, however, the present occasion forbids, and
our object does not demand it. It is enough to remark, 1. That the
validity of the present title of a man to his property does not de-
pend on the validity of the title of the original possessor from
whom the right is derived. That is to say, the title which the
people of this country have to their farms, does not depend upon
the question whether the Pope and the sovereigns of Europe had
a right to take this country from the Indians, and give it to whom
they pleased. Most landholders in New Jersey trace their titles
to the gift by Charles II. to the Duke of York. If it be admit-
ted that Charles had no valid right to the soil, and therefore could
convey none to his brother, nor his brother to the original propri-
etors who purchased from him, it will not follow that the title of
the present holders of the soil is invalid or unrighteous. Neither
does it follow from the simple fact that the ancestors of the slaves
now in this country were most unrighteously obtained, that the
title of the owners of the present generation is necessarily invalid.
2. It may be remarked that the right of ownership of one man in
another, that is, a right to his services, may arise from dependence.
If that dependence is absolute and perpetual, so will the right of
property be. If it is only partial and temporary, the right arising
from it will in like manner be partial and temporary. Depend-
ence is one of the sources at least of the obligation of children to
render service to their parents; and the assumption of such de-
pendence of feudal serfs on their lords, and of subjects on their
sovereigns, is made one great ground of the claim of the latter to
the services of the former. If, therefore, one man was absolutely
dependent on another for support and protection, he would be his
slave, that is, he would be righteously bound to render him service.
This remark is made simply as indicating one of the ways in which
the relation between master and slave might originate without
injustice. 3. But as all slaves in this country were born such, the
only practically important question is, whether a constitution of
society in which one man is by birth placed in such a relation to
another man as to be bound to labour for him, upon condition of
having all his wants as a human being adequately supplied, is
necessarily sinful? That question cannot be answered in the
affirmative, without asserting that it is sinful to have the relative
ABOLITIONISM.
327
position of men in society determined by the accident of birth.
And this latter position cannot be maintained, without contradict-
ing the Bible and the common judgment of mankind. By divine
appointment, under the old dispensation, one man was born High
Priest, the most important position in the community, another an
ordinary priest, another a simple Levite, another a layman, who
could never attain to the privileges of the other classes; and
another a hewer of wood and drawer of water.
Such an arrange-
ment cannot in itself be sinful, because God ordained it; nor does
the light of nature contradict this decision of the word of God. In
some states of society this might be the best method of distributing
the various classes of the community, in others it might be highly
injurious. It is therefore neither forbidden nor commanded. Men
are left at liberty to determine the mode in which society shall be
constituted, guided by the peculiar circumstances of the community,
and the immutable obligation to adopt that method which is for the
general good. Moreover, neither the church nor world has ever
maintained that hereditary monarchy and hereditary nobility were
in their own nature sinful, so that no man can be a monarch or a
noble without committing heinous crime in the sight of God. And
even if the monarch were possessed of irresponsible power over the
property and lives of his subjects, undesirable and impossible as such
a form of government would be, in an advanced state of society,
it would not in its nature be sinful. Even Mr. Birney, the aboli-
tion candidate for the Presidency, has admitted that his conscience
would allow him to possess the unlimited power of a Roman Em-
peror, though it would direct him to use that power for the benefit
of his subjects. But if the word of God does not condemn as
sinful either the possession of unlimited power, or the designation
by the accident of birth of the person who is to hold it; then
it is admitted that it is not necessarily sinful that one man should
by birth be assigned to the rank of king, noble, or master, and
another to that of subject, commoner, or slave. As this diversity
of condition among men has always existed, as there have always
been masters and servants, if there is nothing sinful in the nature
of the relation, neither is there in its being determined by birth.
Does then the word of God sanction this relation? Did it per-
mit the Israelites to own men, to buy and sell them? If so, then
no man who can bow his heart and conscience to the authority of
God, can pronounce slaveholding to be a heinous crime. It is
conceded that the heathen by whom these patriarchs and their
descendants were surrounded, were slaveholders in the strictest
sense of the term. This was the case with the Egyptians, the
Midianites, and the inhabitants of Canaan. The Reviewer of
Dr. Junkin allows that Joseph in the house of Potiphar was pro-
perly called a Hebrew slave, and that the servants given by Abi-
melech to Abraham were slaves, since Abimelech was a heathen.
But on what evidence does this conviction rest that the heathen
of that age were slaveholders? It rests on the fact that the Scrip-
328
ABOLITIONISM.
-
tures speak of their having, buying, selling, and giving away men
as servants. This is regarded as sufficient. But all this is recorded
of the Patriarchs and of the Hebrews under Moses. Abraham is
spoken of as having men servants and maid servants, they are enu-
merated as a part of his possessions; he is said to have received
slaves as a present: Abimelech took sheep and oxen, and men
servants and maid servants, and gave them unto Abraham. Gen.
xx., 14. Pharaoh had before made him a similar gift, for it is said,
he entreated Abram well for Sarah's sake, and he had sheep, and
oxen, and he asses, and men servants, and maid servants. He
circumcised" all that were bought with his money." Hagar was
his bond-woman, and as such is contrasted with Sarah who was a
free woman. All that the apostle says of this case in Gal. iv.,
21-31, depends for its significancy on the fact that Hagar was a
slave, to whom could be applied the phrase is dovλeíav yevvwσa, "gen-
dering to bondage." How could it be said. "She is in bondage
with her children," but on the assumption that she was a slave,
and that the children of a slave mother were born in bondage?
This is the very point of the apostle's illustration. So in later
times we hear of the Hebrews having, buying, and selling slaves,
for a slave is a man who may be bought and sold. In Numbers
xxxi., 26 et seqq., we have an account of the distribution of the
spoil taken from the Midianites, among which women and children
are enumerated, and which were given in certain proportions to
the conquerors. This is a narrative, which if found in any other
book, would be universally understood as teaching that these cap-
tives were slaves. And there is no reason why it should not be
so understood here. As we have in this case one of the ways in
which the Hebrews were allowed by God to acquire slaves, so we
hear of their possessing them, and buying and selling them. In
Lev. xxii. 10, 11, it is said, "A sojourner of a priest, or an hired
servant, shall not eat of the holy thing. But if the priest buy any
soul with his money he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his
house, they shall eat of it." The precision of modern language
could not distinguish more accurately between a free servant and
a slave, than is done in this passage. The law respecting the
Passover was of the same kind. "There shall no stranger eat
thereof; but every man's servant that is bought with money, when
thou hast circumcised him, then he shall eat thereof," Ex. xii., 43,
44. Being thus bought, these slaves were by the law of Moses
regarded as the property of their masters. They are called
money, possession. If a man smote his servant, if he died under
his hand, the master was to be punished; if he continued a day or
two the owner was not punished, for the servant was his money,
Ex. xxi., 21. The right of masters to sell their slaves is constantly
assumed. It is implied in the right to buy, which supposes a sale.
It is implied in the very nature of the relation as the slave was
the money, the possession, the inheritance of the master. It is
implied in the restrictions which are imposed upon the right, a
ABOLITIONISM.
329
man could not sell a female slave whom he had humbled; "thou
shalt not make merchandise of her because thou hast humbled her,"
Deut. xxi., 14. Nor could he sell her to a foreign nation, Ex.
xxi., 8. If a master wounded a slave he could not sell him, he
must let him go free without money, Ex. xxi.
The clearest and most explicit enactments on this whole subject
are found in Lev. xxv., 39-46. "If thy brother that dwelleth by
thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel
him to serve as a bond servant; but as an hired servant, and as a
sojourner shall he be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year
of jubilee; then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children
with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the pos-
session of his father shall he return. For they are my servants
which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be
sold as bondmen. Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour, but
shalt fear thy God. Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which
thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you;
of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the
children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall
ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat
in your land; and they shall be your possession. And ye shall
take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit
them for a possession. They shall be your bondmen for ever; but
over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule over
one another with rigour."
We do not know how this passage can be rendered plainer than
it is, nor can we hope that any man, who is in such a state of mind
as to prevent his seeing and admitting that it authorized the He-
brews to hold slaves, could be convinced even if one rose from the
dead. It is here taught, 1. That if a Hebrew through poverty
sold himself, he should not be reduced to the abject state of a
slave. 2. That he should be treated as a hired servant. 3. And
be allowed to go free at the year of Jubilee. This is the precise
condition which abolitionists assign to the heathen servants among
the Hebrews, whereas it is here declared to be peculiar to servants
who were children of Israel; who could not be sold as bondmen,
venditione mancipii, as the elder Michaelis translates it. Of the
other class it is taught, 1. That they might be bought for bond-
men. 2. That they might be held as a possession or property. 3.
They might be bequeathed by their masters to the children as a
possession; hereditario jure possidebitis, as Michaelis renders the
phrase; or as De Wette translates it to the letter: Ihr möget sie
vererben auf eure Söhne nach euch als Eigenthum. You may
bequeathe them to your children after you for a possession. 4. This
bondage was perpetual. They shall be your bondmen for ever.
One of the points of distinction between the two classes was, that
the former could not be sold in perpetuity-the latter might. As
the land of a Hebrew could not be alienated, so his person could
not be reduced to perpetual bondage. At the year of jubilee he
330
ABOLITIONISM.
was to go free, and his inheritance reverted to him. In contrast
with this, Moses allows the heathen to be reduced to perpetual
bondage. Hebrews shall not be sold with the sale of a slave,
venditione mancipii, v. 42; the heathen may be thus sold, is the
very point of contrast, v. 46. If the former passage forbade
reducing Israelites to the condition of slaves, the latter allowed
the heathen to be so reduced. Again, both the Hebrew words
and the construction in v. 39, are the same as v. 46. An Israel
ite "thou shalt not compel to serve as a bond servant ;" the hea-
then "shall be your bondmen." What is forbidden in the one
case, was allowed in the other.*
If then, men, who were the property, a possession of other men,
who might be bought and sold, who could be given or bequeathed
as a possession to the children of their masters, were slaves, then
were the Hebrews allowed to hold slaves. The attempts made to
evade this plain teaching of the scriptures are precisely similar to
those which are made to prove that the Bible condemns as sin-
ful all use of wine as a beverage, and that it pronounces even
defensive war to be sinful. It is impossible to answer mere
assertions. And the more extravagant the assertion, the more
impossible the answer. How can a man be refuted who should
say, as we know an ultra advocate of temperance did say, that
the passage which speaks of John the Baptist coming neither eat-
ing nor drinking, means that he drank no water, but only milk;
whereas Christ came drinking water; though he was called a
gluttonous man and a wine-bibber. So when abolitionists say in
reference to all the passages above referred to, that the bondmen
of the Hebrews, even from among the heathen, were voluntary
servants, who themselves received the purchase money paid for
them, that they were in fact hired servants, receiving wages, hiring
themselves for a term of years instead of for a single year, or for
a day, or week, or month, who could neither be sold nor bequeathed;
we know not how they are to be answered, any more than if they
were to assert they were all ten feet high. Certain it is, the asser-
tion is gratuitous. It is not only destitute of support, but contrary
to the plain meaning of the words, and to the sense attributed to
them in all ages. Moses found the institution of slavery existing
at his day, and acted with regard to it as he did with regard to
many other things; instead of prohibiting it, he made laws regu
lating the power of the master, and furthering the interests of the
slave. He forbade any Hebrew being reduced to the state of
CC
*We copy part of the comment of Henry as given in the Comprehensive Com-
mentary on vs. 44-46. They might purchase bondmen of the heathen nations
round about them, or of those strangers that sojourned among them (except of the
seven nations to be destroyed), and might claim a dominion over them, and entail
them on their families as an inheritance, for the year of Jubilee should give no dis-
charge to them." This he says was designed to intimate "that none shall have the
benefit of the gospel-jubilee, but only Israelites indeed, and the children of Abra-
ham by faith; as for those who continue heathenish, they continue bondmen." If
Matthew Henry were living now and in this country, should we not see him threat-
ened with deposition from the ministry for such sentiments?
ABOLITIONISM.
331
perpetual bondage; he required that slaves of heathen origin
should be set free whenever they were cruelly treated, and as a
punishment for such cruelty, he required that the master should
assume towards them the responsibilities of a parent, introduce
them into the covenant of God as though they were his own chil-
dren, grant them access to the means of religious instruction, by
admitting them to the passover and other commemorative feasts,
by which the knowledge of God's dealings with his people was
principally preserved and propagated; and he enjoined that they
should share in all the privileges of the Sabbath and sabbatical
year. In this way, rather than by the immediate abolition or abso-
lute prohibition of slavery, infinite wisdom saw fit, in that age and
state of the world, to provide for the improvement and happiness
of men. And by this means thousands from the surrounding
nations were rescued from heathenism, introduced into the church
of God and made a component part of his people.
We have thought it the less necessary to go into detail on the
argument from the Old Testament, because we consider aboli-
tionists as abandoning the whole ground, and conceding the whole
question, when they come to the New Testament. How they can
avoid feeling condemned out of their own lips, is more than we
can understand. The admitted facts of the case are these, 1. That
at the time of the introduction of Christianity, slavery in its worst
form prevailed extensively over the world. The slaves are esti-
mated as amounting to one-half or two-thirds of the population of
the Roman Empire; and the severity with which they were treated.
was extreme. 2. That neither Christ nor his apostles ever
denounced slaveholding as a crime. 3. That they never urged
emancipation as an immediate duty. These are the facts: the
inference is irresistible, slaveholding cannot be a crime. It is
placed by the inspired writers upon the same ground with despotism.
The possession of absolute sovereignty in the state, the exercise
by one man of the supreme legislative, judicial and executive func-
tions of government, is not in its own nature sinful. If such a
sovereign is wise, just and benevolent, he may be a great bene-
factor, and secure the approbation of all good men. Accordingly,
the apostles, though living under the reign of Nero, while they
denounce all injustice and cruelty, whether in despot, master, or
parent, never say a word about the sin of despotism. On the
contrary, they enjoined the duty of submission to the exercise of
that authority; teaching that human government, however consti-
tuted, was an ordinance of God; that the king, though such a king
as Nero, was still the minister of God, an avenger to execute
wrath, responsible for the exercise of power, but not for the then
possession of it. In like manner, though masters were invested
with greater power over their slaves than any master now pos-
sesses, the apostles, instead of enjoining them to lay it aside, com-
manded them to exercise it properly, to be just and equal in all
their dealings, remembering that they too had a master in heaven.
332
ABOLITIONISM.
On the slaves they enjoined obedience, not only when the masters
were good and gentle, but also when they were froward; holding
up to them the example of the Redeemer himself, who patiently
submitted to injury. They cautioned those who had believing
masters, against despising them because they were brethren.
The equality which existed between them and their masters, as
brethren in Christ, was no reason why they should not render to
them the honour and service due to them as their masters accord-
ing to the flesh.
Such is the plain teaching of the New Testament on this subject,
and it is absolutely irreconcilable with the assumption that the
apostles regarded slaveholding as a heinous crime. It is here that
the argument of the abolitionists breaks down entirely. We have
often seen children building houses with cards; after laying a
broad foundation and carrying up the structure with the greatest
care and skill to the proposed height, in placing the last card in
position, the whole collapses and lies in ruins at their feet. Thus
these brethren begin with Abraham, and by dint of learning, inge-
nuity, and hard asserting, make out a tottering case; but when
they come to the admission that Christ and his apostles, though
living in the midst of slavery, never denounced slaveholding as a
sin and never enjoined immediate emancipation as a duty, their
whole laborious structure is prostrated in a moment.
The conces-
sion of those facts is a concession that they differ from their Master
and his inspired apostles.
The solution which they give of the facts referred to is alto-
gether unsatisfactory. They say in substance, that the apostles
concealed the truth, that they were afraid of consequences, that
they acted from policy or motives of expediency.*
Our answer
to this is: 1. That such conduct would be immoral. For men
professing to be inspired teachers of truth and duty, to appear
among men living in the daily commission of "a heinous crime in
the sight of God," and never once tell them it was a crime; to
allow them to go on in this course of iniquity to the ruin of their
souls, is a supposition which shocks the moral sense. Nothing but
the explicit declaration that slaveholding was a crime, and imme-
diate emancipation a duty, could satisfy the demands of conscience
in such a case. Men were constantly coming to the apostles to
ask what they must do to be saved, what God would have them to
do, and if they did not answer those questions openly and honestly,
according to their real convictions, they were bad men. Such
conduct in any other case would by all men be pronounced immo-
* This is the ground they are forced to take. The Reviewer of Dr. Junkin's pam-
phlet says:
"To have waged a public war against slavery, to have taken the stand
and employed the active efforts now adopted by abolitionists, would have been, humanly
speaking, to have drawn upon their heads immediate and utter destruction, and that
without even the remotest prospect of benefiting the poor slaves."-P. 109. "We
need not expect, therefore, in the New Testament, a direct declaration of the fact
that man cannot hold property in man; nor that immediate emancipation is a Chris-
tian duty."-P. 110.
ABOLITIONISM.
333
ral. Suppose our missionaries among the heathen, in teaching the
gospel, should, from motives of policy, abstain from telling them
the truth, should fail intentionally to inform them that idolatry,
adultery, child-murder, or any like crime, was a grievous sin in
the sight of God, would not all the world pronounce them unfaith-
ful? Do not abolitionists condemn southern ministers for not
explicitly stating that slaveholding is a crime, and immediate
emancipation a duty? Would they not view with abhorrence the
minister who really coincided with them in his views, and yet,
through fear of the consequences, held his peace, and allowed his
hearers to sin on in security? Would not, on the contrary, the
world ring with their shouts in praise of the man who in fidelity
to God, and in love to man, should openly preach the truth on these
points to a congregation of slaveholders, even though it brought
sudden destruction on his own head? We fear, however, we are
only obscuring the clearness of a self-evident truth by multiplying
illustrations. The conduct of the apostles is absolutely irrecon-
cilable with moral honesty, if they believed slaveholding to be a
heinous erime in the sight of God. They were either bad men, or
they were not abolitionists, in the American sense of that word.
2. But again, the course ascribed to the apostles, in reference to
slavery, is not only base in itself, but it is contrary to their conduct
in all analogous cases. Slaveholding is the only sin familiar to
those to whom they preached, and about which they wrote, that
they failed to denounce. Idolatry was a crime which was more
prevalent than slaveholding; more implicated in all the institutions
of life, in support of which stronger passions were engaged, and
in attacking which they could not look for the support of one-half
or two-thirds of the community. Yet idolatry they everywhere
proclaimed to be a crime inconsistent with Christianity, and a bar
to salvation. The consequence was the apostles were persecuted
even to death. It is not true that they kept back the truth for fear
of suffering. They called God to witness that they declared the
whole counsel of God, and were clear of every man's blood. It is said
that the cases of idolatry and slavery are not parallel, because it was
more dangeroas to denounce the latter than the former. Admitting
the fact, is the degree of danger attending the discharge of a
duty the measure of its obligation? Must a religious teacher, in
explaining the way of salvation, keep back the truth—one of
the most effectual methods of teaching falsehood-because he
may incur danger by inculcating it? We do not, however, be-
lieve the allegation. We believe that the apostles might have taught
that slaveholding is a sin, with far less danger than that which
they incurred by teaching that what the heathen sacrificed they
sacrificed to devils. We need not conceive of their adopting
the system of agitation, and the whole "moral machinery" of
modern times. They adopted no such course with regard to
idolatry. But they might doubtless with comparative safety have
told slaveholders that it was their duty to emancipate their slaves.
334
ABOLITIONISM.
They could as well have enjoined them to set their servants free,
as to command them to render to them what is just and equal.
Many men, without any great exhibition of courage, have taught
and do still teach the moral evil of slaveholding in the midst of
slaveholders. And even now, any man who, in a meek, sincere,
and benevolent spirit, should say to southern planters that the
relation they sustain to their slaves is contrary to the will of God,
and incompatible with their own salvation, would meet with no
greater disturbance than the Quakers have experienced in making
their annual testimony against slavery.
The course ascribed to the apostles is not only insonsistent with
fidelity and contrary to their uniform practice, but it is moreover
opposed to the conduct of the messengers of God in all ages. The
ancient prophets never failed to reprove the people for their sins,
and to exhort them to repentance, no matter how strong the
attachment of their hearers to their iniquity, or how powerful
the interests leagued in its support. Elijah did not fail to
denounce the worship of Baal, though Ahab and Jezebel were
determined to kill the prophets of God; nor did John the Baptist
fail to tell Herod that it was not lawful for him to have his bro-
ther's wife.
This is one of the most serious aspects of this whole discussion.
The testimony of scripture is so clearly against the fundamental
principle of modern abolitionism, that the most violent processes
of interpretation must be resorted to, to get rid of its authority; and
the example of the apostles is so opposed to the doctrine of the
party, that to evade its force they are constrained to ascribe to the
messengers of Christ principles of conduct which the moral sense
instinctively condemns. This course cannot be pursued without
weakening the authority of the word of God. When any set of
men assume that a doctrine, whether it be the Trinity, personal
election, or future punishment, cannot be true, and go to the scrip-
tures with the determination to silence their testimony, or to
make them speak in accordance with their preconceived opinions,
they wrong their own souls, and put themselves above the word
of God. Or if they assume on general grounds that the use of
wine, defensive war, the holding of slaves, is in itself a sin, and
place the scriptures on the rack of criticism, to make them teach
the same doctrine, it is bad for them, bad for the church, and
bad for the country. It of course makes a great difference
whether this conflict with the Bible is associated with the benevo
lent or with the malignant feelings of our nature; but it is well for
us to remember that we cannot be more benevolent than God, and
that it is vain for us to condemn what his word allows. And if we
at any time feel that the scriptures trouble us; if we wish they
did not say exactly what they do say, if we should be glad to
alter them to bring them nearer to our mind, we may be certain
that the fault is in ourselves. The more perfectly we can sympa-
thize with the word as it is; the more entirely our understanding,
ABOLITIONISM.
335
heart, and conscience, accord with its statements, the more health-
ful is the state of our minds. And on the contrary, the more we
rise in conflict with its obvious import, the more we feel constrained
to resort to evasions and unnatural interpretations to escape from
its authority, the more certainly are we in the wrong. And when
the pride of our nature rises so high as to lead us to declare that if
the Bible really teaches this or that, which to all appearance it
does teach, we renounce it, then we become judges and not doers
of the law.
We have repeatedly admitted, though we believe the funda-
mental principles of abolitionism to be false and its spirit fanatical,
leading to a censoriousness, and evil speaking of Christian brethren,
exceedingly offensive to God, yet that many good men are to be
found in their ranks. It may therefore be proper to ask, How it
is that on a question of morals, good men should be so divided
in their judgments, one affirming, another denying that slaveholding
is a crime? We think we have already intimated the true solution
of this question. They have in a great measure different objects.
before their minds. What the abolitionists, for the most part, really
condemn, the true objects of their moral disapprobation, is not slave-
holding, but the slave-laws; and what the other party vindicate as
not necessarily inconsistent with the will of God, is slaveholding,
and not the slave-laws of this or any other country. It is the
want of discrimination between these entirely distinct things,
SLAVEHOLDING AND THE SLAVE-LAWS, we firmly believe is the cause
of a great part of the difference of sentiment which exists on this
subject. We have already adverted to one source of this confu-
sion when speaking of the nature of property. The abolitionists
constantly assume that the incidents of the right of property are
the same whatever may be the nature of its object. Hence they
infer that if one man may justly hold another man as property, he
may justly treat him as he may treat any other article of property;
if the validity of the title be acknowledged, it follows that the
owner may disregard the nature of his slave, treat him as if he
were not a husband, or not a parent; as though he had no social
affections; or was not a rational being, and had no soul to be
saved or lost. This is what they mean to condemn, and this every
good man in the world would condemn; and if this was a correct
view of what is meant by the right of property in man, there could
be no diversity of opinion as to whether slaveholding were a
heinous crime. Again, they constantly confound what a man has
a right to do in virtue of his relation of master, with what the laws
of the land give him the liberty to do, or even enjoin upon him.
Thus the Reviewer above quoted, argues that if the apostles recog-
nised slaveholding under the Roman laws as consistent with a
Christian character, they must have recognised as consistent with
that charater, all the oppressions, cruelty, and even murder, which
those laws sanctioned or permitted. "The Roman law," he says,
"allowed masters to put their slaves to death; to extort testimony
336
ABOLITIONISM.
on the rack; to punish them with dreadful tortures; to turn out
the old slaves to die on a dunghill, &c. Might the Christian master
claim and exercise all these legal rights? The Roman law said,
Inter servos et liberos matrimonium contrahi non potest, contubernium
potest. A freeman may live with a slave, but not marry her.
Was this legal fornication tolerated in the church?" He might
have gone further, and said that the Roman law recognised no
marriage between slaves, and then ask, whether the apostles recog
nised this prohibition of matrimony? If we understand this argu-
ment, it is, that if the apostles recognised the right of a Christian
under the Roman laws to hold slaves, they thereby recognised his
right to expose his slaves to die of cold and hunger, to torture them
at pleasure, to forbid them to marry, or to regard their union as
mere temporary concubinage. If this is a valid mode of reasoning,
then the Bible, in recognising the right of kings to reign, recog
nised their right to throw good men to lions, or into a furnace, to
persecute them for worshipping the true God, and to do all the
abominable things human laws have ever permitted kings to do.
Then, too, if the Bible recognises the parental relation, it recog
nises the right of the parent to sell his daughters as concubines, to
put his children to death, or to do whatever the laws of Moham-
medans or Pagans may authorize a parent's doing. One would
think that the distinction between the lawfulness of a given rela-
tion, as between a king and his subjects, a parent and his children,
a master and his slaves, and the laws which at any particular time
or place may be enacted in reference to that relation, is sufficiently
clear, to prevent the two things from being confounded. Yet this
is a distinction that abolitionists will not make. When they speak
of slaveholding as a sin, they mean that it is a sin to do what the
slave-laws of the south permit to be done; to separate parents and
children, or husbands and wives; to treat slaves with injustice and
cruelty; to prevent their learning to read the word of God, or
attending the preaching of the gospel. And when any man asserts
that slaveholding is not a crime, they consider him as saying that
it is not a sin thus to trample on the dearest rights of our fellow
men. The very title of the book to which we have so often refer-
red, is, "A Review of Dr. Junkin's Synodical Speech in defence of
American Slavery." Dr. Junkin's speech, however, is simply an
argument to prove that slaveholding is not a crime, and therefore
that "believing masters ought not to be excommunicated from the
church of God." This is called a defence of American Slavery!
i. e. of the whole system of slave-laws now in force in this country!
There is no help for men who will act thus. May not a man in
England maintain that landholding is no sin, without defending all
the English laws of entail and primogeniture, which relate to
lands? May he not teach that it is right to hold property, with-
out thereby teaching that all the laws relating to property, in any
given country, are wise and just? Then why may he not say,
that slaveholding is no crime, and yet not defend the slave-laws
ABOLITIONISM.
337
either of Rome or America? This distinction, which is so plain
as to be glaring, it is of great importance should be borne in
mind both in the North and South. In the North, to prevent the
sin and folly of condemning all slaveholders as criminals, when the
slave laws are the real objects meant to be condemned; and in
the South, to prevent those who maintain that slaveholding is no
sin, from thinking it necessary to defend, and from expecting others
to defend the existing laws in relation to that subject.
We utterly repudiate the charge that we are the advocates of
the slave-laws of the South, because we hold that slaveholding is
not in itself a crime. We deny that such a charge is sustained by
anything we have said; we deny that southern Christians even
defend the laws which are now in force with regard to the slaves.
We know, for example, that the law which forbids slaves being
taught to read, is in a multitude of cases openly disregarded.
Within ten days a gentleman from South Carolina told us that
every slave that he had could both read and write, and that he
never gave himself the least concern about the law which forbids
the instruction of the blacks. To show how unreasonable is the
clamour of abolitionists against those who oppose their distinctive
doctrine, we will again briefly state what we conceive to be the
correct view of the subject.
By slaveholding we understand one man's having the right of
property in another man; and by the right of property we under-
stand the right of having and using a thing according to its nature;
and consequently the right of property in a man can be nothing
more than the right to use him as a man. And as a man is not
only a sentient creature, but a social, rational, moral and immortal
being, it is not an incident of the right of property in him, that his
wants as a social and rational being can be justly disregarded, any
more than it is an incident of right of property in a horse, that the
wants of the horse as a living animal can be justly neglected. On
the contrary, as the possession of rights implies corresponding
duties, the possession of property in a man imposes the responsi-
bility of providing for his wants as a man. And as the wants of a
man relate to the soul as well as to the body, the responsibility not
only rests upon the owner, but arises out of the very nature of his
relation to his slaves as their owner, to provide not merely for
their comfortable support, but also for their education, for the
secure exercise of their social affections as husbands and fathers;
and for their moral and religious instruction. These are as plainly
the incidents of the right of property in man, as the duty of sup-
port, education, and moral and religious culture, is an incident of a
parent's relation to his children. So far, therefore, from maintain-
ing that a master has a right in virtue of his ownership to prevent
his slaves marrying, or to separate them when married, or to keep
them in ignorance, or to debar them from the means of grace, we
say that it of necessity flows from his right of property in them,
that he has no right to do any of these things, but is bound to do
22
338
ABOLITIONISM.
the direct reverse. It is here as in despotic governments. So far
from the possession by one man of absolute power in the state,
giving him the right to interfere with the religious convictions of
his people, to keep them in ignorance, to separate the married, to
take children from their parents, or in any way to hinder the social,
intellectual, and religious improvement of those subject to his
power, the very possession of that power imposes the strongest
obligation to do all he can for their happiness and improvement.
Again, as the possession of power over our fellow-men neces-
sarily involves corresponding duties towards them, so the exercise
of that power is to be regulated by the law of God. A king is
bound to exercise his power according to the rules of justice and
mercy; a parent must use his authority for edification and not for
destruction; and a master's power over the slave is in like man-
ner subject to the rules of God's word. And as it is one of the
rules there laid down, that labour should be rewarded, it is no fair
inference from the admission of the right of possession in the mas-
ter, that he may justly withhold a reasonable compensation for the
labour of his slaves. And in point of fact, we believe it to be true,
that the slaves of the south, as a general rule, are far better com-
pensated than the great body of operatives in Europe. We
believe also that taking them as a class, their intellectual, moral,
and religious condition is better. It is not well, however, to recrimi-
nate. Americans doubtless have sinned and are now sinning
greatly, in not discharging the duties which flow from their rela-
tion to the coloured people of this country as their masters; and
this sin is not the less, because England has sinned and is still
sinning in a higher measure, in her conduct towards her labour-
ing population. The degradation, social and moral, into which
large masses of the people have there been allowed to sink,
we cannot but regard as the natural consequence of unequal
laws; of laws which favour the accumulation of property in
the hands of a few, and which tend to confine the benefits of
education and religious privileges to the upper and middle classes.
The Archbishop of Canterbury stated in the House of Lords, that
there were three millions of people in England and Wales without
pastoral supervision, and that church accommodation was provided
for one in eight of the population, in some parts of the country,
and for one in thirty in other parts. The Marquis of Lans-
downe, on another occasion, stated that, with the exception of
Spain and Russia, England was in education below any European
nation, only one in twelve of the population being in school. A
public report recently made to parliament, states that there are
nearly three millions and a half of the people of Ireland living in
mud hovels, having one room each, and without chimney or win-
dows. While the mass of the population is sinking to such degra
dation, property is accumulating with fearful rapidity in the hands
of a constantly decreasing number. In 1770 the lands of Eng-
land belonged to 250,000 families; in 1815, they belonged to
ABOLITIONISM.
339
*
32,000, and since then the process has been going on as rapidly as
ever. In 1838 it appeared from the probate of wills that the
personal property of twenty-four bishops, who had died within
twenty years, averaged about $300,000 each. This is exclusive
of their real estates. If the eye had the power of retroversion,
we should certainly be less censorious. The laws of England by
which such inequality has been produced in the distribution of
wealth, and such ignorance and misery entailed on the lower
classes, are to Americans as much the objects of moral disappro-
bation, as anything in our institutions can be to the good people of
England. And yet we hear of no public meetings to recommend
discontinuing the use of the products of English labour, analogous
to those which in Great Britain recommend, under the patronage
of that very eccentric person Dr. Burns, the non-importation of
American cotton. This however is a digression which we should
be willing to strike out, but are also willing to let stand. We do
not approve of this mutual condemnation, and only adduce the
foregoing facts to show how unbecoming it appears in the eyes of
Americans, for men surrounded by such crying evils at home, to
exhaust their benevolence on distant objects.
As, then, the right of property in a man, while it invests the
owner with power to command his services, does not exempt him
from the obligation to exercise that power according to the direc-
tions of God's word, the master therefore is bound by the principle
that the labourer is worthy of his hire. And the right to accumu-
late property necessarily follows from the right to compensation,
for a man's hire is his own, and if it exceeds the necessary means
of support, it is his own still. This right is generally recognised.
How else could slaves purchase their own liberty, as they are
allowed to do under Spanish laws, and as they so often in fact do
in this country?
It follows necessarily, from what has been said, that all those
laws which are designed to restrict the master in the discharge of
the duties which flow from his relation to his slaves; which for-
bid his teaching them to read, or which prohibit marriage among
them, or which allow of the separation of those who are married,
or which render insecure the possession of their earnings, or are
otherwise in conflict with the word of God, are wicked laws;
laws which do not find their justification in the admission of the
right of ownership in the master, but are in direct contravention
of the obligations which necessarily flow from that right. If the
laws of the land forbade parents to instruct their children, or per-
mitted them to sell them to the Turks, there would be a general
outcry against the atrocity of such laws; but no man would be
so absurd as to infer that having children was a great sin. Parents
who complied with such laws would be great sinners, but not
parents who did their duty to their children. In all other cases,
Edinburgh Witness, Feb. 3, 1844.
340
ABOLITIONISM.
men distinguish between the relation, whether of kings and sub-
jects, of lords and tenants, of parents and children, and the laws,
just or unjust, which may be made respecting those relations. If
they would make the same distinction between slaveholding and
the slave-laws, they would see that the condemnation of the latter
does not necessarily involve the condemnation of the former as
itself a crime.
The principles above stated we believe to be scriptural, and in
accordance with the enlightened moral sense of men. We believe.
them also to be eminently conducive to the welfare of the slaves.
The principles and conduct, on the other hand, of our abolitionists,
we believe to be unchristian and in the highest degree injurious.
If their distinctive doctrine is erroneous, then denouncing slavehold-
ers as such, excluding them from the church, insisting on imme-
diate emancipation as in all cases a duty, are all seen and felt to
be unreasonable; and the spirit with which this course is pur-
sued, to be unchristian. The consequence is, that opposition and
alienation are produced between those who ought to be united;
slaveholders, who do not belong to the church, are exasperated,
and become more severe in the treatment of their slaves, more
intolerant of all means for their improvement, and the hands of
God's people living among them are effectually tied. As the cause
of temperance was disparaged, weakened, and in some places
ruined, by making all use of intoxicating drinks sinful; so the
cause of the slave has been injured beyond estimate, by the doc-
trine that slaveholding is itself a crime, and by the spirit and
measures to which that doctrine has given rise.
Any candid man can see, on the other hand, that the scriptural
doctrine is adapted to promote the best interests of the slaves.
That doctrine is that slaveholding is not necessarily sinful, but like
all similar relations is right or wrong according to circumstances,
and when it exists gives rise to the obligation of providing for all
the temporal and spiritual wants of the slaves. If a man owns
another, he is for that very reason bound to feed and clothe him,
to provide for him in sickness and old age, to educate him, and let
the light of truth and saving knowledge in upon his mind, to watch
over his rights, to exercise all the power which his ownership
gives him in accordance with those rules of mercy and righteous-
ness, which are laid down in the word of God. It is also evident
that acting in accordance with these principles would soon so im-
prove the condition of the slaves, would make them intelligent,
moral and religious, and thus work out to the benefit of all con-
cerned, and the removal of the institution. For slavery, like des-
potism, supposes the actual inferiority, and consequent dependence
of those held in subjection. Neither can be permanent. Both
may be prolonged by keeping the subject class degraded, that is,
by committing sin on a large scale, which is only to treasure up
wrath for the day of wrath. It is only the antagonist fanaticism
of a fragment of the south, which maintains the doctrine that
ABOLITIONISM.
341
slavery is in itself a good thing, and ought to be perpetuated. It
cannot by possibility be perpetuated. The only question is, how
is it to end?
All that we are concerned with, is present duty;
and that duty, inferred from the nature of the relation, and declared
in the word of God, is to instruct, to civilize, to evangelize the
slaves, to make them as far as we can, intelligent, moral and reli-
gious; good husbands, good fathers, as well as good servants.
The consequence of such conduct must be peace, a good con-
science, and the blessing of God.
If the views presented in this paper are correct, it is easy to see
how this whole subject ought to be treated in our church courts.
In the first place it is plain, that for such courts, under the dicta-
tion of abolitionists, to pronounce slaveholding a crime, and to
enjoin the exclusion of all slaveholders from the church, would be
foolish and wicked. It would be to trample on the authority of
the word of God; to shock the moral sense of the great body of
intelligent and pious people on the face of the earth; it would
rend the church, send abroad a spirit of malice and discord, and
would cut off the slaves themselves from one of the most impor-
tant means appointed by God for their improvement and emanci-
pation; the instructions and kind treatment of believing masters.
In the second place, it is plain that the church has no responsi-
bility and no right to interfere, with respect to the slave laws of
the South. Those laws are doubtless in many cases unjust and
cruel, enjoining what God forbids, and forbidding what God
enjoins. The existence of those laws supposes criminality some-
where; but the responsibility rests on those who made, and have
the power to repeal them. It does not rest on the church. Chris-
tians who are members of communities in which such laws are in
force, have their share of responsibility with regard to them, as
citizens. But it is no part of the vocation of the church, as such,
to interfere with civil laws. The apostles did not call a synod at
Jerusalem, to denounce the Roman laws, but they laid the founda-
tion of a spiritual society, and let the world make its own laws.
We would not brook the legislatures of our States passing denun-
ciatory resolutions against our rules of church discipline; and we
should not call upon the church to meddle with the laws of the
land. As citizens we have the right and duty to demand just and
equal laws; but as a church, we have other and higher duties.
In the third place, it is evident that the church has an impor-
tant duty to perform in relation to this subject. At the North, as
elsewhere, she is bound to instruct parents in their duties to their
children, and to exercise her oversight and discipline when those
duties are grossly violated or neglected. She has the same duty
to perform with regard to slaveholders. As she would be called
upon to censure a parent, who was unjust or cruel to his children,
so is she called upon to censure her slaveholding members, should
they be unjust or cruel to their slaves. The church is a society
constituted by God, to be governed by certain rules, and invested
342
ABOLITIONISM.
with power to enforce, by spiritual means, the observance of those
rules upon its members.
its members. Of course those who do not comply with
the rules laid down in the word of God, as to their conduct, either
as men, or parents, or masters, are justly exposed to the censure
of the church, and the church is bound to inflict such censure. As
to this point, we presume there is no difference of opinion. And
if we could agree to act on these principles; that is, abstain from
denouncing as a crime what God has not so pronounced; withhold
our hands from the laws of the land, for which, as a church, we
have no responsibility; and confine ourselves to teaching all
classes of our members their duties, whether as parents, masters,
or slaves, and enforcing the discharge of those duties by the power
which God hath given to his church for edification and not for
destruction, we should commend ourselves to every man's con-
science in the sight of God.
ESSAY XII.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.*
THE subject of criminal jurisprudence has of late years attracted
much attention, and the effect has been a gradual melioration of
the penal codes of most civilized nations. Were it our task to
unfold the causes which have conspired to produce this favourable
change, we should certainly name as the very last and least among
them all, that which Mr. Rantoul, the author of the Massachusetts
Report, places first, the influence of Jeremy Bentham. So long
as we believe that men are possessed of a moral nature, that in its
workings makes them acquainted with pleasures and pains of a
higher order than the gratifications of the palate or the pinchings
of cold or hunger, we never can be persuaded that Benthamism can
be the means of any extensive or enduring benefit to mankind.
It would be such a miracle as might almost compel us into blank
scepticism, if a philosophy of the lowest and shallowest order, that
contemplates man only as the first of animals, and the universe
only as the largest and best of machines, should supply such
truths, motives, and means, as would suffice for the substantial
improvement and elevation of the human race. Whenever we
are satisfied that this has actually occurred, we shall deem it a fact
sufficiently startling to lead us to examine anew the nature of
man, and the character of the truths by which he is to live. In
the meantime we shall remain in the belief, that any wise and
beneficent provision for the interests of men must be derived from
some higher source than a philosophy that is adequate, in its legiti-
mate scope, only to the care of cattle.
Our object, however, is not now to trace the true causes of the
reformation which criminal jurisprudence has undergone, but
simply to mark the fact. This reformation has been more
extensive and striking in England than in any other country. The
criminal code of England, as it stood thirty years ago, attached
* Originally published in 1842, in review of the following works:-1. "Report
relating to Capital Punishment, presented to the House of Representatives of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Feb. 22, 1836.”
2. "Report on Capital Punishment, presented to the Assembly of the State of New
York, April 14, 1841."
344
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
the punishment of death to more than two hundred different
offences, many of which were of a comparatively trivial character.
Thus it was a capital felony to steal property to the value of five
shillings privately from a shop, or to the value of forty shillings
from a dwelling house, to steal to the amount of forty shillings on
any navigable river, to steal privately from the person, or to steal
from any bleaching ground in England or Ireland. A still more
sanguinary act, passed under the reign of Elizabeth, made it a
capital offence for any person above the age of fourteen, to asso-
ciate for a month with gypsies. The latest instance of the
execution of this last act, was under the reign of Charles I.;
though Lord Hale mentions that as many as thirteen persons
had, within this time, suffered death under it, at a single assize.
When these severe statutes were enacted, it was doubtless intended
that their penalties should be faithfully executed, as no sensible
men would ever make laws without the design of carrying
them into effect. But as the exigencies of commerce, trade, or
manufactures, which had seemed to call for this bloody protection,
passed away, or as experience demonstrated the inexpediency
of so sanguinary a code, and an enlightened public sentiment
revolted at its cruelty, its provisions fell gradually into disuse.
Under the reign of Henry VIII. Hollinshed states that not less
than two thousand persons perished annually under the hands.
of the executioner. But during the seven years, from 1802 to
1809, the average number of executions for each year was only
nine and a half; and these were chiefly for the gravest offences.
During this same period eighteen hundred and seventy-two persons
were committed to Newgate, for privately stealing in shops and
dwelling houses, but of this whole number only one was executed.
The evidence of these and like facts would be conclusive to any
American mind, that the English system of penal law, interpreted
according to the intention of its founders, had become obsolete.
But it affords a curious illustration of the conservative
tenacity with which English politicians clung, more
a few
years since than now, to the institutions of their ancestors, that
whenever it was proposed to amend their criminal laws by the
light which experience had shed upon their operation, their very
blunders were forthwith praised as excellences.
Thus Paley
exalts the wisdom which had planned a penal code by which severe
punishments are denounced, while, in the great majority of cases,
only mild ones are inflicted. And when Sir Samuel Romilly com-
menced, in 1807, his efforts to reform the criminal code by
removing sundry minor offences from the list of capital felonies,
where they remained for no other purpose than to illustrate the
"wise provision of our ancestors," by which they had affixed to
certain crimes a penalty which, in the altered state of society, it
was deemed expedient never to inflict, he was visited with abun-
dant reproach, and denounced as a rash and daring innovator who
was seeking nothing less than the destruction of the entire system
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
345
of English jurisprudence. This profound jurist, by the most.
untiring efforts, protracted through several successive sessions of
Parliament, was able to carry only three of the bills which he
introduced, by which the acts were repealed which inflicted the
punishment of death upon persons stealing privily from the person,
stealing from bleaching grounds, and stealing to the amount of
forty shillings on navigable rivers. But, in 1837, such has been
the influence of the movement party in England, bills were brought
into Parliament, and carried through without difficulty, by which
the punishment of death was removed at once from about two
hundred offences, leaving it applicable only to some aggravated
forms of burglary and robbery-arson, with danger to life-rape—
high treason-and murder, and attempts to murder. By a subse-
quent act, the crime of rape was taken out of the list of capital
offences, leaving the criminal law of England, so far as the punish-
ment of death is concerned, in as mild a form as it bears in most
countries.
In our own country the only offences that are punishable with
death, in the great majority of the States, are treason and murder;
and as treason against a particular State is a crime that cannot well
be committed so long as our present national compact survives,
the punishment of death may be considered as practically attach-
ing only to murder. The wilful and malicious destruction of human
life, the greatest crime which man can commit against his fellow
man, is distinguished, as it ought to be, from every other crime, by
the direst penalty known to the law. No one will deny that the
severest punishment which it would be right or expedient for
society to inflict for any offence, should be appropriated to this
greatest of all offences. But the question has been raised, both in
England and in many of our own States, whether society has the
right in any case to take away human life, or whether having the
right, some punishment milder, and equally efficacious, might not
be substituted for this dread resort. Scarcely a year passes in
which petitions are not sent in to some of our legislatures, praying
for the abolition of capital punishment; and of late the friends of
this proposed change in our penal laws seem to have been specially
active. Their efforts have produced so much effect that it is plainly
incumbent upon those who are opposed to the innovation, to state
and vindicate their dissent.
In canvassing the arguments of the advocates for the repeal of
capital punishment, we shall confine the discussion to the case of
murder. Whatever doubt may exist as to the expediency of
punishing any other crimes with death, we have no doubt that it
is both the right and the duty of society to accept of no price, to
make no commutation for the life of the murderer. The strength
of this conviction has not been in the least degree impaired by a
dispassionate consideration of the reasonings contained in the two
reports to the legislatures of Massachusetts and New York, both
346
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
of which strenuously advocate the entire abolition of capital pun-
ishment.
If a
Neither of these reports contains any facts or arguments which
would afford much food for thought to one who had previously
read Mr. Livingston's report on the same subject to the legislature
of Louisiana, in which the same views are advocated; nor would
either of them commend itself by its style and manner to a truth-
seeking spirit. They display more of the anxiety and heat of the
special pleader, than of the calm fairness of the earnest inquirer
after truth. There is in both of them, but more especially in
Mr. O'Sullivan's report to the New York legislature, a confident
array of mere plausibilities and an anxious grasping after every
thing which can be made to wear the semblance of aid to his
cause, which indicate too plainly the interested advocate of a
foregone conclusion. If the efficacy of the punishment of death
as an example to deter others from the commission of crime
is to be impeached, Mr. O'Sullivan finds no difficulty in proving
that solitary imprisonment for life is really a more dreadful
punishment than death; but this does not hinder him in another
part of his argument from advocating the abolition of capital
punishment on the ground of its needless severity.
remote fact lying far back upon the very borders of the deluge
seems to lend him any countenance, he presses it at once into his
service without inquiring into its accuracy, or properly considering
its relevancy to the case in hand. There is an utter want of that
kind of guarded and cautious statement which ought to mark the
reasons for an impartial judgment formed from a comprehensive
survey of the whole question. We are persuaded that no one can
read his essay without feeling as if he were listening to the intem-
perate and one-sided argument of a hired advocate, rather than to
the candid summing up of a judge. It is not in this temper or
with this spirit that great questions in jurisprudence should be
approached. It is not in the exercise of such gifts as these that
they can be adequately discussed, or wisely settled. He who
undertakes to give utterance, through the solemn voice of law, to
the sentiment of justice upon a question which affects most deeply
the interests of a wide community, should make it evident that he
feels himself engaged in a work too sacred to admit of that kind
of trifling with truth which might be tolerated in defence of a
client upon trial. He who would innovate upon an institution,
established in all lands and perpetuated through all ages, may
fairly expected to show his competency for the task, by that high
bearing which, resulting from consciousness of well considered
aims, and the dispassionate conviction of truth, cannot subsist for
a moment in connexion with the evasions and subtleties of sophis-
tical argument.
be
We are persuaded that Mr. O'Sullivan has greatly underrated
the intelligence and moral sense of the community, if he supposes
that an argument upon one of the gravest questions that can come
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
347
before a legislative body, can maintain at one time the gratuitous
cruelty of a punishment, and at another dwell upon the greater
severity of the proposed substitute, without at once divesting its
author's opinions of all influence with thinking men.
Such incon-
sistency does not entitle us to charge him with dishonesty. We
cannot rightfully infer that he is defending a conclusion which he
knows to be wrong; or that without caring whether it is right or
wrong, he is seeking to make for himself political capital, by
espousing and advocating an opinion which he knows to be popu-
lar with certain classes of the community. Such unhallowed
influences have played their part before now in the work of legis-
lation. Such miserable mountebanks have climbed up into high
places and pretended to utter in the ears of a nation`truth that
had been sought in the patience and earnestness of love, when
they have really had in mind only the advancement of their own
private interests. The public can receive no valuable instruction
from such men; for though, through a fortunate combination of
the public good with their private aims, it should happen that their
teachings, in some particular case, are true, they will be wanting
in the simple sincerity which marks those who only are qualified
to teach, who in searching after truth have waited at the posts of
her doors, and watched long at her temple gates. But the want
of this sincerity may arise from other causes than dishonesty, and
we are glad to believe that in Mr. O'Sullivan it has a different
origin. He may belong to that class of men who seem to labour
under an infirmity of mind, natural or acquired, which disqualifies
them from seeing more than a small part of any subject at once.
His temperament may be such as to place his reason too much
under the command of his feelings. The weakness of compassion.
may have led him to shrink from the idea of putting a man to
death even for the most horrid crime. Under the influence of
this feeling he may have taken up the belief that it was wrong
for human justice ever to become the minister of death, and then
tasked the talent which he evidently possesses to defend this belief.
But whatever may be the cause, the incompetency of any man to
discuss and decide great questions in jurisprudence or morals is
evident, the moment that he makes it manifest that the belief which
he avows and inculcates rests upon other grounds than the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Mr. O'Sullivan's opinion.
is for this reason deprived of all weight as authority. His argu-
ments do not furnish, in all respects, the true reasons for his own
belief; inasmuch as it is impossible for any man to cherish the
reverence which he professes to entertain for the sacred writings
as a revelation from God, and at the same time look upon the
Hebrew code as the work of Moses aided by his pagan father-in-
law, Jethro; or to believe that imprisonment for life should be
substituted for the punishment of death, because being more mild
it is more in accordance with the benevolent spirit of Christianity,
and being more severe it will be a more effectual restraint upon
348
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
crime. But we propose to examine the arguments which he has
produced, to see what weight they ought to have with other
minds. We shall confine our remarks chiefly to Mr. O'Sullivan's
report, because it contains the substance of Mr. Rantoul's, and
much more besides.
We do not propose to give a full exposition of the reasons for
capital punishment, any further than these shall be brought out in
reply to the objections urged against it. We propose no new
measure. We advocate no untried experiment. He who comes
forward with a novel theory respecting the best mode of preserv
ing human life, should come prepared with the amplest defence of
its grounds and the clearest exposition of its tendencies. But in
maintaining an institution which has received the assent of all civil-
ized nations from the days of Noah until now, we do all that can
be reasonably required of us, when we show the insufficiency of
the reasons alleged in behalf of any proposed change.
Mr. O'Sullivan attempts, in the first instance, to invalidate the
argument for capital punishment derived from the sacred scriptures.
In this he shows his wisdom; for if, as he states, the opinion that
the punishment of murder by death has not alone the sanction but
the express injunction of divine wisdom, is the basis of nine-tenths
of the opposition still to be encountered in current society to its
abolition, he could not expect to accomplish any good end by his
argument until he had first shown the erroneousness of this very
general impression. He confesses for himself that if he considered
the question under discussion as answered by a divine command,
he would not attempt to go further to consult the uncertain oracles
of human reason; and rightly supposing that there is through the
great mass of the community a like reverence for what is esteemed
a divine command, his first effort is to expose the popular error on
this subject. This is the weakest, and in every way, the least
respectable part of his essay.
He attempts, in the first place, to set aside the argument for a
divine command enjoining capital punishment for murder, drawn
from the Mosaic code. This code, he contends, was framed for
the government of a people ungovernable beyond all others-"a
nation who at that time probably exceeded any of the present
hordes of savages in the wilds of Africa or Tartary, in slavish
ignorance, sordid vices, loathsome diseases, and brutal lusts"-and
who could only be restrained therefore by institutions of the stern-
est and most sanguinary character. If the provisions of this
"Draconian code" in relation to the punishment of murder are
binding upon us, in the altered state of society as it now exists,
then do they equally bind us to inflict capital punishment upon
many other offences. Such is his argument. And though we
have strong objections to the statements which he makes, copied
chiefly from Mr. Rantoul, considered as an exposition of the true
character and intent of the Mosaic code, yet we are perfectly
willing to admit the force of his argument as an answer to those,
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
349
if any such there be, who rest the defence of capital punishment
upon the statutes of this code. Nor was it at all necessary, in
order to give his argument upon this point its full force, that he
should stigmatize the laws of Moses as containing so many "crude,
cruel, and unchristian features," and then to cover this rabid vio-
lence, reduce these laws, with the exception of the ten command-
ments, to a level, so far as the Divine agency was concerned in
their enactment, with "any other system of laws which the Supreme
Governor of the universe has at different times allowed to be
framed and applied to practice among nations, by lawgivers whom
we must also regard as the mere instruments in his hands." It is
true that in relation to the distinction which is here drawn between
the divine origin of the decalogue and the other parts of the Jewish
code, the effect of which is nothing less than to make Moses an
unprincipled impostor, Mr. O'Sullivan states that the committee
consider it incumbent on them to present it, though they refrain
from expressing their opinion respecting it. If Mr. O'Sullivan
believes in the justness of this distinction why did he not frankly
and fearlessly say so? If he does not believe in it why seek to
avail himself of its help? We would as soon confide in a man
as our adviser and guide, who would burn down his house to warm
his cold hands by, as in one who to gain a small fraction of aid in
establishing a favourite conclusion would not scruple to make use
of arguments, not sincerely believed, the effect of which is to
destroy the credibility of no small portion of divine revelation.
We have never met with an argument which professed to derive
the obligation to punish murder with death from the Hebrew sta-
tutes to that effect. We are perfectly willing to admit that these
statutes are of no further we ightin the argument than as a revela-
tion of the will of God that at that time and among that people mur-
der should thus be punished. They constitute a full and sufficient
answer to those who deny the right of society to take away life in
punishment of crime, but, taken by themselves, they do not prove
that it is our duty now, as it was that of the Jews, to punish mur-
der with death, nor even that it is expedient for us thus to punish
it. Did the Bible shed no other light upon this question we should
take the fact that among the Jews murder was, by the divine com-
mand, punished with death, only as one element in the argument
by which we should seek to prove that it was expedient for us to
inflict upon it the same penalty.
But there is another statute upon this subject, given long anterior
to the Mosaic law, which Mr. O'Sullivan finds it much more diffi-
cult to dispose of in accordance with his wishes, though he flatters
himself that he has not only "destroyed all its seeming force as
an argument in favour of capital punishment, but transferred its
application to the other side." We allude, of course, to the direc-
tions given to Noah, recorded in the fifth and sixth verses of the
ninth chapter of Genesis.
"And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the
350
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at
the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for
in the image of God made he man."
Mr. O'Sullivan's comment upon this passage strikes us as an
extraordinary specimen of reasoning.
"The true understanding of this important passage is to be sought in the ori
ginal Hebrew text, and in a comparison of its terms with the adjacent context.
Such an examination will be found to reverse directly the sense in which it is
usually received, and to show that our common English version is a clear mis-
translation, founded on an ambiguity in the original, which ambiguity has been
decided by the first translators, and so left ever since, by the light, or rather by
the darkness of their own preconceived views on this subject-views derived from
the established barbarian practice of their time. The word in the Hebrew (sho-
phaich), which is here rendered whoso sheddeth,' is simply the present participle
shedding,' in which, in the Hebrew as in the English, there is no distinction of
gender. And the word which is rendered 'his' (damo), there being no neuter in
that language, may with equal right be rendered 'its.
The whole passage is
therefore fully as well susceptible of the translation, 'whatsoever sheddeth man's
blood, by man shall (or may) its blood be shed,'-as of that which has been given
to it, from no other reason than the prejudice of a foregone conclusion.' Several
of the most able commentators on the Scriptures give the words virtually the
same interpretation; and that profound and learned critic, Michaelis, of Göttingen,
in his Commentaries on the laws of Moses (ch. iv., § 3, art. 274), says expressly,
'the sixth verse must be rendered, not whosoever, but whatsoever sheddeth human
blood.'
"The propriety of this correction of our common English version of the pas-
sage in question will appear very clear, when we collate it with both the pre-
ceding and the following words. In the preceding verse, after having alluded to
that mystic sanctity of blood, as containing the essential principle of animal life,
which we afterwards find so strikingly to pervade the Mosaic system, the cove.
nant proceeds:
"And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast
will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will
I require the life of man.
"Whoso (whatsoever) sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his (its) blood be
shed; for in the image of God made he man.'
"The very reason here given for the prohibition of the shedding of the blood
of man, is the defacement of the image of its Creator in the 'human form divine.'
Does this high and sacred principle lose its force or its application, because the
criminal may himself have been guilty of a previous outrage upon its sanctity?
Can that afford any justification for a repetition of the same outrage upon the
same 'image of God?' Where
Where is the authority for any such assumption? The
distinction here drawn is plain. The beast that sheddeth man's blood, 'by
man' may its blood be shed; but when man's blood is shed by man's brother, 'I'
will require it at his hands-by penalties, into the nature of which it is not for
us to attempt to penetrate. The object of the whole passage is, clearly, to
establish, on the most solemn basis, the great idea of the holiness of the principle
of life, and especially human life. The destruction of animal life is permitted for
'meat,' being prohibited by implication for any other wanton purpose; while
its being thus declared forfeited in atonement for the destruction of the life
of man, can have no other reason--the brute being incapable of moral guilt-than
to strengthen and deepen the idea of the sanctity of that life in the minds of the
human race itself. What can be more absurd than an interpretation which, by
authorizing the practice of public judicial murder, in the most deliberate coldness
of blood, is directly and fatally subversive of the very essential idea which con-
stitutes the basis of the whole passage! Surely, then, instead of any sanction
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
351
being afforded by this passage to the infliction of the punishment of death for any
human crime-to this defacement and outrage of the 'image of God,' in the
person of man-it passes against that very practice a far more awful sentence of
condemnation than any which human reason could have framed, or human lips.
uttered."
The Hebrew scholar may form from the remark upon "damo"
a judgment of Mr. O'Sullivan's fitness to dogmatize so confidently
respecting the mistake made by our English translators of the
Bible. These translators, however prejudiced they may have
been in favour of any barbarian practices of their time, were at
least men who knew the difference between a Hebrew noun,
and its pronominal suffix. Mr. O'Sullivan quotes the authority
of Michaelis for substituting "its" in place of "his" in this pas-
sage. It is true that Michaelis advocates this change, but not
in the sense for which Mr. O'Sullivan contends. Mr. O'Sulli-
van's argument requires that the pronoun should be neuter, to
the exclusion of the masculine. Michaelis was too profound
and learned a critic to propose any such absurdity as this. He
contends that as the original pronoun may be either masculine
or neuter, it should be translated by our neuter, that it may
include both. His idea of the true meaning of this passage
would be accurately expressed, using the plural number
instead of the singular, by the translation, "the shedders
of blood, by man shall their blood be shed." The use which
Michaelis makes of this translation is to extend, instead of lowering
and limiting the application of this command, and both he and the
readers of this report are unfairly treated when his authority is so
disingenuously perverted. This profound critic was learned in the
laws of nature, and of nations, as well as in Hebrew etymologies,
and he expresses the earnest hope that "none of his readers enter-
tain those new fangled notions of compassion which, by way of
avoiding capital punishments, condemn delinquents to be cast into
prisons and there fed."
But we are told that the "very reason here given for the pro-
hibition of the shedding of the blood of man is the defacement of the
image of his Creator," and are asked "whether this high and sacred
principle loses its force or its application because the criminal may
have himself been guilty of a previous outrage upon its sanctity."
It is really difficult to answer such argument as this with the respect
that is due to the reasoner, if not to his reasoning. If it should be
proposed to punish the man who has injured the property of another
by a fine, that is, by taking away from him against his will, a
certain portion of his own property, would it not be thought a
piece of effrontery rather than an argument in the opposer who
should contend that this would be an outrage upon the same sacred
right of property which the criminal had himself violated? Or would
it be deemed a valid argument against punishing the crime of false
imprisonment by the imprisonment of the offender, that the punish-
ment would infringe the same inherent right to liberty, the violation
352
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
of which constitutes the offence? If in favour of such punishment.
there should be urged the great importance of the right of personal
liberty and the heinousness of any outrage upon it, would all this
be turned not aside but upon the other side of the question, by
simply asking, "whether this high and sacred principle loses any
of its force because the criminal may himself have been guilty of
a previous outrage upon its sanctity." The understandings of our
legislators must be rated at a low standard by any one who sup
poses that such reasoning as this can impose upon them.
The remaining part of the argument upon this passage falls to
the ground with the proposed amendment of our translation, for
which, in the sense contended for by Mr. O'Sullivan, there is not
the shadow of foundation. Let us look at this passage, supplying
the place of "his" in the sixth verse by our ambiguous pronoun,
and for this purpose using the plural number. It will then read:
And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the
hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at
the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man."
"The shedders of man's blood, by man shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God made he man."
We are perfectly willing to grant to the other side of the ques-
tion whatever benefit may be derived from such a correction of
the common translation. The passage as it thus stands, interpreted
according to its obvious meaning, presents no difficulty.
The only phrase contained in it that can well give rise to any
misconception in the mind of one who is not seeking to torture its
meaning, is in the latter part of the fifth verse; "at the hand of
every man's brother will I require the life of man." This is some-
times interpreted to mean, that at the hand of the brother of every
slain man, that is of the whole community or society of which
he formed a part, inquisition shall be made for the blood shed, from
the responsibility of which they can be relieved only by the death
of the murderer. We do not mean to question the truth of this
opinion, but such is not the sense of the passage. The Hebrew
phrase translated "every man's brother" (aish ahiv), is an idioma
tic form of speech, meaning, the one and other; so that "at the
hand of every man's brother" is, as Gesenius says, " repetitio ver-
borum antecedentium, haud quidem otiosa, sed emphatica," a repeti-
tion, not unmeaning but emphatic, of the preceding words at the
hand of man." We make no attempt to sustain this interpretation
by comparing parallel passages, or adducing authorities, being per-
suaded that it will be called in question by no one who will turn
to the passage in his Hebrew Bible.
In this passage God declares in the first instance, that he will
surely inquire after, that is avenge, the blood of man. He then
proceeds to state from whom he will exact this responsibility; at
the hand of every beast that has shed the blood of man, will I
require it; and much more, at the hand of man, even at the hand
of one and another, that is, of every man, will I require the blood
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
353
of the man whom he has slain; there shall be no escape on the
of
part
any one who has stained his hands with blood from the
account which must be rendered of that blood.
The next verse proceeds to state how this requisition shall be
made, what punishment this crime shall incur, and who shall be
the agents of divine justice in inflicting that punishment. The
shedders of man's blood, by man shall their blood be shed. It is
too plain for argument, that though this verse be thus translated,
so as to involve the same ambiguity as in the original, it lends
no shadow of countenance to Mr. O'Sullivan's interpretation.
The previous verse has asserted, in general, that the blood of man
shall not be shed without inquisition being made for it, and fur-
ther that this inquisition shall be made from every beast and every
man that has shed the blood of man. It is then added, that they
who shed man's blood, by man shall their blood be shed. Who
then are the shedders of blood upon whom this doom is pronounced?
Michaelis contends that both men and beasts are included.
Rosenmüller, on the other hand, prefers the interpretation which
limits it to the human shedder of blood; the previous verse
having spoken of the punishment of both beast and man for the
slaughter of man, this verse he supposes to contain a repetition of
the principle in its application to man, with a distinct annunciation
of the kind and manner of his punishment, on account of the
greater dignity of the offender. But no commentator ancient or
modern has ever given to this passage an interpretation such as
Mr. O'Sullivan advocates. It has not one particle of authority in
favour of it. There is nothing of intrinsic evidence to sanction
it, nothing in the obvious meaning of the passage to call for or
even to warrant it, unless the whole question at issue be begged,
by the assumption that it is impossible that God can have directed
the shedding of man's blood. It is in short nothing more than the
desperate resort of a reasoner who is not ashamed to descend to
mere quibbles and plays upon words in support of a favourite con-
clusion. If it be thought by any that we have here unwarrant-
ably forgotten the distinction which we before made between what
is due to a reasoner and to his reasoning, let him call to mind that
the subject of this miserable trifling is the inspired revelation of
God's will, and that the professed object of it is to enlighten a
legislature upon one of the most important questions which they can
be called upon to settle. And let them still further read the fol-
lowing extract from this report :—
"If any, after this exposition of the passage, should still desire to retain the
accustomed form to which prejudice may continue to cling, of whosoever,' it is
clear that the precept thus read would require the sacrifice of the life of the
slayer, in atonement for the blood his hand has spilled, on all occasions, without
discrimination of circumstances in the most pardonable cases of sudden and
impetuous passion, and even in the most innocent case of accident, as well as the
most heinous one of coldly premeditated murder. The terms of the command
would be absolute and imperative; and however unfathomable to us might seem
the mystery of its cruelty, yet why would it be less consistent with reason than the
23
354
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
punishment, upon the animal, of the act of brute unconsciousness and obedience to
its natural instincts ?"
The first part of this paragraph, in which the lax principles of
interpretation previously proceeded upon have become so won-
drously stringent, calls for no reply. It might be improved, how-
ever, and we are surprised that the thought should have escaped
a mind that was acute enough for this, by adding that as the
cept reads it would apply to the physician who bleeds his patient
no less than to the wilful murderer, and that the penalty does not
demand the death of either, since, as it reads, it may be literally
and fully satisfied by the loss of a few ounces of blood from the
arm.
pre
It is for the latter part of this paragraph that we have quoted
it, and yet we hardly dare trust ourselves to comment upon it.
We are here informed that the punishment of a brute, which has
slain a man, which the author of the report admits is directed by
the divine command, is no more consistent with reason than the
sacrifice of the life of a man who had accidentally slain his fellow-
man. Who does not feel his whole moral nature insulted by this
most outrageous declaration? Who can doubt that any man who
believes this, however vigorous and discursive his understanding
might be, would have yet to undergo the very birth-throe of reason?
Where is the reason, though yet in its infancy, that makes no dis-
tinction between putting to death a beast that has been the means
of death to a man, though it had only acted in obedience to its
unreflecting instincts, and sacrificing the life of an unfortunate
but innocent man? What kind of reason is it, with which it is
consistent to destroy a man for every cause which is deemed a
sufficient ground for taking away the life of a brute? What
would be thought of the man, who in conducting a grave argument
on an important question should maintain that it would be as con-
sistent with reason to slay a man for food as to kill an unoffending
beast for the same purpose? But this would not be more mon-
strous than the interrogatory assertion which we have quoted
from this report.
We are utterly at a loss to conceive upon what principles or for
what purpose this assertion was made. It is not even a legitimate
inference from the unspeakably shallow and vile philosophy of the
Godwin and Bentham schools, with which Mr. O'Sullivan is so
much enamoured. This philosophy does indeed overlook entirely
man's moral nature, and reduce him to the standing of a mere
beast,—but then it admits him to be a noble beast, even the first of
beasts; and having power to that end he may make such use
of the inferior beasts as may best promote his good. It permits
him to kill them for food, and could not therefore consistently deny
to him the right to slay a beast that had killed a man, for the pur-
pose of guarding the mystic sacredness of life, and associating an
idea of horror with the shedding of human blood, for this would
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
355
be a more useful result than satisfying the appetite of a hungry
man. But yet whatever principles they are which forbid the
destruction of men while they allow that of animals for the pur-
of food, would apply with equal force to prohibit us from
poses
making use of a lunatic or an accidental manslayer to serve a use-
ful end by his violent death, while they permit us to use an inferior
animal for such purpose. There is therefore no ground for Mr.
O'Sullivan's assertion even in the principles of this beastly philo-
sophy.
Nor can we discern for what object it is made. He is seeking
in the paragraph where it is found to reduce to the absurd the
common interpretation of the passage of scripture upon which he
has been commenting, by showing that an abhorrent consequence
flows from it, viz. that it requires us to sacrifice a man who may
have innocently shed the blood of a fellow-man. But then he im-
mediately asks why this very consequence, so abhorrent that it has
just been held up as decisive against the received interpretation of
the law given to Noah, should be deemed any more inconsistent
with reason than the killing of an animal which he has himself con-
tended that the law actually enjoins. Why, if this is so, did he
spend so much labour in quibbles upon the meaning of Hebrew
words, of which he knew literally nothing? Why did he not, with
the manly openness of a fair and truthful reasoner, say at once,
that this law, however interpreted, was utterly repugnant to human
reason, and must therefore be discredited as a part of divine reve-
lation? If there is a law which orders, as he maintains that this
does, that to be done, which is as inconsistent with right reason as
it would be to put an innocent man to a violent death, then nothing
can be clearer than that this law never proceeded from the lips of
divine justice. Had he but frankly said this, it would at least have
furnished some excuse for his trifling manner of dealing with its
interpretation.
Such are the arguments by which this report attempts to set
aside the received interpretation of the law of murder as delivered
to Noah. We have, in the first instance, a philological argument
founded on the ambiguous gender of the participle and pronoun in
the sixth verse, in which it is contended that this participle and
pronoun should be translated into our neuter gender and limited by
it, since any other interpretation of the passage would lead to deli-
berate, cold-blooded, judicial murder. That is, this limitation is to
be made by the assumption that the judicial infliction of death is
murder, and the only reason for this assumption is that the inflic
tion of death in punishment for murder would violate the very
principle which it was intended to guard, the sacredness of
human life; a reason which would compel us to pronounce every
law which imposes a fine, and every jury which assesses pecuniary
damages for injury to property, guilty of judicial stealing. Let it
be further observed that the only reason given for excluding man
from the shedders of blood upon whom the doom of death is pro-
356
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
nounced, is one that if true would of course make it impossible
that God could at any time have directed this punishment to be
inflicted. And yet we find that in the only code of laws that ever
proceeded directly from him, he has distinctly, and beyond all
question, affixed this penalty to murder. This is of itself decisive,
so far as this part of the argument is concerned. And we have in
the next place an argument which commences with a reductio ad
absurdum, that proceeds upon principles too puerile to be refuted
except by the application of the same method, and which ends by
a gratuitous disclosure of the principles of that bestial philosophy
which looks upon man only as the head of the animal creation.
We have no fear of the effect of such argument upon the
honest and humble inquirer after truth. If he is already a believer
in the received interpretation of the law of murder, his faith will
be strengthened, if a doubter, his doubts will be removed, by
seeing how futile are the attempts to set it aside, even when con-
ducted by the most intelligent and zealous of its opponents. The
law, as given to Noah, does in its most obvious sense command
that the wilful murderer shall be put to death. The most critical
inquiry into the meaning of its terms only serves to confirm this
interpretation. It has been so understood by all men, in all ages,
until these latter days. The universal belief of all Christian nations
has been that God has pronounced this doom upon the murderer;
and the public conscience has everywhere, with mute awe, approv-
ed the dread award of human justice, made in fulfilment of this
divine command.
This
But was this law intended to be of universal and perpetual
obligation? We see nothing in the law itself, in the circumstances
under which it was delivered, or in any changes or revelations
that have since occurred, to limit its application. It is, in its terms,
most general and peremptory. The reason assigned for its penalty
is founded on the essential nature and relations of man.
reason is as true now as it was in the days of Noah, and ought to
have the same force with all who believe in the spiritual dignity of
man. If man is somewhat more than an assemblage of digestive
organs, and senses, and an understanding that judges according to
sense-if, in addition to these, he has any attributes which reflect
however dimly the excellences of the Divinity-then he who wil-
fully and maliciously defaces this image of God deserves the
same doom now, that like outrage deserved when this law was
enacted.
Nor is there anything connected with the time or manner of its
delivery to lead us to suppose that it was meant to be special or
temporary. It was given in immediate connexion with that cove-
nant of which the seal still remains in the ever-recurring bow of
heaven. It was delivered not to the head of a particular tribe or
nation, but to the second progenitor of the human race, not under
any peculiar and pressing exigency, but at the commencement of a
new order of things. It stands at the beginning of the new world
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
357
stretching its sanction over all people down to the end of time, to
prevent the outbreaking of that violence which had filled the world
that was swept away. It is idle to tell us that the circumstances,
and, with the circumstances, the character of society have been
materially changed, and that in the present high state of civiliza-
tion the severe enactments which were necessary for a ruder con-
dition of society are no longer needed. Have the essential
attributes of man changed? Does he bear any less of the image
of God now than he did in the days of Noah? Is it any less a
crime to destroy that image now, than it was then? The law has
no respect to any peculiar proneness to violence, existing at the
time it was enacted, to any local or national necessities, but passing
over everything that is variable and accidental, it seizes upon
man's relation to God, involving the distinctive and unchanging
attributes of humanity, as the sufficient reason for its fearful
penalty. So long as these attributes remain unchanged, this law
must stand in full force, unless repealed by the same authority that
enacted it.
And where is the evidence that it has at any time been repealed?
The abrogation of the specialties of the Jewish code left this prior
law untouched. It had its existence entirely separate and inde-
pendent of the Mosaic economy, and could not therefore be
involved in its dissolution. Nor is there anything in the Bible
which can be construed into an explicit repeal of this statute. It
is indeed maintained, strangely enough, by Mr. O'Sullivan, that the
sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," is in opposition to this
statute. He denies our right to limit this commandment, by inter-
preting it to mean, thou shalt do no murder; and he really expends
a page of declamation upon the "absolute, unequivocal" prohibi-
tion of capital punishment involved in this precept, How is it pos-
sible that any man could descend to such argument, if he were not
intent upon carrying a side, rather than on finding and defending
the truth? There are, perhaps, among us legislators who do not
comprehend the laws that they themselves enact, but it may surely
be presumed that in this case the lawgiver understood the meaning
of his own precept; and we find that in immediate connexion with
it he delivers a body of laws which direct the magistrate to inflict
the punishment of death, in what Mr. O'Sullivan supposes, an exces-
sive number of cases. Or if we avail ourselves of the distinction
which the report makes, but respecting which the committee refrain.
from expressing any opinion, and imagine that though Moses pre-
tended to receive these laws from God, they were really of his own
invention; yet we cannot doubt that Moses understood the true
interpretation of the sixth commandment; nor suppose that he
would have had the hardihood to deliver to the people, as coming
from God, a body of laws that were in direct contravention to it.
We are sure our readers will sympathize with the humiliation we
feel in being compelled to expose such paltry subterfuges-sophis-
358
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
try is too respectable a name for them—in the conduct of an argu-
ment upon such a question.
But it is contended that a virtual repeal of the penalty for murder
may be inferred from the general spirit of the gospel, and espe-
cially from its many precepts in which forgiveness of injuries is
inculcated, and the indulgence of a revengeful spirit forbidden.
We do not understand the spirit of the gospel as offering any
impunity to crime. It is indeed a proclamation of mercy, but of
mercy gaining its ends, and herein lies its glory, without any
sacrifice of the claims of justice. But we are told that the gospel
forbids us to avenge ourselves, or to recompense evil for evil, and
requires us on the other hand to love them that hate us, and
do good unto them that despitefully use us. If our argument
were with those who are opposed to all human government, as
an unauthorized interference with the rights of man, we should
attempt to prove, what is undoubtedly true, that these precepts
were not intended to apply to men in their collective capacity as
constituting a society, and that they are perfectly consistent with
another class of precepts which make it the duty of the magistrate
to bear not the sword in vain and to be a terror to evil doers.
And we could at least succeed in proving that the apostle Paul
thought a man might be guilty of offences that were worthy of
death, and was willing, if he were thus guilty, to submit to the
penalty. "If," said he, "I have committed anything worthy of
death, I refuse not to die." To this class of earnest and consistent
opponents we would reply seriously and respectfully. But how
can we reply to the argument against capital punishment, drawn
from the Christian precepts enjoining a meek submission to evil,
when it is urged by those who still contend for the magistracy
and the avenging sword, but only object to this one punitive
infliction? What force is there in these precepts which would
not tear down the penitentiary as well as the gibbet? How does
the command to love our enemies, and return good for evil, forbid
us to hang the murderer, if it permits us to imprison him for life?
Especially, how can this be, if the imprisonment is of the character
proposed by this report, "perpetual, hopeless and laborious,
involving civil death, with the total severance of all the social
ties that bound the convicted culprit to the world-under a brand
of ignominy and a ban of excommunication from his race, than
which alone it is difficult to imagine a more fearful doom,—a
punishment, the anticipation of which would operate as a far more
powerful control and check than the fear of a hundred deaths?"
We do not assent to this relative estimate of capital punishment
and perpetual imprisonment. We believe death to be the severer
and more fearful doom, and we have quoted the above extract
only to show how the reasoners upon the other side of the question
are ready to blow hot or cold, as serves their purpose. But
though we look upon death as the most dreadful of all punishments,
yet the difference in severity between it and any proposed
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
359
substitute as a penalty for murder, cannot warrant us in concluding
that under the mild reign of Christianity, the ancient, primeval law
has been repealed. If we are permitted to punish at all, then
where is our authority for superseding the original law which
explicitly directs us to punish the murderer with death? What
right have we, while this law stands uncancelled by the authority
that gave it, to pronounce it obsolete and unnecessary.
The indirect influence of the gospel, instead of tending to the
abrogation of this law, does, in truth, give to it new emphasis and
force. The gospel has brought life and immortality to light. It
has given distinctness and reality to those great moral truths,
which lying beyond the reach of sense, and too apt therefore to
appear as mere shadowy abstractions, are nevertheless the only
substantial and abiding verities. It has thrown a flood of light
upon the spiritual nature, the powers, and responsibilities of man.
It has revealed enough of the mystery of death, to add to the
fearfulness of the mystery which still remains. Above all, it
has given us the highest conception we can form of the dignity
of man, by revealing to us the union of human nature with the
divine, and the high privileges and blessings which flow from
this union. If the murderer deserved death for defacing the
image of God in man, before this revelation of man's true dignity
and destiny as an inhabitant of the spiritual universe of God had
been distinctly made, then still more does he deserve it now.
The only reason assigned for the original infliction of the
penalty has derived new meaning and force from the gospel of
Christ. It is perfectly consistent that an infidel philosophy, as
superficial as it is vain, which degrades man into the creature of
time and sense, should desire the abrogation of this penalty, since
it has no faith, and can feel no reverence for the original reason on
which it was founded. But let men beware how they attempt to
degrade the gospel, which, by giving to this reason its fullest and
most forcible development, adds new emphasis to the law which
rests upon it, into fellowship with this earthly and sensual philoso-
phy. Let the philosophers of this school confine themselves to
their legitimate province. Proceeding upon principles which
convert the world into a mere kitchen and cattle-stall, and man
into an animal to be well fed, clothed, and lodged in this his abode,
they may be competent to settle wisely and well some questions
arising out of this aspect of it. But when they trespass beyond
these, and attempt to decide questions that are connected with
the spiritual nature and relations of man, they should be rebuked
for venturing upon ground that lies higher than their principles.
When the dimensions of the human soul can be taken by means of
a yard measure, we will admit the competency of these men to
pronounce judgment upon such questions. At least we have a
right to ask of them, that they will leave the holy gospel to be
interpreted by those who have too deep a reverence for it, to per-
360
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
mit them to draggle it through the dirty mazes of insincere and
sophistical argument.
We have derived new faith from the examination of these
attempts to invalidate the ancient law of murder. We find that
this law, as given to Noah, does in terms too plain to be misun-
derstood, and too peremptory to be set aside, direct that the mur-
derer shall be put to death. We find this law spreading from
Noah through Gentile nations, and afterwards incorporated into
the Jewish code. We find it surviving the destruction of that
code, because it existed before it ; existed independent of it among
other nations while that code was yet in force; and existed
through the demands of nothing peculiar to the Jewish nation, or
incidental to any particular form or state of human society, but
for reasons that are drawn from the unchanging invariable attri-
butes of humanity. And we find that the gospel, so far from
undermining the whole foundation on which this law rests, only
strengthens and establishes it. From Calvary, where the dignity
and importance of man, as the child of God and the heir of immor
tality, receive their fullest illustration, this law goes forth with
increased force. Not only was man created in the image of God,
but Christ the Son of God hath died for him. Let him who dares
to lay the hand of lawless violence upon a being so highly born,
and redeemed at so costly a price,-the depositary of such myste-
rious and awful interests,-undergo the doom decreed by him who
alone knows the value of life, and the solemn meaning of death.
There is only one other argument derived from the sacred
Scriptures against the lawfulness of capital punishment, which need
claim our attention. The impunity of Cain, the first murderer, is
pleaded in proof that it is not lawful to inflict the punishment of
death. But why does it not prove equally well, that it is not
right to inflict any punishment, and that the murderer should be
left to the self-inflictions of his own conscience? This argument
comes with an ill grace from those who contend for a punishment
which is represented as more fearful than a hundred deaths. Nor
can it be consistently urged by any who regard the law given to
Noah, as in all respects of the nature of a positive institution.
But we do not so regard it. We look upon this law as a re-pub-
lication, distinct and unequivocal, of a law of nature, written on
the hearts of men; and this view of it receives confirmation from
this very case of Cain. We do not know, we will not even attempt
to surmise, why God saw fit to interfere to save the life of this
atrocious criminal. But that this interference was necessary, is
more for our argument than his death would have been. Cain felt
that he deserved to die-he knew that others felt so too, and felt
it so strongly that whoever found him would slay him—and no-
thing less than a mark, which could be recognised as the sign-ma-
nual of the great Author of life, was necessary to protect him from
the sense of retributive justice in the hearts of those that then
lived, pronouncing that the murderer deserved to die. God, the
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
361
any
sovereign law-giver, had an undoubted right to dispense with the
And whenever by
penalty of this law, in that or any other case.
similar intervention now, he sets upon a criminal a mark, sig-
nificant of His will that the destroying sword of justice should pass
The only
him by, there will be none to question or murmur.
inference that we are warranted in drawing from this case, is, that
the sense of justice which demands the death of the murderer
should always pause and stay its hand, whenever God makes
known His will to that effect.
Here we might rest our argument. Having shown that He who
holds in his hand the issues of life and death, has revealed to us
his will respecting the punishment of murder, we might, without
incivility, decline to pursue the inquiry upon other grounds. If the
divine justice, from which human justice takes its origin and derives
all its force, has decided this question, we may rightly call upon
men to submit to its decision. But we have no fear of the result
of the most rigid scrutiny of reason into this divine decree; and
we propose briefly to exhibit the grounds of our belief in the
agreement of the law of nature with the law of revelation respect-
ing the punishment of murder.
Here we are compelled at once to join issue with the opponents
of capital punishment, and with some too upon our own side of
the question, respecting the true ends of the penal sanctions which
accompany human law. Mr. O'Sullivan contends that the only
legitimate end of punishment is the prevention of crime. And in
a recent sermon in favour of capital punishment, it is admitted
"that this is unquestionably the true doctrine, for it is the principle
upon which God the only supreme and infallible law-giver pro-
ceeds." And carrying out the same idea, the author adds, that
when "the strong arm of the law seizes upon the murderer and
puts him to death, it designs to operate upon the living and to pre-
vent the repetition of the like crime." That this is one of the
ends of punishment no man can deny, but that it is the sole end
will scarcely be maintained by any one who has reflected deeply
upon the question, or analysed carefully the operations of his own
mind. If the prevention of crime be the only lawful end of penal
sanctions, then the efficacy of any proposed penalty as a restraint
upon the perpetration of offences is the test of our right to inflict
it. It is right, under this view of the case, to fine a man, to impri-
son or to hang him, if we have sufficient reason to believe that we
may thereby produce a certain amount of good to the community,
in the restraint imposed upon the commission of crime. Let us
suppose then that the infliction of this doom, whatever it may be,
upon an innocent man would prevent an equal amount of crime,
would it be right to lay it upon him? Could it be certainly known
that the hanging of some man, whose hands are pure from crime,
would prevent all future murders to the end of time, would it be
right to put him to a violent death for the good of his race? What
right have we to take any man and torture him merely for the
362
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
sake of doing good to others? We have often doubted whether
the English judge, who, in pronouncing sentence upon a convicted
horse-thief, said, "You are hung, not because you stole a horse,
but that horses may not be stolen," if there had been no real
grounds for his sentence better than the avowed one, would not
himself have been guilty of a much higher crime than the culprit
before him had committed. What right have we to catch a man
and hang him up, because we have reason to believe that he will
prove a scarecrow to frighten other men from mischief? We can
have no right except that which is derived from what this theory
leaves altogether out of view, the intrinsic ill desert of the offender.
The foundation of human punishments can never be laid, by any
just principles of reasoning, in their tendency to benefit society.
This attempt to found justice upon utility is only another effort of
a low material philosophy, seeking to solve a problem that lies as
high above its reach as the heavens are high above the earth.
The idea of law is in every human mind, ignorant or instructed,
an immediate derivative from the idea of duty; and this again
arises at once out of the primary conception which all men form
of the essential distinction between right and wrong. These ideas
are the product of the reason and conscience. They are primitive,
necessary, and absolute. That the criminal should be punished for
his crime is not a truth summed up from the tardy teachings of
experience, it is an immediate and peremptory decision of the moral
sense. Whether punishment is useful to society or not, is altogether
a different question, and to be decided upon different grounds. The
positive penal laws, by which we punish crimes that trespass upon
the rights of men and violate social order, have their origin in that
sense of justice which is one of the spontaneous products of human
reason. No social compact could ever give this right, no con-
siderations of utility could ever establish it, if the ground were not
laid for it in the moral nature of man. There can be no doubt
that it is useful to society to punish offences which invade its peace
and order, and that the consideration of this utility is real and
weighty. But this consideration is subordinate to the primitive
idea which constitutes the true basis of penalty. Let us sup-
pose that this primitive idea is removed, that there is no law of
the human mind by which it pronounces upon the essential deme-
rit of crime, and demands that its decision shall be realized in
every well-ordered society; and what becomes of our right to seize
upon a man and subject him to disgrace and suffering, because his
tortures will be an edifying spectacle to others? No exigency of
local or state affairs, no extremity of public necessity, no amount
of good to be produced, can ever make such an intrusion upon
the sacred rights which belong to every man, anything else than
an unauthorized and atrocious exertion of power. Nothing but
guilt can break down the defences which stand around every
moral being, and permit us to subject him to suffering for the
advantage of others. It is from this prior consideration of justice.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
363
that the penalties of law derive their utility. It is because the
community feel that the criminal deserves to suffer, that the exam-
ple of his punishment is rendered powerful in restraining others
from crime, beyond the efficacy which fear alone would possess.
Punishment is not just because it is useful; but it is useful because
it is just.
The penalties inflicted by human law, having their foundation in
the intrinsic ill-desert of crime, are in their nature vindictive as well
as corrcctive; and hence there are two questions to be settled, in
adjusting any penalty; does the offence deserve the proposed
punishment; and, does the public good require it? It is not neces-
sary for our present purpose that we should pursue the inquiry
into the relative weight to be allowed to these two considerations,
since they both combine in their fullest force to sanction, and
indeed to demand death as the punishment of murder.
There
Beyond all question the murderer deserves to die. His crime is
the greatest that man can commit against his fellow man.
is no other outrage which approaches it in atrocity-there is none
other like unto it. It not only stands alone, but it is separated, by
an incomprehensible interval, from every other crime. Other
injuries lie within the reach of our understanding. They do not
surpass the limits of our experience, and we know how to form
some estimate of their enormity. We sustain ourselves in pros-
pect of other evils to come upon us, by the thought that other men
have endured these same evils, and yet lived through them. Any-
thing less than death we can comprehend. But between all else
that men have borne, and death, there lies we know not what
interval. None of us have yet died, and we know not what it
is to die. We can form our estimate of the pain of body and the
strugglings of the spirit, which precede it,—but what is death
itself? Who shall tell us what is going on within the yet breathing
body at that last moment,-how snaps the thread of life-what
sensations attend the breaking of the bond that unites soul and
body-what strange scenes surround the disembodied spirit. We
speak not now of the injury which the murderer does to the pub-
lic by the destruction of a valuable member of society-nor of the
indescribable agony inflicted upon the domestic circle bereaved, in
the most horrible manner, of one of its inmates; we enter into
no calculation of the general consequences of this crime. We
speak of it as it is in itself, a crime that stands alone in atrocity,
unequalled and unapproached. Every murderer, however extenu-
ated his crime may be, has done a deed of which he nor any other
man comprehends the full enormity. It is right then that this deed
should receive the severest doom that human justice has the
authority to inflict. It is right that a crime of such paramount
guilt, should incur an extreme and distinctive punishment. Our
natural sentiment of justice, of its own accord, proclaims the law,
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.
Such has been the voice of the public conscience in all ages.
364
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
Cain felt that he was in danger of death from the hand of any one
that might find him. Among all nations and tribes of people,
civilized or savage, Christian or pagan, justice has ever demanded
blood for blood. The general conscience of the human race has
taught the truth and justice of the sentiment expressed by a Ro-
man poet,
"Neque enim lex aequior ulla,
Quam necis artifices arte perire sua."
From the infancy of the human race there comes down to us
an unbroken line of testimony, delivering it as the universal judg
ment of mankind, that the murderer should be put to death.
Here we may be met with the argument, that it is impossible to
prove, from the light of nature, that human society possesses the
right to take away life. This argument is presented by Mr.
O'Sullivan, as one which may have influence on some minds
though he himself admits its unsoundness; conceding expressly that
society may lawfully punish with death, and yet giving the argu-
ment on the other side to catch such minds as can be taken in by
it; another illustration of the per fas aut nefas kind of reasoning of
which we have already given so many specimens. Mr. Rantoul
presents the same argument at still greater length, though he also
prudently reserves the expression of his own opinion of its valid-
ity-but he gives it to pass for what it is worth. These argu-
ments against the right of society to take away life are all of them
at bottom nothing more than the well known sophism of the Mar-
quis Beccaria. It is in substance this-" Human society is the
result of a compact in which each individual surrenders to the
state the smallest possible portion of his personal rights, that he
may securely possess the remainder. The state therefore can
have no right over the life of a citizen, since we may be sure that
this is a right that he has never parted with. Besides, no man has
a right to take away his own life, and therefore, could not, if he
wished, give any such right to another." A full and complete
answer to this subtle sophism would be given by a correct exposi
tion of the origin of human society, and the source from which the
state derives its authority to institute laws for the government of
its subjects. The right to establish municipal regulations may, for
aught we know, be limited by a compact express or implied, real
or fictitious-but in every state the sovereign authority possesses a
right to enact laws embodying the essential ideas of justice, that
is dependent upon the terms of no social compact, and subject to
none of its limitations. Its true source is in the ideas and laws
given to us by the moral nature of man. It would not be difficult,
had we space for it, to develope this theory, and show that it involves
of necessity the right for which we contend.
But, setting this aside, the authority of the state to take away
life, may be derived from the natural right of self-defence which
is inherent in communities as well as in individuals. And it is fur-
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
365
ther sufficiently proved by the universal consent of mankind.
When a plain question of right and wrong has been submitted to
the conscience of men, and the same response has been returned
We
by all men in all ages, we cannot doubt its correctness.
question whether any truth has been sustained by a more unani-
mous consent of mankind, than the right of society to punish the
murderer with death.
The murderer deserves to die-such is the sentence that reason
pronounces, in view of the enormity of his crime, and such has
been the unvarying judgment of the conscience of humanity.
Society possesses the right to inflict this deserved punishment upon
him-such is the necessary conclusion of an inquiry, properly con-
ducted, into the derivation and nature of the authority inherent in
the state, and such again has been the universal decision of human
But is it expedient for society to exercise this right?
This is the only remaining inquiry.
reason.
The point upon which the determination of this question rests
is, whether the punishment of death operates with greater efficacy,
than any proposed substitute, to restrain the crime. The other
considerations which arise in connexion with the inquiry into the
expediency of capital punishment, are all subordinate to the main
one, touching its efficacy for the prevention of murder. And so
far as this main consideration depends upon abstract reasoning,
the principles which govern it are simple and obvious.
It cannot be denied, that, other things being equal, any penalty,
provided it does not exceed what the moral sense deems a right-
eous retribution for the offence committed, will be efficacious in
proportion to its severity. And of the comparative severity of
different punishments, every man may at once form his estimate
by asking of his own heart, which he would most dread; or by
looking abroad and judging, from the general sentiments and con-
duct of man, which is suited to inspire the most fear. There are
exempt cases. There are men who fear disgrace more than death.
There have been men who have desired death as a relief from
their burdens, being willing to fly from ills they had, to others that
they know not of. It is true that there is scarcely a passion of
the human heart, that may not, under some special and rare
excitement, gain such head as "to mate and master the fear of
death." But these are paroxysms which only briefly and occasion-
ally disturb the usual judgments of the mind, and which always give
way to any influence that recalls its habitual modes of thought and
feeling. We knew a man who, intent upon suicide, had actually
raised the deadly weapon to inflict it, when his hand was stayed
and an entire revulsion of feeling produced, simply by the bleating
of a lamb that had strayed by his side. And we have read of
one, who, being met while on his way to destroy himself, by a
man who threatened his life, was affrighted and fled, his habitual
fear of death overmastering his determination to rush upon it.
Of all natural evils, death is that which takes the strongest hold
366
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
upon the imagination of men, and inspires them with the deepest
and most prevalent fear. It is not like other evils, that we can
handle, measure, and calculate.-it is dark and mysterious, con-
founding the sense, perplexing the understanding, puzzling the
will, and thus exercising over us the power of awakening intense
emotion, which must of necessity belong to that, which we see
and dread, but which is so vague and vast that we cannot discern
the form thereof. We are subject to other terrors, but this is the
king of terrors. All that a man hath will he give for his life.
It is of no weight to tell us that this fear belongs to thoughtful
and cultivated minds, rather than to the degraded and brutish class,
who are most frequently the perpetrators of murder. If there be
a man who has sunk so low in brutishness that he has lost in con-
siderable measure, the fear of death, he will be still more insensi-
ble to any other fear. What to him are the disgrace, the igno-
miny, the ban of excommunication, the severance of social ties,
involved in imprisonment for life. If he has sunk below the fear
of death, the penitentiary will be to him only an asylum, where he
will be sure of being fed and clothed. When was it ever heard
that a criminal desired his counsel to strain a case of manslaughter
into murder, that he might be put to death rather than incarcerated
for life? What convicted culprit would not struggle for his life
and call for help, against the avenger of blood who should waylay
and attack him on his way to the penitentiary? Let men exercise
their ingenuity as much as they please, in reasoning from abnor-
mal freaks of the human mind, let them quote as many instances.
as there have been executions, of murders perpetrated in sight of
the scaffold, it still remains a notorious truth, open and palpable as
a thing of sense, that men dread death more than any other natu-
ral evil. It is therefore clear that it must possess a greater intrin-
sic efficacy, as a punishment for murder, than the proposed substi
tute.
But this efficacy, it is urged, is lessened by the uncertainty of
conviction. There are in every community some men who disbe-
lieve or doubt the right to inflict capital punishment, and others
who question its expediency, and as strenuous efforts are always
made to get one or more of such men on the jury, the doubt of his
conviction if brought to trial, combines with the chance of his
escaping detection, to embolden the criminal in the execution of his
purpose. The unsoundness of this reasoning in its application to
our case, is at once detected, when we call to mind that in most of
our states, murder has been changed from a common-law, to a sta-
tutory offence, and that the statute, discriminating between murder
of three or four different degrees, affixes death as the penalty of
the first, imprisonment for life of the second, and so on. The jury,
empanelled for the trial of murder, are not charged to find the
prisoner absolutely guilty or not guilty, but it falls within their pro-
vince to find, if guilty, within what degree he is guilty. The
scruples therefore arising from a conviction of the unlawfulness, or
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
367
a sense of the horror of capital punishment, need not operate in
any case to lessen the doom of the culprit below that which it is
proposed to inflict in all cases. The only effect of these scruples
where they exist and govern the decision of the jury, will be to
make them render a verdict of guilty of murder in the second
degree, instead of the first, and this is already, or if not it may be
made so, punishable with the next heaviest sentence to death.
We recur therefore to the evident truth, that death is the fitting
penalty for murder,-fitting because, in addition to its correspond-
ence with the enormity of the crime, it must needs be more effica-
cious than any other in preventing its repetition. We have indeed,
besides the reason which we have just shown to be utterly devoid
of weight, a historical argument in disparagement of the efficacy
of capital punishment. This argument is a curiosity in its way.
Reflecting and thoughtful men, who love and seek the truth, will
always be cautious in establishing the relation of cause and effect
between consecutive historical events. The most laborious collec-
tion and collation of facts, and the most intimate acquaintance with.
all the circumstances affecting the result, are in most cases neces-
sary, to enable us to eliminate what is accidental, and discover the
true connecting link. But with Mr. O'Sullivan the simple principle
post hoc, propter hoc" cuts short all this labour. One thing pre-
cedes another, therefore it is the cause of it. Under the Roman
republic there was no capital punishment, and the state was flou-
rishing; under the empire capital punishments were inflicted, and
the state fell. No better illustration is needed of the rashness of
this kind of reasoning, than is afforded by the uncertainty which
still exists respecting the effect of the change made several years
since in the English criminal code. There were strong arguments
against that code as it formerly stood, and at length upwards of
two hundred minor offences were taken out of the list of capital
crimes. And many who were in favour of the reform have thought
and said that the effect of it has been, a diminution of crime. But
from full and accurate statistical tables, kept at the Home Office
and reported to Parliament, it appears that for the three years suc-
ceeding the change in the criminal law, there was an increase of
no less than thirty-eight per cent. in the offences from which the
punishment of death had been removed. We should be very loth
however to infer from this fact the relation of cause and effect, as
Mr. O'Sullivan is in the habit of doing upon grounds vastly more
vague and indecisive.
But a further difficulty with this historical argument is that the
facts themselves upon which it rests are, most of them, unworthy
of credit. In the first instance, we have the experience of ancient
Egypt under Sabaco, who during the space of fifty years, we are
told, abolished capital punishment, and with much success.
Whence Mr. O'Sullivan learned the success of Sabaco's experi-
ment, we do not know. It is true that Herodotus and Diodorus
both mention this monarch, and state that he refrained from pun-
368
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
ishing criminals with death, but condemned them to raise the
ground about the towns so as to place them above the reach of
inundation. But we do not remember that either of them has said
aught of the good or ill effect of the experiment. And if they had,
it would not be difficult to tell what weight ought to be attached
to the testimony, when we consider that the eldest of these histo-
rians was separated by an interval of at least three hundred
years
from the reign of Sabaco, and that no statistical tables, officia!
returns, or other means of accurate information, had been trans-
mitted down to him. Mr. O'Sullivan, too, should have inquired
enough, before using this alleged fact, rude as it is, for his purpose,
to ascertain that Sabaco's character, his doings, and the length of
his reign, are all involved in doubt. Herodotus's own account is
not consistent with itself: and Manetho informs us that he burnt
one man alive; and limits his reign to eight years.
The example of Rome is also adduced in illustration of the good
effects to be expected from a repeal of capital punishment. For a
period of two centuries and a half, we are told, that the infliction
of death upon a Roman citizen was expressly forbidden by the
famous Porcian law, which was passed in the 454th year of Rome.
To say nothing of the trifling error of more than a hundred
years
in the date of this "famous Porcian law," which was not enacted
until the 557th year of Rome-was the author of this report aware
that this Porcian law was but a revival of the Valerian law, which
had been already renewed twice before, once by Valerius Publi-
cola, and again by Valerius Corvus; and that after its revival
under the tribuneship of M. Porcius Lecca it became obsolete again,
and was subsequently renewed for the fourth time by Sempronius
Gracchus, after which it fell again into disuse,—and that of course
the administration of criminal justice at Rome was never for any
considerable period restrained by the limitation of this law? Does
he know, too, that those who are most competent to form a cor-
rect opinion upon the subject, suppose that the law, while in force,
only forbade the execution of a Roman citizen who had been con-
demned by a magistrate, and that it was not intended to apply to
such as had been cast in an appeal from his sentence? If he did
not know these things, we hope he will look beyond Adam's
Roman Antiquities, to which he refers us for information, before
he again undertakes to shed light upon our path from the history
of Rome.
But we have more history still. "The Empress Elizabeth of
Russia, on ascending the throne, pledged herself never to inflict
the punishment of death; and throughout her reign, twenty years,
she kept the noble pledge." We know that Elizabeth made this
pledge, but where did Mr. O'Sullivan learn that she kept it? We
have never met with any authority for it but Voltaire, who says
"she kept her word;" but a man who never kept his own word,
when it suited his purpose to break it, is not an unexceptionable
witness on behalf of others. It is well known now, that many
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
369
executions occurred under the reign of this Empress-we do not
know how many, for despotic governments publish no registers of
the deaths they inflict. Mr. O'Sullivan adds, that so satisfactory
was found the operation of the immunity from death by judicial
sentence, that Elizabeth's successor, "the great Catharine, adopted
it into her celebrated Code of Laws, with the exception of very
rare cases of offence against the state." From that day to this, he
informs us, there have been but two occasions on which the punish-
ment of death has been inflicted in Russia. The code of Catharine
does indeed breathe a spirit of clemency, but a clemency that extends
only to the expiation of wrongs committed by one of her subjects
against another. To hold such wrongs in light esteem, and make
them easy of atonement, may well consist with the policy of a des-
potic government. Her royal clemency indicates an indifference to
human life instead of a high regard for it. Whoever will take the pains
to compare the sixteenth chapter of Beccaria's work on Punishment,
with sect. 4, art. 10, of the Instructions of Catharine, will be at no
loss to discover the probable motives which led to the institution
of her Criminal Code. She has borrowed the ideas, and some-
times the very words of Beccaria, taking good care, however, to
leave out everything touching the social compact, the surrender of
the "minime porzioni" of personal rights, and the limitations of the
sovereign authority.
The work of Beccaria had been recently published, and was
attracting much attention. Its doctrines had been espoused by
the French school of Infidels, who were at that time the savans
of Europe. Catharine, who was in close correspondence with
them, was ambitious of establishing a reputation in philosophy,
as well as war; and, to this end, she issued her "Instructions
pour dresser la Code de Russie," in which she is philosophically
clement, so far as the punishment of wrongs between man and
man is concerned, but sufficiently rigid in stationing the ministers
of death around the throne. If this explanation is more uncha-
ritable than Mr. O'Sullivan's, it has the merit of being more
consistent with the known character of this Empress,-one of
the most abandoned sovereigns that ever disgraced the seat of
empire. She commenced her reign with the murder of her
husband and his nephew, and filled it up with acts too abominable
to be recited. But whatever may have been the motives which
dictated her code, who, besides Mr. O'Sullivan, will vouch for its
observance? The edicts of despotic sovereigns are one thing,
and their practice another. The same caprice which enacted the
law can at any time dispense with its execution; and there is
nothing in the character of Catharine to lead us to suppose that she
would esteem herself bound by the philosophical flourish of her
Instructions" nor are there any sources of information from
which we can learn whether justice was actually administered
in accordance with the criminal code which she established.
And how did Mr. O'Sullivan arrive at the knowledge of the fact
(6
24
370
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
that "from that day to the present there have been but two
occasions on which the punishment of death has been inflicted in
Russia." It is now eighty years since Catharine ascended the
throne. It would not be an easy matter to ascertain in our own
free country, or in England, how many executions have taken
place in the last eighty years. And who has kept statistical tables
and brought in reports of the sentences pronounced and executed
throughout the fifty provinces of the vast empire of Russia during
this period? Travellers tell us that the code of Catharine fell, long
since, into disuse. And while in force it only nominally exempted
the criminal from death; since death, in an aggravated form, was
the frequent result of the punishments it prescribed. We have
before us now an account, from an eye-witness, of the punishment
of a murderer by the knout, which is too horrible to be quoted
in full. The criminal received three hundred and thirty-three
blows, each one tearing away the skin to the breadth of the thong,
and sinking into the flesh. At the conclusion of this terrible
operation his nostrils were torn with pincers, and his face
branded with a red hot iron. He was then re-conducted to his
prison, to be transported to the mines in Siberia; but upon the
most diligent inquiry, it could not be ascertained that any one had
seen him afterwards brought out of his prison. But let all this
pass. Be it so, that no capital punishments have been inflicted in
Russia for the last eighty years. How are we to learn the effects
of this remission? Who can tell us whether the lives of men have
been safe under this system of indulgence to crime? Where is the
record of the number of murders committed during this period?
And where is the proof that they would not have been fewer,
if even-handed justice had dealt to the murderer his merited
doom? The argument from this case breaks down at every point.
That cause must be sadly in want of substantial support, which is
compelled thus to clutch at shadows.
We had intended to make a similar exposure of all the other
historical cases referred to in this Report. But our limits forbid,
and we have already devoted to this part of the argument more
space than it intrinsically deserves. The cases given may be
taken as a sample of the whole,-erroneous frequently in their
facts, and wrong always in the conclusions drawn from them,
supposing the facts themselves to be correct. And such must
be the end of every attempt to establish by historical induction,
the truth of that which is not, and cannot be true. This part of the
discussion is a waste of words. If a man should offer to prove
us from history that the best interests of every state would be pro-
moted by committing its sovereign authority to the hands of a cruel
and unprincipled despot, we might very properly decline to follow
such an argument, on a question that is already decided, upon princi-
ples that are plainer and more certain than any process of reasoning
from historical facts can possibly be. And yet we will engage to
make a collection of facts which shall go further in support of this
to
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
371
theory, than any that can be marshalled in favour of the abolition
of capital punishment. The considerations which determine that
death is a more effectual preventive of murder than any less punish-
ment, are superior, in their simplicity and certainty, to all historical
teaching. They lie in every man's bosom, and close around him.
He need not go back to ancient Egypt, nor search abroad among
the scarce civilized serfs of Russia, to find them. Let any man
ask himself which he would most dread, death or imprisonment,
taking his answer not from any casual mood of mind which may
now and then rule him, but from his most habitual and prompt fears:
let him ask any criminal upon trial, which he would prefer, a
verdict which would send him to the gallows, or one which would
permit him to take refuge in the penitentiary. Can there be any
doubt that death is the master evil of our lot-that it is the sorest
punishment that human law has the right to inflict—and that it
must be, upon the known and certain principles of human nature,
a more efficacious preventive of murder than imprisonment?
Whatever efficacy the law exerts in restraining from the perpe-
tration of this crime would be lessened by the proposed diminution
of its penalty, as certainly as theft would increase, if the pun-
ishment of the thief were lowered to the restitution of a portion
only of the amount stolen. This conclusion cannot be wrong-it
is an inference so immediate, from facts and principles that are
themselves so elementary and self-evident, that it cannot be involved
in the error which is incident to remote deductions from doubtful
premises. And if it is a just rule of reasoning, that that which is
simple and certain, should be used to illustrate whatever is more
complex and obscure, then this truth may lend its aid to the inter-
pretation of historical sequences, but cannot receive its proof or its
refutation from them. At least, it never can is refuted by any-
thing less than an experiment, conducted upon a large scale, pro-
tracted through a period long enough to test and reject every
other cause, and leading to results so clear and definite that they
can be explained on no other hypothesis. No such experiment has
yet been made. Admitting all the facts alleged on the other side,
they do not constitute even the beginning of what could be con-
sidered an adequate experiment. In the meantime, instead of
going back into the dim obscure of a traditional antiquity, or abroad.
to India, Russia, or Tuscany, to gather up loose and vague state-
ments of facts, and reason from them upon principles which would
equally well warrant us in concluding, that it is the croaking of
the frog that brings back the spring, or the singing of the lark that
makes the sun to rise; we shall prefer to stand fast by such prin-
ciples of truth as are given to us immediately by our own nature,
and by the sentiments and conduct of all around us. And if we
wish the sanction of authority for our opinions, we shall seek it in
some higher quarter than among the disciples of an infidel philoso-
phy, that insults God and degrades man-a philosophy that laying
aside all its higher attributes, and wandering from its palace, has
372
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
gone forth to eat grass as oxen-a philosophy which may chew its
cud, and tell us what kind of grass is good, but which can do
nothing better, until it regains its reason, as did the degraded.
monarch of old, by "lifting up its eyes unto heaven." And if we
are to be influenced by imitation, if" patterns of noble clemency"
are to be sought, we shall go somewhere else than to an Empress,
who was twice, at least, a murderer of the foulest degree, and
always a loathsome adulteress.
Our ground now is, that society has the right to take away life
upon sufficient cause-that death is not an excessive penalty for
murder, but, on the contrary, is pointed out by the nature of the
crime, and the general judgment of mankind respecting it, as its
most fitting punishment-and that this penalty is demanded as the
most effectual preventive of the crime. If these several positions
are established, as we think they are, then our case is fully made
out. Nothing more is necessary to prove the duty of the sovereign
authority in every state, to establish and maintain this penalty.
Mr. O'Sullivan does indeeds demand that besides all this, we should
prove that though capital punishment "does operate to produce
that effect (the prevention of murder), it is not accompanied with
other evil consequences, upon the general well-being of society,
sufficient to neutralize the amount of advantage which it may be
supposed to possess in this respect over all other modes of preven
tive punishment." That is, if we understand this aright, we
must strike the balance upon some such calculation as this.
We must find how many murders would be committed within
a given territory, say the state of New York, during a definitel
period, under the reign of capital punishment-we must then find
to what number this would be increased within the same territory
and period, if capital punishment were supplanted by imprison-
ment for life let us suppose that there would be three mur-
ders in the former case, and five in the latter; we should then
have to weigh the murder of three men, and the hanging of the
three murderers, six deaths in all, against the five murders and the
perpetual imprisonment of the five murderers: there is one death
more in the first case, but then this is to be off-set by the incarce-
ration of five men for life; it must be taken into the account, too,
that three of the six deaths are inflicted by the hand of the law,
and we must calculate whether three such deaths are a greater
evil than the two surplus murders of the other alternative; in the
latter case, too, the whole five are driven out of the world into
eternity without a moment for preparation, while in the former,
three of the six have timely notice to prepare for death, and we
must estimate the value of this consideration: after settling these
and many other like points which arise immediately out of the case,
we must look a little further and inquire into the effects of solitary
imprisonment upon health of body and soundness of mind-into
the probability that some one or more of these five culprits may be
reduced to a state of insanity-into the alleged tendency of capital
:
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
373
get
punishment to produce suicide, compared with the force of the
temptation which the five men, imprisoned for life, will lie under
to the commission of the same crime-into the temptation, too,
under which these prisoners will lie, doomed as they already are
to the heaviest punishment which can be laid upon them, to murder
their keepers, and escape from prison-into ten thousand other
questions which no man can answer. The moment we attempt to
reduce this problem of the calculation of general consequences,
out of the vague form in which Mr. O'Sullivan states it, so as to
it in a condition for solution, we find that it is intricate and vast
beyond the power of any human mind to comprehend. This is
yet another illustration of the utter impotency of the utilitarian
philosophy to discuss questions of guilt and innocence, death and
life. What have these general consequences to do with our duty
to prevent all the murders that we can? Out upon these calcula-
tions of profit and loss when the lives of innocent men are in
question! We have no patience with this Iscariot arithmetic,
which knows how to calculate so precisely the price of innocent
blood. If one course being pursued, which it is right for us to
take, there would be only three murders committed during the
coming year, while five would occur under an altered course, then
the blood of the two men whom the change would slay, calls upon
us for protection, and we are blood-guilty if we refuse it.
There are two or three considerations, referable to this part of
the discussion, upon which it may be expedient, in conclusion, to
bestow a passing remark. The irremediable nature of capital
punishment is much insisted upon by the advocates of the other
side of the question. If a mistake has been committed, by the
condemnation of an innocent man, it is beyond recall. And under
this head we generally have an affecting narrative of cases in
which men have been condemned and executed, who were after-
wards found to have been innocent. An exaggerated impression
is commonly produced in relation to the number of such cases.
Many are given, and in such a manner as to leave the reader to
infer that they are but selections from a vastly greater number
which might be cited; whereas they are all, or nearly all, that the
most diligent ransacking of the annals of criminal jurisprudence
has been able to furnish. The most of them are given in Phillips's
Treatise on Evidence, and they constitute the stock in trade of the
prisoner's counsel in all murder trials. Whoever will examine
these cases will find that in almost every instance, except those in
which the corpus delicti was not found, and it appeared afterwards
that no murder had been committed, the real culprit has taken
away the life of the innocent prisoner by perjury, or which amounts
to the same thing, by arranging and directing a set of circumstan-
ces so as to implicate him. The amount of it is that the murderer,
in addition to the murder already committed, has made use of an
institution of justice, instead of the assassin's knife, to perpetrate
another. There is in such cases an additional murder committed,
374
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
gave
not by the law nor by its ministers, nor yet by the State which
them their authority, but by the wretch who has brought upon
himself the guilt of a double murder to prevent the detection of
one. Capital punishment may in this way occasionally add to the
number of murders. This is a consideration which we feel bound
to weigh, as it involves not " the well-being of society" but the life
of an innocent man. What then is its true value in its bearing upon
the general question? If capital punishment be the doom of mur-
der, there may occur now and then, with extreme rarity, an instance
in which a murderer will seize upon this law to commit another
murder, for the purpose of screening the one already committed.
But if capital punishment be abolished, and a milder substitute
introduced, the diminished severity of the penalty will tend at
once to increase the number of murders. It will be observed that
we do not undertake to weigh the consideration under discussion,
by placing over against it the imprisonment which, under the pro-
posed change, would in like circumstances be inflicted upon the
innocent prisoner, nor do we institute any inquiry into the value of
the restitution that would be made, when, after years of incarce-
ration, upon the discovery of his innocence, you release him
broken it may be in health, and shattered in mind. We make no
such comparisons. We weigh murder only with murder. And
dreadful as is the thought, that guilty men may be able in rare
cases to make use of the law, notwithstanding all the precautions
which guard its exercise, to carry into effect a purpose of murder,
we would still uphold the law, because we are certain that its
abrogation would lead to tenfold more murders than can possibly
be committed through this abuse of it.
Here too we may point out another mode in which the abroga-
tion of capital punishment must certainly increase the number of
murders. We have spoken already of the strong conviction which
has always pervaded the hearts of the mass of mankind, that death
is the fitting and the only fitting punishment for murder. This
conviction is not the product of a passionate excitement of feeling:
it has its seat in the sense of justice, and is deep and strong as the
heart of man. Now just as surely as capital punishment is abo-
lished, this conviction that the murderer ought to die will combine
with the exasperated feelings of the near of kin to the murdered,
and the avenger of blood will be abroad through the land. Men
who would not under any other exigency trample upon the laws
of the land, will take upon themselves the work of vengeance
under the impulse of what they will consider a higher law written
on their hearts; and murder will thus be added to murder.
"Passion then would plead
In angry spirits, for her old free range,
And the wild justice of Revenge prevail."
The only other objection to capital punishment that calls for
notice, is that which is drawn from its cutting short the period of
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
375
man's probation. This objection has but little weight with us, for
believing as we do that God has revealed to us His will, both
through the laws of reason and conscience, and in his written word,
that the murderer should be put to death, we consider the arrest of
the term of his probation, through the infliction of this sentence,
as no less distinctly and properly the dispensation of Divine Pro-
vidence, than if the criminal had been cut off by a sudden disease.
But independent of this view, let us beg those who urge this objec-
tion to remember the compassion which is due to those who are to
be murdered as well as to the murderer. By the abolition of
capital punishment we should increase the number of murders, and
thus cut short the probation of those that are murdered, and with
this additional aggravation, that they are sent without notice, with-
out a moment for thought, to their last account; while to the vic-
tim of the law we give time for repentance and preparation. This
consideration meets the objection and disposes of it by presenting
an evil of like kind but greater magnitude, which cannot but fol-
low the repeal of the penalty of death. In addition to this, too,
let it be borne in mind, that no man can tell whether imprisoning
the culprit for life, in the manner proposed, would not as effectually
interfere with the ends of his probation, as to put him to death.
after timely notice. Consider the case of a man condemned to
death, with several weeks intervening between the sentence and
its execution, perfectly certain that the hour is fixed in which he is
to appear before his Judge, and placed under the strongest motives
to induce him to repent and avail himself of the means of salva-
tion,—and then contrast with this the situation in which he would
be placed, if immured within the penitentiary, with a life-time
before him for the spirit of procrastination to range over, cut off
from the influence of public opinion, and other manifold influences
which are ordinarily at work upon men,-placed under circum-
stances so new, and strange, and trying, that many minds have
given way entirely under them and become insane,-when all
these things are taken into the account how shall we determine
which of these dooms would most effectually, to all intents and
purposes, interfere with the probation of the criminal. Happily it
is not necessary for us to determine this question, in order to learn
our duty. In executing the murderer we are but instruments in
the hands of Providence to effect his purposes: and we are pre-
venting, so far as we can, other murderers from cutting short the
lives of those whom it is our sacred duty to protect. They have
claims upon us which the murderer has wilfully forfeited-they
have rights which we cannot put in jeopardy, by an ill-judged
lenity to the guilty, without incurring a heavy responsibility. It
can be no part of our duty, through the weakness of a blind com-
passion, to clip the demands of justice upon the criminal, and thus
let loose the bloody hand of violence upon the innocent.
ESSAY XIII.
PHRENOLOGY.*
IN despite of all the ridicule and argument which have been
levelled at phrenology, it has, of late years, made considerable
advances; and it now excites more attention, and numbers more
disciples than at any former period. Its advocates have abated
nothing from the lofty pretensions of their favourite science; for
science, they assure us it is, and the first of all the sciences in
intrinsic dignity and importance. They claim that it is the great-
est and most valuable discovery ever communicated to mankind;
that it casts the only certain light upon the nature and operations
of the human mind; and that it will contribute more important aid
towards the education and the general improvement of the race,
than can be obtained from any other source. "The discoveries
of the revolution of the globe, and the circulation of the blood,
were splendid displays of genius in their authors, and interesting
and beneficial to mankind; but their results, compared with the
consequences which must inevitably follow from Dr. Gall's disco-
very of the functions of the brain, sink into relative insignificance."
So says Mr. George Combe, the ablest of the phrenologists.
A science which promises such wonderful results, which pro-
fesses to subject the most abstruse problems in mental science to
the ordeal of the sight and touch, which, from its lofty elevation,
compassionates the wandering bewilderment of Locke, and won-
ders that Newton did not study skulls instead of stars, or that
Harvey should have wasted his time in discovering the circulation
of the blood, when he might have been so much more profitably
employed in measuring the bumps of the cranium, deserves cer-
tainly the most respectful consideration from all who desire the
increase of knowledge or the welfare of mankind. Such conside-
ration, its friends seem disposed to think, it has not yet obtained.
Mr. Combe commences the last edition of his System of Phreno-
logy with an affecting account of the unfavourable reception which
* Originally published in 1838, in review of "An Examination of Phrenology, in
two Lectures, delivered to the Students of the Columbian College, District of Colum-
bia, February, 1837. By Thomas Sewall, M. D., Professor of Anatomy and Physi-
ology."
PHRENOLOGY.
377
:
most other great discoveries have met with upon their first
announcement, and consoles himself and his collaborators by call-
ing to mind the opposition, ridicule and persecution which were
encountered by Aristotle, Galileo, Descartes, Harvey and Newton.
Mr. Combe is not very well read in the history of the hardships
endured by the pioneers of philosophical discovery, or he might
have increased his catalogue by many additional names, such as
; our readers may fill the blank with Anaxagoras, Socrates,
Tycho, and Kepler, or by Symmes, Mesmer, and Perkins, accord-
ing to their different estimates of the persecuted science of phre-
nology.
We do not feel disposed to throw ridicule upon any set of men who
are labouring, with an honest purpose and a sincere love of truth,
to extend the boundaries of human knowledge in any direction.
We can look with something like complacency upon what would
be swaggering and impudent pretension, were it not supposed to
originate in the harmless enthusiasm of fancied discovery, and
thankfully receive the truths that are offered us, even though we
should rate them at a less value than is affixed by those who have,
with great research and labour, produced them. To the untiring
labours of the phrenologists, we have therefore looked with much
interest. hoping that they would contribute something valuable to
our knowledge of the mutual functions of the mind and body, and
assured that if this hope should not be realized, we should at least.
have the benefit of what may be called a negative experiment,
proving that there is no knowledge to be gained in the region
which they have so assiduously cultivated. They have had among
them some men of eminent abilities, united with keen ardour, in
the pursuit of their favourite object; and sufficient time has been
allowed, according to their own representations, to put their sys-
tem in an available form, and complete it, except in some of its
subordinate details. With the fearlessness of conscious strength,
they challenge the rigorous investigations of all who are compe-
tent to form an opinion of its claims. We propose, therefore, to
institute an inquiry into the validity of the grounds on which their
science rests, and the value of the results it has produced.
Phrenology, as now set forth, is a modern science; but the
opinion that separate portions of the brain are employed in differ-
ent mental operations, is of very ancient date. Aristotle speaks of
the brain, as consisting of a congeries of organs, and assigns to dif
ferent parts, different mental functions. The anterior part of the
cerebral mass, he apportions to common sense, the middle, to
imagination, judgment, and reflection-and the posterior, to memo-
ry, Galen seems to have been acquainted with the views of Aris-
totle, and to have adopted them. Nemesius, the first bishop of
Emesa, in the reign of Theodosius, taught that the sensations had
their origin in the anterior ventricle of the brain, memory in the
middle, and understanding in the posterior ventricle. Albertus
Magnus, Archbishop of Ratisbon, in the thirteenth century, drew
378
PHRENOLOGY.
a head, upon which he delineated the supposed seats of the differ
ent faculties and affections. Peter de Montagnana, Michael Ser-
vetus, Ludovico Dolci, and many other writers, have published
similar hypotheses respecting the locality of the various mental
powers. But the most elaborate work upon this subject, with
which we are acquainted, is the treatise of John Baptista Porta, or,
as he is called by the Italians, Giovan Batista de la Porta, an eminent
philosopher of Naples, in the latter part of the sixteenth century.
He was famed for his skill in mathematics, philosophy, natural
history, and medicine, and he published many works connected with
these various branches of knowledge. Among these was the curi
ous treatise to which we have alluded, entitled "De Humana Phy-
siologia." He maintains that the character of every man, his
intellectual and moral qualities, may be learned from his bodily
configuration, and explains minutely the indications afforded by the
different forms and sizes of its several parts, confirming his opi-
nions by the testimony of previous writers, chiefly of Aristotle and
Albertus, and by analogies between certain conformations of the
"human face divine," and some of the races of brutes. In his sys-
tem, every lineament of the face, and every member of the body,
even the fingers and nails, bear their testimony to the qualities of
the mind, but he lays the greatest stress upon the form of the cra-
nium. The reason which he assigns for attaching so much impor-
tance to the shape of the head, is that the form of the brain depends
upon that of the skull, and that a deficiency in any part of the skull,
discloses therefore a corresponding deficiency in the brain, and
indicates the feebleness of the faculties which have their seat in
that portion. "Cerebri forma cranii formam sequitur, et si ejus
figura corrupta fuerit, etiam cerebri forma corrumpetur." This is
a clear and precise statement of one of the fundamental positions.
of modern phrenology.
It is no part of our intention, however, to detract from the origi-
nality of Dr. Gall as the discoverer of phrenology. Nothing but
general hints had been thrown out by previous writers. No one
had ventured further than the opinion that certain large portions of
the brain were devoted to distinct classes of mental operations, and
only Baptista Porta had suggested the general truth that the form
of the brain might be learned from the external configuration of
the skull. Dr. Gall has done for this subject what Newton did for
the theory of the universe, he has proved that to be true which
before was but conjecture. The account which he has given of
the manner in which he was led to make his great discovery is
substantially as follows. His attention was strongly drawn, while
he was yet a boy, to the various tastes, dispositions, and talents, dis-
played by the different members of his family. At school he
observed similar differences among his companions, and in par
ticular was led to remark that the boys who were distinguished
for their retentive memories, had large and prominent eyes.
When
he subsequently went to the university, he found this same pecu-
PHRENOLOGY.
379
liarity of feature in all the students who were distinguished for
tenacity of memory. Following out the general idea which was
thus suggested, he imagined that other mental qualities might have
their signs in the external features, and he, at length, supposed
that he had discovered certain peculiarities which were indicative
of some other intellectual endowments. Afterwards, when he
came to study medicine, it occurred to him that the differences in
the configuration of the head, which he had observed in connexion
with certain dispositions, were owing to differences in the form of
the brain. This happy idea was the initiative of his whole system.
It inspired him at once with the hope that with this clue he might
successfully trace the windings of that labyrinth where every
previous explorer had been lost, the connexion between the body
and the mind, and the secret causes of that great variety which we
see in moral disposition and intellectual ability. He immediately
began to direct his researches to this object, by collecting animals
of various kinds, and studying the relations between their external
forms, and their natural instincts and dispositions. He procured,
at the same time, all the skulls which he could obtain, of persons
whose history or character was known. Upon hearing of any one
who was distinguished for a particular mental or moral quality,
he never rested until he had seen, and, if possible, felt the
form of his cranium. He would then inquire diligently for some
noted case of deficiency of the same trait or faculty, that he might
compare together the positive and negative indications. If, on the
other hand, he met with one whose head presented any singularity
in shape, he spared no pains to ascertain his intellectual and moral
character, and when all other means of investigation failed, he
would not hesitate to inquire of the individual himself, whether he
was remarkable for any faculty of mind or disposition of heart.
He was also in the habit, while walking in the streets of Vienna,
where he at this time lived, of collecting the boys around him,
and, after observing their skulls, bribing them to confess their
faults, and betray those of their companions. He would even
seek to involve them in quarrels that he might learn which pos-
sessed the most courage. Upon the death of any celebrated indi-
vidual, he used all possible exertion to procure his skull, and as
this propensity of the doctor became known, it spread a very
general alarm among the inhabitants of Vienna, not a few being
haunted by the fear that their heads would hereafter grace his ana-
tomical cabinet, instead of resting quietly in the grave. The aged
librarian to the Emperor of Austria, Mr. Denis, inserted a prohibi-
tory clause in his will, to protect his head from the keen scalpel
of Dr. Gall. He contrived nevertheless to collect a large number
of skulls. In the meantime he visited schools, prisons, houses of
correction, and lunatic asylums, he invited companies of beggars,
porters, and coachmen, from the street into his house, and then
excited them to act out their characters before him; he neglected
no means of observation within his reach, to acquaint himself with
380
PHRENOLOGY.
the internal dispositions and the external protuberances of the
skull, in all to whom he could gain access. During this lengthened
period of observation, he was often involved in perplexity and
confusion. The induction from many previous instances, assign-
ing the locality of a particular faculty, would often be overthrown
by a new skull, and a careful revision of all the former cases
would be rendered necessary. By degrees, however, his conclu-
sions became stable, and the multitudinous phenomena which he
had observed, being all reduced within the compass of a few
gene-
ral laws, each comprising under it a large number of particular
instances, the science of phrenology was the result. As in other
sciences, the general law which he had proved to be true by an
extended process of induction, was then applied, in the way of
deduction, to the explanation of such phenomena as came within
its range. In 1796, Dr. Gall considered his system sufficiently
perfected to be announced to the world, and he accordingly gave
a course of public lectures in Vienna, in explanation and defence of
the newly-discovered science. He continued to lecture annually
for five successive years, his opinions being eagerly received by
many, and giving rise to much warm discussion, when, in 1802,
an order was issued by the Austrian government, forbidding him
to lecture, on the ground that his doctrines savoured of material-
ism and atheism, and were dangerous to the cause of morality
and religion.
The decrees of courts cannot fetter the mind. The
effect of this interdict was to stimulate public curiosity, and phre-
nology was studied with greater zeal than before. A strong party
was soon gathered on the side of the silenced philosopher, through
whose influence at court, the prohibition was so far removed as to
permit him to lecture publicly to such foreigners as might be resi
dent in Vienna, the Emperor, it may be supposed, feeling little
concern for the "morality and religion" of any but his own sub-
jects. About this time Dr. Gall associated Dr. Spurzheim with
him, and they laboured together for several years. They refrained
from committing themselves by any publication. The first pub-
lished notice of the new science was given in the Deutsche Merkur
of Wieland, in 1798, in a letter from Dr. Gall, announcing his
intention of publishing a large work upon the subject, and giving
a glimpse of his theory. In 1802, an outline of his system was
given in a published letter from M. Charles Villers to Čuvier. It
was through this letter, and the review of it in the Edinburgh
Review, that the subject was introduced into England. While
the promised work in exposition of the system was delayed, sur
reptitious copies of Dr. Gall's lectures were circulated throughout
Germany, and they excited so much attention, that he was induced,
in company with Dr. Spurzheim, to visit the principal universities
and cities of Germany and Prussia, for the purpose of explaining
his doctrines. In 1809, these two co-labourers commenced the
publication of their great work on the anatomy and physiology of
the brain, which was completed ten years afterwards, in four
PHRENOLOGY.
381
up
quarto volumes. They subsequently separated, Dr. Gall taking
his residence at Paris, and Dr. Spurzheim continuing to travel
extensively through Europe, collecting new facts, and teaching
phrenology wherever he could find hearers. In 1832, he visited
the United States, and died at Boston, a few months after his
arrival. Dr. Gall died at Paris, in 1828.
Were we attempting to give a full history of the origin and
progress of phrenology, we should assign a conspicuous place to
Mr. George Combe, of Edinburgh, whose writings have done far
more to recommend the subject than those of Gall and Spurzheim.
Edinburgh has been for several years the stronghold of this
science. A monthly journal, devoted to the inculcation of its
doctrines, is published there under the auspices of Mr. Combe.
In our own country phrenology has attracted much attention.
The writings of Spurzheim and Combe have been extensively
circulated, and we have had several "Manuals" and "Outlines" of
native growth. Itinerant lecturers too, emulating the zeal of the
peripatetic fathers of this sect, have travelled through the land,
expounding the principles of the science, and gauging the heads of
all who were willing to pay their dollar to be informed of their
true character and prospects. It is not surprising that these
lecturers have been popular. They find something good in every
head submitted to their inspection, outside of the walls of a prison.
If there should chance to be in any case a suspicious development
of a wicked organ, they are at no loss to find a controlling influ-
ence in the unwonted strength of some good propensity. It is so
exceedingly pleasant to be flattered into a good opinion of one's
self, not by astrology, reading the character in the stars, nor by
palmistry, detecting it in the lines of the hand, but by a true
science, uttering its oracular responses upon indubitable evidence,
that we do not wonder that Merlin, with his white beard and
mystic wand, is quite out of fashion, and that the wandering
gypsy has been fairly driven from the field. The cheapness
too of this mode of self-knowledge renders it highly attractive.
Who, that has toiled in fulfilment of the "heaven descended, know
thyself," with much meditation and inward searching, seeking to
penerate into the recesses of his heart, and with much wearisome
watching, endeavouring to detect in his actions the outward
manifestation of feelings not otherwise discoverable, and after all
his labour, never fully satisfied that some coming emergency may
not reveal to him unsuspected weaknesses and defects of character,
would not willingly open his purse to pay for a knowledge of
himself, furnished upon principles as certain as those which make
known to us the motions of the heavenly bodies, and so precise
in its accuracy, that it will give us numerical expressions for the
relative strength of all our propensities. The troublesome process
of ascertaining the character is reduced to a simple operation of
arithmetic. Benevolence on a particular head is five, destructive-
ness three, and acquisitiveness two,-how comforting to the owner
382
PHRENOLOGY.
of it to know that there is a clear balance of two against the
probability of his ever being led to commit murder or break
windows, and a still more decided balance of three, against his
committing burglary or highway robbery. But let us leave
these mountebank practitioners of the art, and enter on the exami-
nation of the principles of the science.
The principles of phrenology, as given by Dr. Sewall, are ten
in number. All that is essential to the system, however, may be
comprised in the following propositions. 1. That the brain is the
material organ of the mind, and necessary to all its operations. 2.
That in proportion to the size of this organ will be the vigour of
the intellectual faculties. 3. That the brain is a congeries of
organs, thirty-five in number, each commencing at the medulla
oblongata, and thence extending upward, in the form of an inverted
cone, to the upper surface of the bran. 4. That each of these
organs is the instrument of a distinct faculty, propensity, or
sentiment of the mind, and that no mental operation can be
performed without the aid of its appropriate organ; and further,
that in proportion to the size of any organ will be the strength of
the faculty which works by its means. 5. That we can judge of
the size of the organs, and therefore of the character of the mind,
by the external projections of the skull.
The opinion contained in the first of these propositions is not
peculiar to the phrenologists. Three different theories have been
held of the dependency of the mind on the body. That all the
mental phenomena are the results of organization, thought being
the necessary product of a material organ like the brain; secondly,
that the mind is an immaterial principle, superadded to the
organized structure of the body, but still requiring the intervention
of a material organ for the performance of its acts; and, thirdly,
that though the mind is in some mysterious way connected with
the body, yet it does not employ any material instrument in
carrying on its processes, except in such acts as have refer-
ence to material objects. The first of these opinions is mate-
rialism, and it can scarcely be stated in terms which do not
convey its refutation. It supposes that matter, in a certain
state, is capable of thought, volition, and affection. The second
opinion, which teaches that the mind is a distinct principle from the
body, and yet so united with it, as to require the direct instrumen-
tality of the brain in all its manifestations, is the one which has
been generally embraced by physiologists and metaphysicians, and
universally by the phrenologists, to whose theory indeed it is essen-
tial. In support of this opinion it has been urged that we find no
symptoms of intelligence in animals that are not furnished with a
brain, and, on the other hand, that wherever this organ is found, it
is accompanied by some manifestations of mind. Those creatures.
which stand as the frontier instances of animal life, affording the
feeblest and lowest indications of its properties, are found to pos-
sess merely a nervous thread or ring. As we ascend the scale of
PHRENOLOGY.
383
animal existence, we discover first a line of ganglions, or nervous
plexuses then a double column of distinct portions of nervous
matter, forming a spinal marrow; this is succeeded by a cerebel-
Jum; and this again by a cerebrum, or brain proper. Each of
these additions to the nervous system always includes the inferior
parts. A cerebrum is never found without a cerebellum, nor the
latter without the subordinate system of nervous ganglions. Com-
mencing with the animals that possess the simplest form of the
brain, we find this organ, as we ascend, becoming more compli-
cated and perfect in its structure, until we reach the human brain ;
and at every step of the scale in tracing its gradual refinement, we
find each successive improvement marked by some addition or
enlargement of the powers of the animal. It has been moreover
found that the human brain is gradually evolved from a much
simpler form. Its earliest state shows no symptom of that elaborate
organization which it ultimately attains. From a laborious exami-
nation of the condition of the foetal brain, Tiedemann has shown
that this organ attains its complicated structure by gradual pro-
gress through much simpler forms. This might have been antici-
pated, for Harvey had already proved that the growth of the
human foetus was not by the mere enlargement of parts already
possessed, but by the evolution of successive forms of organization.
Tiedemann has succeeded in proving not only that the brain is
thus developed, but that it is an exact parallel between the tem-
porary states of the foetal brain, during the periods of advancing
gestation, and the permanent development of that organ at succes-
sive points of the animal scale.
The gradual unfolding of the intellectual faculties from infancy
upward, corresponding with the advance of the brain from its soft
and pulpy state to its perfect form, is urged as another reason for
believing that this organ is the instrument of all mental manifesta-
tions. And in old age, when the brain becomes shrivelled and
dry, the powers of the mind decay. These facts are deemed irre-
concilable with the supposition that the exercises of the mind are
the exclusive product of a spiritual or immaterial principle, since
such a principle cannot be supposed capable of alteration, of
growing with the growth of the body, and of decaying with its
decay.
this
Nor are other plausible arguments wanting. Whatever destroys
the integrity of the brain, impairs or deranges the mental faculties,
if it do not utterly abolish them; and even a functional disorder of
organ never fails to manifest itself in the complete delirium, or
at least the weakened energy of the mind. In cases of fractured
skull, when a portion of bone, or the extravasated blood of some of the
encephalic vessels, compresses the brain, there is a total suspension
of all mental activity; and the mind awakes again from its uncon-
scious lethargy as soon as the operation of the trephine has removed
compressing cause. When the brain has been exposed, as in
the noted instance of the female cited by Richerand, the pressure of
the
384
PHRENOLOGY.
the finger upon it has been instantly followed by a state of uncon-
sciousness, which would continue until the pressure was removed.
The phenomena of sleep and dreaming also are supposed to be
inconsistent with the hypothesis that the mind acts without a
material organ, while they are easily explicable, if we consider the
mind dependent upon the brain, and therefore controlled in its
actions by the partial suspension of the functions of this organ
during these states. Since an immaterial principle is simple and
indivisible, it must be incapable of any alteration of structure or
disarrangement of function, and of course exempt from disease.
The frequent occurrence of temporary delirium and of permanent
insanity is therefore urged in further proof of the proposition that
the brain is the organ of the mind.*
Such, substantially, are the facts and reasonings by which it is
thought that this truth is established. Nor are they destitute of
force. They unquestionably prove that there exists some con-
nexion between the brain and the mind, in virtue of which they
exert a reciprocal influence, but so may it be proved also that all
the other vital organs act upon the mind, and the mind upon them.
Strong emotions generally show their first physical symptom in
the accelerated or retarded action of the heart. And hence some
modern physiologists, particularly Bichat, who hold that the brain
is the organ of the intellectual faculties, have revived the ancient
doctrine of the Greek physicians, that the affections and passions
have their seat in the viscera of the abdomen and thorax. And
certainly if any stress is to be laid, as is usually done, in argument
upon this subject, on the common sentiment of mankind, as indi-
cated by their language, referring intellectual exercises to the head,
we have equally good reason for affirming that the feelings have
their local habitation in the heart.
In considering the question, whether the brain is the organ of
the mind, we find a difficulty in arriving at a conclusion, from not
knowing exactly what is intended. We understand what is meant
when it is said that the lungs are the principal respiratory organ,
or the heart the chief organ of the circulating system. The alter-
nate expansion and contraction of these viscera produce respira-
tion and circulation. When they are in healthy action, the pre-
sence of the air or of the blood is all that is necessary to the pro-
duction of their several effects. They are, therefore, very appro-
priately called the organs or instruments by which those effects are.
wrought. So long as the vital forces animate them they accom
plish their ends without the aid or concurrence of any other agent.
It will not be maintained that the brain is, in this sense, the organ
* We have omitted purposely one argument urged by Mr. Combe, and repeated by
others, in defence of this proposition. He asserts that "consciousness or feeling
localizes the mind in the head, and gives us a full conviction that it is seated there."
If Mr. Combe really has this consciousness, he needs no better evidence than it
affords, that his mind thinks by help of his brain, but this gives no help to those
of us who are unfortunately not conscious of the locality of our minds.
PHRENOLOGY.
385
of thought by any but the materialists. We can see a fitness, too,
in designating the eye as the organ of vision, and the ear, the
organ of hearing. The eye is evidently and expressly constructed
for the purpose of conveying the image of the external object to
the retina of the eye, and thus producing the mental state called
seeing. It is directly and causatively employed by the mind as its
instrument in every act of vision. And since the eye, the ear, and
all the apparatus of the external senses, communicate by their
appropriate nerves with the brain, we are led to suppose that the
last physical state, antecedent to the mental perception of external
objects, takes place in this apparent centre of the nervous system;
and this may be deemed a sufficient reason for styling the brain,
the organ of sensation. A similar ground exists for supposing that
the brain is the necessary instrument of the mind in executing such
volitions as have for their object any change of its bodily state.
The nerves of voluntary motion are connected, through the inter-
vention of larger medullary masses, with the brain, and this arrange-
ment, together with some corroborating facts, induces us to sup-
pose that the motive impression of the will is propagated from the
brain to the muscle in which the motion takes place.* We may
consent, on this account, that the brain should be called the organ
of the mind in all its states and acts which connect it with the
material world. But we suppose that much more than this is
meant by those who contend for the unqualified proposition that
the brain is the organ of the mind. Indeed Mr. Combe illustrates
the sense in which he uses these terms by a reference to the eye as
the organ of vision, and asserts that "if the brain be the organ of
the mind, it will follow that the mind does not act in this life inde-
pendently of its organ, and hence that every emotion and judg-
ment of which we are conscious, are the result of mind and its
organ acting together; and, secondly, that every mental affection
must be accompanied by a corresponding state of the organ, and
vice versâ every state of the organ must be attended by a certain
condition of the mind." We are prepared here to join issue, and
maintain that we have no sufficient evidence for believing that the
brain is, in this strict sense, the organ of the mind in all its opera-
The opinion that the immediate physical antecedent of a mental sensation, or
the immediate physical consequent of a volition, takes place in the brain, is by no
means incontrovertible. It may be maintained, and with much plausibility, that the
physical state which exists in immediate proximity to the mental one is in the nerves,
while the office of the brain is to supply that influence, whatever it may be, which
maintains the vitality of the nervous system. This hypothesis is equally consistent
with the anatomical structure of these organs, and will explain equally well, most,
if not all, the facts of the case.
If the optic nerve, for instance, be divided, the
power of vision is destroyed. On the one hypothesis this would be explained by
stating that the image on the retina of the eye no longer conveyed to the brain the
impression which must necessarily affect that organ in order to induce the mental act
or state of vision. On the other, it would be accounted for by the consideration, that
the nerve, being dissevered from the brain, had lost its vitality, and was therefore
incapable of discharging its appropriate function in influencing the mind. It is an
extremely difficult matter to establish the proximate relation of cause and effect
between our mental and our bodily acts.
25
386
PHRENOLOGY.
tions. When the mind wills to move the arm, we are ready to
admit that it may employ the brain in transmitting the motive
impulse to the muscle, but when we are told also that it cannot
frame the volition itself, without some previous stimulus or concur-
rent help of the medullary substance, we are constrained to demand
some further evidence than has yet been given.
The law of continuity which is said to prevail throughout the
animal creation, connecting, at each point of the ascending series,
a brain of more elaborate construction with higher manifestations
of intelligence, is of very slender force. Such laws are at no
point of the scale so likely to be interrupted by a discontinuous
instance as at one of its extremities. The law of gravitation,
which is true for all sensible distances, gives place to some other
law when the distance between the attracting particles becomes
insensible. Admitting the instrumental dependence of the mind
upon the brain, in the inferior animals, are we entitled to infer
from this that the mind of man is thus dependent upon a similar
organ? The analogy of anatomical structure has no weight in
this argument, except upon the assumption of analogous functions.
Bnt is there such an analogy between the acts of a brute in the
perception of external objects, or in any of its manifestations of
intelligence, and the movements of the mind of man, when he rea-
sons upon abstract truths and principles which have no relation to
a material world, or when he feels the obligations which he is
under to virtue and truth, that the same instrument which is
employed in the production of the one, being somewhat more ela-
borately finished, will answer for working out the other? There
is not more difference between the two acts of seeing and hearing,
than exists between the highest instance of brute intelligence, and
the act of the human mind in adoring and loving its Creator. But
we believe that the eye, however exquisitely finished, can never
become transformed into an organ of hearing; and why should
we not as well believe, that the same organ which is employed by
the brute creation in their low and limited manifestations of intelli-
gence, cannot avail for the higher and dissimilar functions of the
human mind? The difference in kind between these two classes
of functions, would lead us, if we sought any material organ for
the latter, not to look for one more exquisitely finished than that
employed by the brutes, but for one entirely different. The greater
complication and higher finish of the brain of man are sufficiently
explained by the greater complexity of all his organs, and the
higher kind of animal life which he sustains. Many vital arrange-
ments are completed in the human body, of which we find only
the first rudiments, or rough sketches, in the lower animals. We
need not, however, waste words in showing the irrelevancy of the
argument from the uniform proportion between the degree of intel
ligence and the finish of the brain in the lower animal, since the
facts themselves from which the argument is generalized are insuf
ficient to sustain it. It is not true that this proportion is observed
PHRENOLOGY.
387
with sufficient uniformity to warrant the general assertion. The
brain of the beaver is not more elaborate or complicated in its
structure, nor larger in its proportions, than that of the sheep.
And, as if in mockery of this hasty generalization, of all the ani-
mals with which we are acquainted, the bee and the ant perhaps
mimic most closely "the adaptive functions" of the human under-
standing.
We cannot attach much importance to the other argument,
drawn from the correspondence between the growth and decay of
the brain, and the progress and decline of the intellectnal faculties.
This argument, it will be seen, derives all its force from the syn-
chronism between the two classes of phenomena, but this syn-
chronism is not invariable. There have been many instances of
precocity in children, whose brains presented, upon examination,
the usual soft and pulpy appearance; and there have been many
old men who have preserved their mental faculties to the last in
an unusual degree, and whose brains have been found as dry and
hard as in other cases where the powers of the mind have almost
entirely disappeared. These, however, are exceptions. The
general law is undoubtedly true, that while the brain is undergo-
ing one series of changes, the mind is passing through another
series. But is this sufficient, even if invariable, to establish
between them the relation of cause and effect? Certainly not, if
there be any other hypothesis than that of their mutual depend-
ence, which will equally well explain the facts. There is nothing
in the change that takes place in the brain, that seems to bear a
natural relation to the altered functions of the mind. In infancy,
when the brain is pulpy, the child is a creature of sensation;
when the brain has become harder, we find the child capable of
reflection; but we can discern no reason in the anatomical struc-
ture of the organ, why a hard brain is any more fitted than a soft
one for the instrument of reflection; or why, when it has become
hardened beyond a certain point, it should be again unfitted for this
office. The structure of the organ does not, as in the case of the
eye or ear, give us any information respecting its office. There is
nothing but the contemporaneous occurrence of the changes in the
brain and the mind, from which we can infer any relation between
them.
But something more than this is necessary to prove that
they are connected as cause and effect. Since the changes which
take place in the brain are but part of a train of changes which are
going on throughout the vital economy, there must be some suffi-
cient reason for selecting them as exclusively connected with the
growth of the mental faculties. No such reason can be found.
The changes in the brain, and in the mind, may both, for aught we
know or are likely to know, be independent effects of some third
cause. The varying state of the mental powers from infancy to
manhood, and from manhood to old age, proves that the mind is so
connected with the body as to be influenced by the state of its
vitality. We can have no reason for believing that this influence
388
PHRENOLOGY.
is communicated solely through the brain, unless it can be shown
from the structure or other functions of this organ, that it has been
adapted to fulfil this purpose; or unless by a series of experiments.
we can eliminate the changes in the brain from the other changes
which take place simultaneously throughout the system. It has
indeed been urged that we are acquainted with the functions of all
the other organs of the body-that each part has its particular
office-that the use of the brain is not understood-and that if it
is not the organ of the mind," there is left for it nothing to do, no
purpose to answer in the economy, for no one has yet suspected
that it has any other function than that connected with menta!
manifestation."* It would be a sad thing indeed to leave an organ
of such rare and curious construction as the brain with nothing to
do, but there have been very violent suspicions that it has some
important duties to perform besides assisting the mind in its labours.
Whether in partnership with the mind or not, it carries on a pretty
important business on its own account. M. Legallois has publish-
ed a learned essay, detailing many experiments, all going to prove
that the principle which animates each part of the body, has its
seat in that portion of the medullary substance whence its nerves
originate; and it has been very generally supposed that what has
been vaguely called the nervous influence, subserved important
purposes in the animal economy. Dr. Wilson Philip has attempted
to prove that secretion is due to nervous influence; and Magendie
has clearly shown that the nutrition of the eye depends upon the
fifth pair of nerves. Though great obscurity rests upon the
functions of the brain, no one has doubted that this organ, with its
associated system of medulla, spinal marrow, and nerves, distri-
butes to the heart, the lungs, and through the whole frame, some
influence necessary to the perfection of its organic life. And if
this were not so, in admitting the brain to be the organ of the mind
in sensation, and in producing voluntary motion, we have assigned
to it an office of sufficient importance to relieve us from the neces-
sity of finding some other duty for it to perform.
The remarks already made will be found to apply to the other
arguments drawn from the suspension of the mental powers from
injury to the brain, and from the phenomena of idiotcy and
insanity. The brains of the idiotic and the insane have been
examined in hundreds of cases, and in by far the greater part of
them there has been found no peculiarity of organization, no altera-
tion of structure, no symptom of disease. The comatose state
produced by compression of the brain does not prove that the
intellectual faculties depend solely upon this organ, unless it can be
shown that no other part of the body suffers at the same time with
the brain. The intellect may possibly be connected with the life
of the body at some other point, which, by the injury of the brain,
has lost the supply of an influence necessary to the healthy dis-
* Christian Spectator, vol. vi., p. 504.
PHRENOLOGY.
389
While we have no sufficient reason, there-
charge of its functions.
fore, from the coincidence between an injury of the brain and the
loss of intellect, to believe that the one is the immediate cause of
the other, we have, on the other hand, many facts which are hardly
reconcilable with the doctrine that the brain is the organ of the
mind. This organ may often receive the most extensive injury
without any detriment to the mental faculties. Though the sudden
effusion into its substance of a portion of blood, not larger than a
pea, is often followed by the total loss of consciousness, yet in other
cases, large tumours have been found in the encephalon, which must
have compressed the brain for years, without producing the least
mental defect or aberration. Hydrocephalous patients, it is well
known, will live for years with undiminished mental faculties,
though there may be several pounds of water in the skull, entirely
displacing the brain, and compressing it greatly, if not absorbing
the larger part of its substance. Hundreds of cases are also upon
record similar to the one of which we have recently seen an
account, reported by M. Nobil to the Medical Society at Ghent. A
young man fired a pistol, loaded with two balls, at his own head.
The balls passed through the head and came out at the same ori-
fice, and with them came a portion of the brain sufficient to fill
two moderately-sized tea cups. The wound was dressed for
twenty-eight days successively, and at each dressing a portion of
the brain came away. He recovered from the injury, with no
other inconvenience than the loss of sight. His intellectual facul-
ties were unimpaired, though the loss of cerebral substance
amounted to not less than the whole of the left anterior lobe of the
brain.*
If the brain is the organ of the mind, it is difficult to
understand how it can receive such injuries, occasioning in some
cases the loss of even half its substance, without interfering at all
with the mental operations. Neither the heart, the liver, nor the
lungs, can undergo as extensive lesion as the brain has often suf-
fered with impunity, without destroying all the manifestations of
mind. It is by no means characteristic of the only material organs
which we are sure that the mind employs, the apparatus of the
external senses and of voluntary motion, that they can be subjected
to great mechanical injury without interference with their func-
tions. Reasoning by analogy, therefore, from the only fixed and
certain point in our knowledge of the material instruments em-
ployed by the mind, we should be led to doubt whether the brain
could be its chief organ.
In the total absence of any conclusive arguments against it, this
doubt is greatly strengthened by the a priori probabilities in its
favour. The mind is furnished with material organs to assist it in
all its operations that are connected with matter. We can see a
necessity for this arrangement. There must be some point of
transition at which the impressions made by material objects shall
* New Monthly Magazine, 1837, p. 144.
390
PHRENOLOGY;
pass into mental perceptions, and at which a volition to move any
part of the body shall commence its physical effect. Without
instruments properly constructed in adaptation to the susceptibili
ties of the mind and the properties of matter, we must have
remained for ever ignorant of the external world, and incapable of
producing any effect upon it. But we can see no fitness in the
provisions of a material organ for carrying on purely intellectual
operations. That the mind cannot execute a volition to move any
part of the body without the aid of the brain and nerves is very
certain; but we can discern no impediment to its forming the voli
tion without help of a material organ; nay, we find it difficult to
conceive that it can need any.* And it would surely be a very
anomalous arrangement if the same organ should be employed
for two such different purposes as that of forming and then exe-
cuting the volitions of the mind.
The natural expectation which we should be disposed to form, of
the independence of the mind upon the use of material instru-
ments for its spiritual operations, is confirmed by our not finding
in the body any organ which seems to be fitted for this office. All
the organs of which we have any certain knowledge, have an
anatomical structure and arrangement which disclose their purpose
and use.
But we find nothing in the structure of the brain which
would lead us to infer that it was intended to assist the mind in its
intellectual and moral exercises. The only safe inference which
we can draw from the anatomical structure of the nervous appa
ratus is, that the stomach, heart, lungs, and all the vital organs,
derive directly from the nerves, or through them from the brain,
some influence which assists them in the discharge of their several
offices; and that the nerves in like manner, either immediately or
as channels of communication with the brain, are employed by the
mind in the perception of material objects, and in the production
of voluntary motion. These inferences from the anatomical affilia-
tions and dependencies of the several parts of the bodily system,
have been confirmed by observation and experiment; and the dis-
tinct offices performed by some portions of the machinery of the
nervous system have been discovered. It has been found that there
are nerves dedicated to the functions of sight, of smell, and of hear-
ing, and that they are severally incapable of conveying to the mind
any other than their appropriate impressions. If the retina of the
eye, or the optic nerve, be touched or lacerated, the only sensation
is that of a flash of light. It has been proved, too, by Sir Charles
*We are always glad when we can strengthen ourselves by the high authority of
Bishop Butler, and we therefore quote, as pertinent to the present discussion, the fol-
lowing passage from his Analogy. "For though from our present constitution and
condition of being, our external organs of sense are necessary for conveying in ideas
to our reflecting powers-yet when these ideas are brought in, we are capable of
reflecting in the most intense degree, and of enjoying the greatest pleasure, and feel-
ing the greatest pain, by means of that reflection, without any assistance from the
senses; and without any at all, that we know of, from that body which will be dis-
solved at death."
PHRENOLOGY.
391
Bell, that the nerves of sensation are distinct from those of motion,
and that the former communicate with the brain through the two
posterior, and the latter through the two anterior columns of the
spinal medulla. Except these, and a few similar facts, nothing is
certainly known of the physiology of the nervous system; and of
all the conjectures which have been hazarded, that which supposes
the brain to be an instrument, which, by the play of its medullary
fibres, or the molecular action of its globular elements, or by some
other mechanical or chemical operation, enables the mind to think,
to reason, and to love, is the most preposterous and the least likely
to be verified in the further progress of our knowledge. It is sup-
ported by no analogy from what we already know of the functions
of the brain, and of the dependency of the mind upon material
organs; it is confirmed by nothing that anatomical research has
disclosed of the structure and collocation of the brain, with its sub-
ordinate members; and the facts which are adduced in its favour,
lend it but a questionable aid, while other facts, equally well
authenticated, bear their testimony against it. It is, at best, upon
the most favourable construction of its claims, but a doubtful
hypothesis; and the age has passed away in which it was allowa-
ble to construct a science upon an assumed hypothesis.
We might very justly rest the case with the phrenologists here,
and call upon them for further proof of their fundamental position,
that the brain is the organ of the mind. But we may admit the
truth of this proposition, and yet we shall find darkness and doubt
gathering over the next step. It is worthy of special observation
that the science of phrenology does not consist of a set of compacted
truths, so articulated together as to impart mutual support, and
establish firmly, by their combined strength, the system which
they compose; it rests upon a series of disconnected propositions,
in such a manner that the failure of any one destroys the whole
superstructure. Let it be proved that the brain is the organ of
the mind, this renders us no assistance in establishing the next
essential doctrine, that the vigour of the intellectual faculties will
be in proportion to the size of this organ. Let both of these be
true, and we have yet to prove the entirely independent proposi-
tions, that the brain is composed of a plurality of organs, each one
devoted to the elaboration of some particular faculty or sentiment,
and working with an energy proportioned to its size.
Or grant
the truth of all the previous assumptions, and yet the whole sci-
ence will be destroyed, unless it can be demonstrated that the form
of the brain may be determined by the external configuration of
the skull. Every one of its doctrines can be shown to be doubt-
ful, if not highly improbable, though the demonstrable truth of
each of them is essential to the integrity of the system. No sci-
ence ever was established, nor ever can be, with such a liability to
error multiplying at every step.
The doctrine that the vigour of intellect will be in proportion to
the size of the brain, is supported by arguments too loose and

392
PHRENOLOGY.
vague to deserve a place in a process of serious reasoning. Those
of our readers who have never examined the foundations of phre-
nology, will be surprised to find that Mr. Combe, the great hiero-
phant of its mysteries, can produce nothing stronger than the fol-
lowing arguments in favour of this important proposition. "First,
the brain of the child is small, and its mental vigour weak, com-
pared with the brain and mental vigour of an adult. Secondly,
small size in the brain is an invariable cause of idiocy. Phrenolo-
gists have in vain called upon their opponents to produce a single
instance of the mind being manifested vigorously by a very small
brain. Thirdly, men who have been remarkable, not for mere
cleverness, but for great force of character, such as Napoleon
Bonaparte, have had large heads. Fourthly, it is an ascertained
fact, that nations in whom the brain is large, possess so great a
mental superiority over those in whom that organ is small, that
they conquer and oppress them at pleasure. Lastly, the influence
of size is now admitted by the most eminent physiologists." The
last of these arguments we shall not examine, since we have no
disposition just now to search for the conflicting opinions of emi-
nent physiologists, and an appeal to authority is so questionable a
procedure in establishing the foundations of a science, that we
cannot consent to abide by its issue. The other reasons are
scarcely worthy of consideration, as a proof of the influence of the
size of the brain upon the strength of the intellect. Taken at
their fullest value, they create only a very slender probability in
favour of the opinion in question. The brain of the child, it is true,
is small, when compared with the brain of the adult, but it is also
true that it undergoes other changes in the progress from infancy to
manhood, quite as important in character as its increase of size. In
the foetus the brain is semi-fluid, in the infant it is still so soft as to
be almost incapable of dissection, and it becomes gradually more
consistent in its substance, and more distinctly marked with convolu
tions through the successive years of youth. The addition to its
volume is a much less remarkable circumstance than the change
in its character, and there can be no reason therefore for selecting
the former as the cause of the increase of mental vigour. If the
phrenologist replies that he means his assertion to be limited by
the condition of "other things being equal," we have no objection
so to receive and discuss it; but in this case it is strange that the
comparative states of the brain and the mind, in the infant and
the adult, should be brought forward as an argument, when it is
impossible that the limiting condition can take place. Other things
are not equal in the infant and the adult brain, and the phenomena
exibited by its two states can of course have no bearing, either one
way or the other, upon the doctrine that the size of this organ,
ceteris paribus, determines the vigour of the intellectual manifesta-
tions.
But we are further told that a small brain is the invariable cause
of idiocy. This information is at variance with the notions which
PHRENOLOGY.
393
we should naturally form. If the brain is the organ of the mind,
we should expect that the entire deficiency of medullary substance
would be accompanied by complete mental imbecility, but that a
small portion of it would be attended by some exhibitions of mind.
Why should not a small instrument suffice the mind for working
out small results? This reasonable expectation must, however,
yield to experience and observation. Has it then been ascertained.
that, except in cases of disease, a small brain and idiocy are inva-
riably associated together? Such has not been the result of our
observation.
We have seen idiots whose heads were of a very
respectable size, and some even in whom this member was uncom-
monly large. The heads of many such have been examined after
death, and no symptoms of disease in the structure or functions of
the brain have been discovered; and none were visible during life,
unless, by a petitio principii, the idiocy itself, of which we are
seeking the cause, is to be taken as evidence of a diseased brain.
There have been many instances, too, in which idiocy has been
produced by a moral cause, as in the following case, reported by
Pinel. Two brothers, conscripts in Napoleon's army, were fight-
ing side by side, when one of them was shot dead. The other
was instantly struck with complete idiocy, and, upon being taken
home, another brother was so affected by the sight of him, that he
was immediately seized in like manner. In such cases the size of
the brain remains unaltered, and there can be no other disease than
one of function. It is indeed barely possible that the mental
emotion may act injuriously upon the brain, and this organ then
re-act upon the mind, but it is to the last degree improbable, and
there is no necessity for supposing this order of sequences to take
place, except the necessity that phrenology should be true. These
cases are decisive of the question, so far as the argument from
idiocy is concerned. They show that while the brain has remained
in statu quo, unchanged in size, and, so far as we have any evi-
dence, free from any organic or functional disease, the mind has
passed from a state of activity to one of complete torpor. Nor are
there wanting countervailing facts at the other end of the argu-
ment. Not only do we find idiocy connected with a large brain,
but we are met also by numerous instances of vigorous intellect
where the brain is unusually small. In proof of this we shall
content ourselves, and we presume satisfy our readers, with the
testimony of Professor Warren, as given by Dr. Sewall. This
distinguished anatomist has had, in the opinion of Dr. Sewall, as
great opportunities for dissecting the brains of literary and intel-
lectual men of high grade, and of comparing these with the brainst
of men in the lower walks of life, as any anatomist of our country,
if not of the age. The result of his observation is, "that in some
instances a large brain had been connected with superior mental
powers, and that the reverse of this was true in about an equal
number. One individual who was most distinguished for the
variety and extent of his native talent, had, it was ascertained
394
PHRENOLOGY.
after death, an uncommonly small brain." Dr. Sewall adds, that
the experience of eminent anatomists of all times and countries,
who have paid attention to the subject, will be found in strict
accordance with that of Doctor Warren. But let us now grant
what we have shown to be not true, that the facts of the case are
as stated by Mr. Combe, and it will nevertheless be seen that his
inference from them is altogether unwarrantable. Though it
should be true that a small brain was invariably connected with a
feeble intellect or entire idiocy, it by no means follows that the
diminutive size of this organ is the cause of the mental deficiency.
How can it be ascertained that the small development of the brain
is not itself caused by the original feebleness of the intellect? Or
how shall it be proved that the smallness of the brain and the
feebleness of the intellect are not both produced by some early
defect in the kind of action, whatever it may be, chemical or
mechanical, which must take place in the brain to assist the mind
in its intellectual operations?
Mr. Combe can hardly be considered more fortunate in his third
argument for the influence of the size of the brain. All men, he
asserts, who have been distinguished for great force of character,
as Napoleon Bonaparte, have had large heads. If the remark is
intended to be confined to men of the same grade of character
with Bonaparte, we deny that we have the necessary knowledge
of a sufficient number of heads to afford ground for a general
induction. We presume there are no authentic casts of the heads
of Alexander, Julius Caesar, Hannibal, or Mohammed. We know
not how we are to gauge the skulls of the mighty conquerors of
past ages; and in the present, there are not enough who can be
placed in the same category with Bonaparte to warrant us in infer-
ring any connexion between the magnitude of their heads, and
the greatness of their achievements. If the assertion is not to be
so strictly limited by the instance adduced, it is effectually turned.
aside by the testimony which we have already adduced to prove
that high intellectual ability is as often found in connexion with a
small as with a large brain.
But it is an ascertained fact that nations, in whom the brain is
large, have always conquered and oppressed at pleasure those who
were so unfortunate as to have smaller heads. When, and by
whom, has this important historical fact been ascertained? The
only confirmation of it given by Mr. Combe is the subjugation of
the Hindoos, and the native Americans, by Europeans. Are these
two instances sufficient to establish a general truth? Had the
Romans larger brains than the Greeks, and the Goths still larger
than the Romans? When the many nations that, in the history
of our race, have stood in their pride of place, with their feet upon
the necks of others, have been overthrown, and reduced to a state
of dependence or servitude, has it been owing to a gradual
decrease in the size of their skulls? Have we any reason for
believing that the heads of the ancient Egyptians diminished after
PHRENOLOGY.
395
the time of Sesostris? Were the brains of the Moors smaller
when expelled from Spain than they were at the period of its sub-
jugation? Are the heads of the Popes, since Luther's day, more
diminutive than those which enabled the Urbans and Gregories to
domineer at will over Christendom? If this fact be indeed ascer-
tained, then is your grave-digger the only true historian. National
pride may have led to the forgery of boastful records, but the
skulls of the past generations, if we can but find them, will give us
a true account of the relative position of the people to whom they
belonged. The charnel house and the mummy pit are the true
depositories of the secrets of the past.
Such are the arguments by which the most learned and able of
the advocates of phrenology establishes one of its fundamental
truths. We will engage to prove, by a train of reasoning equally
sound, that any other variable attribute of the human body, the
colour of the hair, or the projection of the nose, is the true origi-
nal cause of the different degrees of intellect observable among
men. But liberality of concession in argument with the phrenolo-
gists is so small a virtue, that, without any danger of self-elation,
we may again grant all that they ask. Supposing it then to be
demonstrated, beyond all reasonable doubt or captious cavil, that
the brain is the organ of the mind and that its size determines
the vigour of all intellectual manifestations, what light have we
to guide us in our further advance?
The brain, we are told, is a congeries of organs, thirty-five at
least in number, each appropriated to the service of some faculty,
sentiment or propensity of the mind, and proportioned in size to
the vigour of the intellectual property which is manifested through
its agency. Each of these organs is supposed to be double, com-
posed of two cone-shaped portions of medullary substance, which
have their origin at the base of the brain, and thence extend to
opposite points of its outer surface. In proof of this plurality of
organs, we might reasonably expect to be furnished with some
evidence from the anatomical structure of the brain. But it is not
even pretended that any such exists. When the integuments of
the brain are removed, its surface is seen to be marked by convo-
lutions, separated from each other by grooves, more or less deep;
but these convolutions have no correspondence in size, position, or
form, with the organs of the phrenologists. The brain has been,
in thousands of instances, subjected to the most rigid examina-
tion; chemical tests of all kinds have been applied to it, and the
microscope has been called in to aid in the scrutiny, and yet.
there has been nothing found to warrant the belief, nor even to
create a surmise, that it is composed of a number of distinct organs.
Whether the brain is or is not thus divided into thirty-five organs
is an anatomical fact, and it must be decided by the scalpel of the
dissecting room.
Mere abstract reasoning, upon general pro-
babilities, or by analogy from the single functions of our other
396
PHRENOLOGY.
organs, except it be for the purpose simply of forming a conjec-
ture to guide in the anatomical examination, is utterly out of the
question, and can serve no other purpose then to make known the
stupidity of the reasoner. It is at all times a sufficient refutation
of what purports to be the statement of a fact, to show that the
only kind of evidence by which the fact could possibly be ascer-
tained does not exist. And we maintain it to be utterly impossible
to prove that the brain is divided, as the phrenological hypothesis
supposes, in any other way than by discovering the evidences of
such division in the structure of the brain. Should any one pro-
pose to examine, as indeed Flourens, Bouillaud, Rolando, and
others have done, whether the cerebrum, the cerebellum, the
thalami optici, the corpora striata, the medulla oblongata, had each
a distinct office to perform, we should listen respectfully to the
account of his experiments, and to the arguments founded upon
them. These are distinct portions of the brain, some of them
separated by an interposed membrane from others, and all of them
capable of separate anatomical demonstration; and it is possible.
that they may preside over different functions. But when the
phrenologist offers to explain the distinct offices of thirty-five
separate organs in the brain, it could hardly be deemed an incivili-
ty if we flatly refused to hear one word of his explanation, until
he had first proved the existence of the organs in question. But
instead of any such proof, we are told, that since the mind exercises
different faculties there must be different organs, by means of which
they operate. Because of a difference between two mental affec
tions, we are to believe that each of them has its own separate
cone of the brain wherewith to work out its effects, although we
have the evidence of our senses that no such conical organs exist.
It is impossible for the wit of man to frame thirty-five different
classes of mental phenomena, in which many of the lines of divi
sion shall not be shadowy and evanescent; and yet on the ground
of these uncertain distinctions we must believe that there are thirty-
five separate cones, though no symptom of the existence of any
one of them can be discovered. We are not yet quite ready for
this; and we hope not to be chided for our unbelief; perhaps we
may be better prepared for it, after we have gone through a course
of discipline in homoeopathy and animal magnetism.
No traces of separate organs in the brain, not the least vestige
of any internal fibrous structure at all correspondent to them, was
ever supposed to exist until Dr. Gall's theory rendered it neces
sary to imagine them. With singular hardihood, he proceeded to
map out the skull into portions answering to the termination of his
twenty-eight internal cones of brain, while in the profoundest
ignorance of the real structure of this organ. We are aware that
we are somewhat singular in bringing this charge of ignorance
against Dr. Gall. It has become quite fashionable, in controverting
the doctrines of the phrenologists, to laud them for their valuable
PHRENOLOGY.
397
contributions to physiological science.* We do not profess to be
very learned in these matters, but in what we have said of Dr.
Gall we lean upon the testimony of one, who of all living men ist
perhaps best entitled to speak authoritatively upon this subject.
Sir Charles Bell, in the Philosophical Transactions for 1823, thus
"But the most extrava-
speaks of the great founder of the sect.
any
gant departure from all the legitimate modes of reasoning, though
still under the colour of anatomical investigation, is the system of
Dr. Gall. It is sufficient to say that without comprehending the
grand divisions of the nervous system; without any notion of the
distinct properties of the individual nerves; or without having made
distinction of the columns of the spinal marrow; without even
having ascertained the difference of cerebrum and cerebellum;
Gall proceeded to describe the brain as composed of many parti-
cular and independent organs, and to assign to each the residence
of some special faculty." Though Dr. Gall's successors may have
better understood the anatomy of the brain, they have as yet given
us no better reason than the original metaphysical necessity for
believing that there are separate cone-shaped portions of matter,
where our senses, however acutely exercised, cannot discover
them.
And what are the reasons given, for believing, in opposition to
our senses, the constituted judges of material existences, that the
brain is composed of separate organs? We are informed in the
first place, that the liver secretes bile, the stomach digests food,
that every organ, in short, performs but a single office, and it is
therefore contrary to analogy to suppose that in the different opera-
tions of the mind the same organ is employed. None but the merest
sciolist need be told that analogy, in searching into the unknown pro-
cess of nature, is at best an uncertain guide, and that its only use
is to furnish us with hints and probabilities of what may happen, to
stimulate and guide us in our search. But least of all are analo-
gical deductions worthy of confidence, when they are applied to a
department of nature widely different from the one from which
they are drawn. The liver, the lungs, the stomach, and the other
bodily organs, under the stimulus of the vital forces, produce their
several mechanical or chemical effects. They act upon matter, and
We have even met with an eulogium upon the phrenologists for the benefits they
have rendered to the cause of education, and the general improvement of society.
And to prove that there was no exaggeration in this praise, reference was made to
Mr. Combe's work,
"On the constitution of man considered in relation to external
objects,"-surely a most unfortunate illustration. The great object of Mr. Combe in
this work is to show that man has been made subject to three classes of laws, physi-
cal, organic, and those which characterize an intelligent and moral being; and that
suffering is the penalty for violating any of these laws. In other words, if he steps
over a precipice he will fall, and injure himself—if he overloads his stomach he will
suffer from indigestion-and if he is cruel, his bump of benevolence will take offence
and hurt him. Strip this book of its phrenological cant, and it will be found to con-
tain only stale truisms, some of which are known to the child after a few of his first
falis, others from the time he has been made sick by eating green fruit, and all, when
he has read Butler's Sermons on Human Nature, and any elementary treatise on
Political Economy.
398
PHRENOLOGY.
their product is material. Can we expect these organs then to
furnish us with any analogies that can shed light upon the action
of an organ which does not act by itself, but in direct connexion
with the mind, and which produces not a material, but a spiritual
effect? We would much rather take our chance of lighting on
some useful discovery, in company with the German scholar
who has applied the law of gravitation to elucidate the mysteries.
of Greek metre.
If the phrenologists still adhere to their analogical argument, we
should be disposed to try upon them the practice of another sect
of German origin. The same thing that has made us sick, it is
said, will make us well again; or according to the poetic mythos
which first shadowed forth the doctrine, the man who has scratched
out both his eyes by jumping into a bramble bush, will scratch them
in again by jumping into the same bramble bush. Let us try then
a similar specimen of analogical reasoning. All the organs of the
body, which perform different functions, are widely different from
each other in form, structure, and substance. The eye bears no
resemblance to the ear, nor the heart to the lungs, nor either of
these to the liver or the spleen. Let any of these, or any con-
siderable portion of one of them, be dissevered from the rest and
presented to an anatomist, he will at once identify it. What then
can be more certain than that the mental organs, the separate exist-
ence of which is inferred from the difference of their functions,
must, for the same reason, be dissimilar in their appearance and
their internal mechanism? We have the same argument for their
distinct and recognisable unlikeness, that we have for their exist
But unfortunately these organs are all alike in their form
and substance. Precisely the same kind of medullary matter, and
fashioned into the same shape, will work out love or murder, arithmetic
and algebra, or Greek and Hebrew, veneration for the Deity or
destruction to a street lamp, according to its position within the
skull. Our analogy is however as good as theirs, and if they insist
upon different organs, we shall insist upon a substantial difference
of structure between them. Not much subtlety is requisite to
involve the phrenologists in any number of like absurdities, by
following their own line of argument, and without pressing it beyond
the limits to which their example leads us.
ence.
The unexplained mysteries of sleep, dreaming, and somnambu
lism, are also pressed into the service of the phrenologist. These
wonders are all easily explained by the consideration that some of the
organs are active, while others are in repose, whereas, "were the
organ of mind single, says Mr. Combe, it is clear that all the facul
ties should be asleep or awake to the same extent at the same
time." It is no more clear to us that all the faculties should be
awake or asleep together, than it is that all the organs should follow
the same law; and it strikes us as really surprising that any man
of common penetration should imagine that he had at all sim-
plified the difficulty of this case, by stating that some of the mental
PHRENOLOGY.
399
organs happen to fall asleep while others keep awake. All the
facts can be as well explained, better indeed, by the imperfect action
of one organ modified by the periodical state of the system, than
by the hypothesis of different organs, some of which are standing
sentinel over their sleeping comrades, and meanwhile playing all
sorts of fantastic vagaries.
Another proof is afforded by the fact, "that genius is almost
always partial, which it ought not to be if the organ of the mind
were single." When bald assertions of this kind are given out as
arguments, and the premises to which they lead boldly assumed,
there can be no difficulty in constructing new sciences at pleasure.
Philosophy may rock herself again in the cradle and dream true
sciences without end. We are utterly unable to see why an apti-
tude for excelling in particular pursuits may not as well be owing
to some peculiar condition of one organ, as to the comparative
state of different organs; nor can we perceive why the diversities
of talent which we observe among men, may not be still better
accounted for, than on either of these hypotheses, by supposing an
original disparity of mind. We have not the least ground furnished
by abstract reasoning upon the nature of the mind, and surely
none from observation, for believing that all minds are alike in
their original susceptibilities and powers.
The phenomena of partial insanity are also said to contradict
the notion of a single organ of the mind. It will not be expected,
under this head, that we should discuss the adjudged case of the
man who heard angels sing with one side of his head, and devils
roar with the other. Nor yet that of the worthy clergyman of
Spurzheim who was insane on the left side of his head, while with
the right side he perceived the insanity of the left, and who, though
cured, had a recurrence of this one-sided insanity whenever he got
drunk. Phrenology is welcome to all the aid it derives from these
cases, and they are the only ones with which we are acquainted
that lend it any support. Very often, in partial insanity, a single
hallucination is visible, while in all other respects and upon all
other subjects the mind acts with its usual clearness and precision;
and in no case that has come within our knowledge has there been
anything like a complete disorder of any one faculty or set of
faculties. Instead then of giving countenance to the phrenological
theory, they constitute an unanswerable argument against it. If
this theory be true, the insanity which affects one organ ought to
affect all the operations of that organ, unless we are to suppose
that every particular fibre in that organ has its separate duty, that
every particle of matter is consecrated to some one thought. To
carry out the phrenological explanation of the phenomena of partial
insanity, we must have as many organs as there are thoughts that
pass through our minds, and objects upon which we look. Insanity
sometimes manifests itself in an unreasonable and unnatural dislike
to a single individual, while the affections, in all other respects,
seem to flow equably in their usual channels. This ought to result
400
PHRENOLOGY.
therefore from the disease of an organ for loving that one person.
There is a case reported by Pinel, of an ingenious mechanic of
Paris, whose only symptom of insanity consisted in the belief that
he had been guillotined in company with several others, and that
when the judges, repenting of their cruelty, ordered his head to be
replaced, the wrong head was unfortunately put upon his shoulders.
He ever afterwards believed that he was wearing another man's
head. The difficulty here could not have been in the organ which
is imagined to supply us with the feeling of personal identity, for
the man had no doubt that he was still the same person, his only
mistake was in relation to the sameness of his head. We cannot
account for this in consistency with the demands of phrenology,
but by supposing that there is an organ whose sole prerogative it
is to teach us the identity of our heads. It is singular that Mr.
Combe could be so blind as to wind up his argument on this sub-
ject with the question, if there be but a single organ of the mind
how comes that organ to be able to manifest one but not all the
faculties? What more obvious than to ask in reply, how comes it
that one of your detached organs should be able to work, on behalf
of its faculty, with perfect soundness on some subjects, but not
upon all? To carry out his objection, and give phrenology the
advantage claimed for it, he must multiply the mental organs till
they equal in number the hairs of the head.
This is not the only instance in which the phrenologists have
seized upon a weak point, and attempted to convert it into a defence.
The effect of partial injuries to the brain is also maintained to be in
favour of their theory. The brain, as we have already remarked,
may often receive considerable injury without any detriment to the
mental powers, and it appears strange, says Mr. Combe, if the
whole brain is a single organ, that all the processes of thought
should be manifested with equal success, when a considerable por-
tion of it has been destroyed. "The phrenologists," he adds, "are
reduced to no such strait to reconcile the occurrence of such cases
with their system; for as soon as the principle of a plurality of
organs is acknowledged, they admit of an easy and satisfactory
explanation. What that explanation is, he does not inform us,
and we are left to conclude that this paradoxical trifling is put
forth for the same reason that sometimes leads a man who is inly
trembling with cowardice to affect the braggadocio. Nothing
can more completely demonstrate the utter falsity of the phre-
nological theory, than the effect of these same partial injuries
of the brain. Were all other presumptive evidence against it
removed, that which arises from this source would be sufficient to
prove its unsoundness. We have attested cases of injury of the
brain in which portions of this organ, varying greatly in size and
position, have been destroyed. Every one of the phrenological
organs has been in turn annihilated or greatly injured, and yet in no
one case does it appear that the corresponding faculty was in the
least debilitated. In the list of cases drawn up by Haller, and subse-
PHRENOLOGY.
401
quently extended by Dr. Feriar, and among the hundreds of like
cases which have been reported by the most respectable medical
authorities, we have accounts of injuries which cover the seat of
all the faculties, and which have yet left the mental vigour undimi-
nished. If it be strange then, that the brain, being supposed to be the
single organ of the mind, should work as efficiently when partially
destroyed as when entire, shall it be thought less strange that all
the faculties should get on quite as well when their several organs
are entirely gone? Nothing more conclusive need be desired.
That large portions of the brain can be removed, and their loss
not be at all felt, does indeed cast doubt upon the opinion that the
brain is, strictly speaking, the organ of the mind; it renders more
than doubtful the doctrine, that the quantity of the brain is the
measure of the intellect; but it proves, beyond all question, that
the fancied organs of the phrenologists have no existence.
All their explanations on this point are feeble and unsatisfactory.
They talk of the difficulty of estimating the degree in which any
faculty is manifested, so as to compare accurately the mental
condition of the patient before and after the injury, forgetting that
this same difficulty must have beset them, with ten-fold force, in
making the observations which have led to the location of the
different faculties, and that if it is of any avail in disparagement of
the testimony in question, it must operate with equal force to
impeach the credit of their whole system.
The hypothesis of double organs is also appealed to in explana-
tion of the difficulties of this case. In many of the instances of
severe injury to the brain, one hemisphere only has been affected,
and the integrity of the intellectual manifestations is attributed to
the duplicates of all the injured organs which remain entire in the
other hemisphere, and which are supposed to be still capable
of executing their functions, even as one eye answers the purpose
of vision, when the other is diseased or lost. Now, in the first
place, this hypothesis of a double set of organs is a sheer fabrica-
tion, invented for the sole purpose of meeting this very case, and
upheld by no other evidence than the identical phenomena to the
explanation of which it is subsequently applied. The effects of
partial injuries to the brain are brought forward to establish the
position that each faculty is provided with a double organ, and
the duplicity of the organs is then made to interpret the same facts
from which it has been inferred. This combination of the
inductive and deductive process, in reference to precisely the
same set of facts, is a novelty in philosophical reasoning, and it
may be doubted whether it can lead to any very brilliant or useful
discovery. Those of our readers who have ever witnessed the
dissection of the brain, will not need to be told that this hypothesis
of double organs is effectually discredited by the dissimilarity
which is always found to exist between the two hemispheres of
the cerebrum. The lobes on different sides of the falx cerebri, not
only differ in different brains, but do not correspond with each
26
402
PHRENOLOGY.
other in the same head. But, in the second place, there are many
cases in which the injury has been sustained by both hemispheres,
and in similar portions; and yet the faculties have continued to
act with their usual vigour, though both parts of their organs have
been destroyed. The decisive evidence of these cases cannot be
deprived of its weight by the general imputation of inaccuracy in
the observation of the injuries sustained, or of their mental effects.
If the phrenologists are entitled to assume, as they in fact do, that
a belief in their mysteries is an indispensable qualification for
making any correct observations upon the brain or the mind, the
game is, of course, entirely in their own hands. But we fear that
such men as Haller, Cooper, Bell, and Magendie, will continue to
speak, and that the public will receive their testimony. Still less
is this evidence to be disposed of by the blustering pretence that,
instead of demolishing, it really establishes the system of phrenology.
But if we grant all the propositions which we have thus far
controverted, we shall find the system again giving way at the
next point. Granting the existence of the phrenological organs,
we are then required to believe that the size of each of them
determines the degree of its energy, and imposes a limit upon the
exercise of the faculty which is manifested through its agency.
We are to receive this upon such evidence as the following. "An
old man showed his sons a bundle of rods, and pointed out to
them how easy it was to snap asunder one, and how difficult
to break the whole. The strength of the bones is proportioned
to their size. A tube of three inches diameter will transmit more
water than a tube of only one inch. A liver of four square inches
will secrete less bile than one of eight inches." The specimens
which we have already given of this kind of analogical reasoning
between things totally unlike, were sufficiently ludicrous; but here,
as if the secretions of the bodily organs were not of themselves
remote enough from the operations of the mind, the inanimate
world is ransacked for analogies to illustrate the laws according
to which mental effects are produced. The mechanical effects of
two machines of similar construction, will be in proportion to their
size, but if this is considered sufficient to prove that the mechani-
cal or chemical energy of the medullary organs will be increased
with their magnitude, how shall it be shown, in our entire igno-
rance of the nature of the connexion between the faculty and its
organ, that when this action has passed a certain limit it does not
cease to produce its greatest effect upon the mind? There are
two questions here which the phrenologists have been too igno-
rant or too cunning to distinguish. The one respects the efficiency
of the brain in carrying on its secretions, or the play of its fibres;
the other, the law according to which the product of the brain
influences the mind. We may admit that any of the organs will
secrete a more abundant supply of its fluid, or move its fibres with
greater momentum, according to its size, but where shall we find
any analogies to prove that the most successful exercise of the
PHRENOLOGY.
403
mental faculty depends upon the greatest possible product of its
? It would be superfluous to attempt to show the imperti-
organ
nency of every effort of this kind.
•
We come now to consider the evidence in favour of the exist-
ence of the phrenological organs, and of the influence of size upon
the manifestations of the faculties, which is said to be afforded by
observation. Thousands of heads have been examined, and it has
been found that those who were distinguished for any particular
talent or disposition, have had a protuberance on similar parts of
the skull, while those who were deficient in the same respect have
had a corresponding depression. Phrenology is, therefore, a science
of observation. It rests upon an immovable basis, since its prin-
ciples are all inductions from a great number of facts. Its oppo-
nents are in consequence challenged to disprove the facts, or
receive the inferences drawn from them. Now it would be an
easy matter to collect a set of astrological facts, and frame a theory
in correspondence with them, which would be quite as stubborn
and unmanageable as phrenology. Time was, when learned men
believed that the stars shaped the character and course of our
lives; that men were made "fools, by heavenly compulsion;
knaves, thieves, and treachers, by spherical predominance; drunk-
ards, liars, and adulterers, by an enforced obedience of planetary
influence." By casting many nativities, and noting the character
manifested for each planetary ascendency, we could construct as
impregnable a bulwark of facts around the doctrine, that every
variety of character may be fully accounted for by the horoscope,
as is now thrown up in defence of phrenology. Who would waste
his time in casting the nativities and prying into the characters of
his neighbours, to obtain rebutting facts? The observers have all
been phrenologists, and, like the sailor whistling for a wind, they
have of course found the coincidences which they expected to find.
Whether a protuberance on a particular part of the skull is the
invariable sign of some special quality of mind or attribute of .
character is clearly a question of fact. The phrenologists assert
that, in all the instances which have come under their observation,
they have found it to be true, and in illustration of it they describe
the heads and characters of particular individuals. We assert, on
the contrary, that we have known many excellent mathematicians
who had no projection at the outer angle of the eye where the
organ of Number is placed, and also many very worthy and
harmless persons who had an alarming development of the organ
of Destructiveness. We do not choose, however, to cite names
and discuss characters before the public, and every man must
therefore decide for himself whether the results of his own obser-
vation confirm our testimony or that of the phrenologists.
In the meantime it will not be difficult to invalidate the conclu-
sions of phrenology, by showing from the nature of the subject,
that it is in the highest degree improbable, if not absolutely impos-
sible, that a sufficient number of facts can as yet have been col-
404
PHRENOLOGY.
lected to establish the science. There is, in the first place, an
appalling difficulty arising from the number of organs to be located.
These are thirty-five in number. At the outset of the investiga
tion, nothing was known of the situation of any one of them, and
the only means of determining their relative position was by a
compound observation of characters and skulls. An individual
must have been selected, who was distinguished for some quality,
and out of the thirty-five protuberances with which his skull
was marked, the one which was the true cause of his remarkable
trait of character must have been eliminated by a process of
comparison with other heads. Any algebraist who will under-
take to solve a problem involving thirty-five different equations,
each containing as many unknown quantities, will need no other
refutation of phrenology. But this would not be attended with the
thousandth part of the difficulty which besets the attempt to locate
the phrenological organs by observation. The problem of which
the phrenologists profess to have given us the solution is of a much
more formidable nature. Thirty-five different faculties are given,
to determine, by observation, the signs of each of them upon the
cranium. Now the possible permutations of thirty-five different
quantities surpass our powers of conception; the number which
expresses them contains forty-one places of figures! The difficulty
of proving that any particular one out of this infinite number of
possible permutations in the organs is actually marked upon the
skull is so great, that we may, without presumption or discourtesy,
pronounce it insurmountable. Ages upon ages of observation.
would be necessary to verify any particular hypothesis; and in
the meantime phrenology is not entitled to assume at best any
higher character than that of a lucky guess.
The impossibility of demonstrating it to be true by facts, will be
still further confirmed, if any confirmation be necessary, when we
consider the inherent difficulties in the way of correct and satisfac-
tory observation. It is alleged that facts have proved that the
vigour of each intellectual manifestation is in proportion to the
size of its organ.
But the size includes two elements, the length,
measured from the medulla oblongata, and the breadth, estimated
by the superficial area of the base; and we need no better evi-
dence of the difficulty which must have embarrassed the pioneers
of the science in determining what influence was due to each of
these elements, than is afforded by the fact that we are even yet
furnished with no canons upon this subject. We are told that the
size of the organs must be ascertained, and that in forming our
judgment of the size, we must take account both of the length and
breadth, but we are not told what relative weight must be allowed
to these two constituent elements. Suppose two organs are found
to be to each other in length as three to four, and in breadth as
three and a half to four, what proportion do they bear to each
other in size? What are the mental effects of the lateral expan-
sion of one of the organs, in comparison with its projection? Is it
PHRENOLOGY.
405
the increased number of the fibres, or their increased length, or a
certain determinate ratio of the one to the other, that produces the
most vigorous action of the faculties? Is it even pretended that
this point has been satisfactorily decided? And yet it is plainly
impossible that the fundamental position respecting the influence of
size can have been proved by observation, without a preliminary
or concurrent adjustment of this subordinate question.
Another ground of doubt as to the value of the facts by which
it is said the science has been established, is presented by the evi-
dent difficulty of measuring the dimensions of the organs. The
thirty-five organs are not so detached from each other that they
can be examined separately; they are all crowded within a nar-
row compass; and the bases of most of them are extremely limited.
Not less than five are situated in the arch of the eye-brow. The
projection of each of these organs, and the area of its base, are to
be determined by examining the skull. This determination it is
utterly impossible for any mortal to make, unless he has been gifted
with such an overwrought delicacy of sense that he can feel or
see what does not exist. There are no conterminous lines between
neighbouring organs; no boundary marks are found engraved
upon the skull like the dotted lines which, on the phrenological
busts, designate their territorial extent; nor is there any rule by
which the area of any organ can be estimated, from its proportion
to that of the whole skull or any part of it, for this area is, by
hypothesis, a variable quantity. How is it possible, then, to deter-
mine the breadth of the organs, except by the use of such “ optics
sharp" as may enable us to see things which cannot be seen?
How can it be told with certainty, or what is to guide us even to
a probable conjecture, where one organ ends and another begins?
How, but by divination, can we learn to what extent Causality,
for instance, has been encroached upon and compressed by one or
more of the six organs which surround it?
Mr. Combe asserts that each organ has a form and appearance
from which it is possible, by practice, to distinguish its boundaries.
in the living head, "otherwise phrenology cannot have any foun-
dation." Then it is very certain that this mighty science, with its
millions of facts and its more than millions of blessings for the human
race, has no foundation. Though it might require much practice
to distinguish accurately the several organs, it does not require
much to decide whether there are found upon the skull any marks
by which a distinction can be made. Every man can settle this for
himself by simply passing his hand along the arch of his eyebrow,
and observing whether there are any lines or marks there by
which five different organs are parcelled out; or by examining a
skull, stripped of its integuments, in any anatomical cabinet, and
endeavouring to detect the points at which an elevation or depres-
sion merges itself in the general level, or to discover any marks
whatever by which the territorial limits of the different organs
are designated. No such boundaries exist, and no practice can
406
PHRENOLOGY.
enable us to find them. They can be rendered evident only
through some such process as that by which Dr. King proposes to
make sounds visible, and show that they are of a blue colour.*
Mr. Combe admits that there is much difficulty in determining the
breadth of the organs, that nothing more than an approximation
to the truth can be made ;-but he thinks that "if the opponents
would only make themselves masters of the binomial theorem, or
pay a little attention to the expansion of infinite series," they would
be satisfied. Those who have already paid some attention to the
binomial theorem, and to the development and summation of infi-
nite series, will probably be surprised to learn that they have been
accustomed to processes of reasoning which involve "a liability
to error within certain very narrow limits," and that they are
expected, in consequence, to be more tolerant than others of the
uncertainties of phrenology. To those who have not tried this
discipline, we would venture to recommend in its stead, that they
should make themselves masters of Swedenborg's visions and pay
a little attention to the reveries of Jacob Behmen. If they can
bring themselves to believe that the spectral illusions of the one
were realities, and the incoherent ravings of the other truth, they
may, without doing further violence to their reason, believe that
the phrenologists can feel and see things that are not, as though
they were.
But supposing both the length and breadth of the organs, and
the ratio in which they must be compounded to determine the
size of each, to be known, we see other very serious difficulties in
the way of satisfactory observation. "It ought to be kept con-
stantly in view," says Mr. Combe, "that it is the size of each organ
in proportion to the others in the head of the individual observed,
and not their absolute size, or their size in reference to any stand-
ard head, that determines the predominance in him of particular
talents or dispositions." Let it be remembered that these organs
all originate at the medulla oblongata, and radiate from that point
to the outer surface of the brain; and as some parts of the skull,
in all men, lie much nearer this radiating point than others, that
the organs in their natural state are of unequal length. Supposing,
then, the relative size of two organs to be accurately ascertained,
we are not yet in a condition to judge which predominates over
the other. No inference can be drawn from the greater size of the
one, until we have first learned the relation which they bear to
each other in their normal state, or that in which their respective
functions are in proper equipoise. Nothing can be more absurd
than the pretence of determining which of two or more unequal
quantities has the predominance, without any reference to the natu-
ral relations which they sustain. The laws of the equilibrium of a
system of forces must be known before we can tell what the
resultant will be. The phrenologists have stultified themselves by
King's Works, vol. ii., p. 100.
PHRENOLOGY.
407
pretending to determine the one without knowing the other. Sup-
pose it to have been ascertained that Amativeness and Conscien-
tiousness, in a particular head, are as three to four in size, how
can we judge from this which will predominate, since, in every
head, the latter of these organs is longer than the former? We
cannot tell whether the man is likely to be more amative than con-
scientious, or the reverse, unless we know what is the proportion.
in the size of the organs, when neither of them prevails over the
other. The facts of phrenology may all be set aside therefore by
the simple consideration, that having failed to establish a model
head, exhibiting the proportions between all the organs when in a
state of equipose, they have, of necessity, failed to establish the
science.
An entirely distinct impeachment of the value of the facts upon
which phrenology rests, may be found in the difficulty which must
have been, in most cases, experienced in determining the true cha-
racter of the individual who was the subject of examination.
What manifold liabilities to error beset the attempt to discriminate
nicely between the peculiar talents and disposition of our fellow
men? How difficult to distinguish between real and affected
sentiment, to trace even with approximate accuracy the influence
of different motives, and to penetrate the guise of artifice and dis-
simulation by which the real character is concealed? It is quite
as necessary that each mental and moral quality, as well as each
organ, should have "a form and appearance" whereby it may
be distinguished, "otherwise phrenology cannot have any founda-
tion." This alternative, distressing as it is, will probably be
adopted by most men, in preference to believing that the founders
of phrenology have been able to fix the precise shades of charac-
ter which existed in connexion with each particular configuration
of the skull, in a sufficient number of instances to afford a safe
induction. How did they acquire this wonderful insight into
human character? How were their observations conducted,
themselves being witnesses? By calling upon the individual him-
self to confess his excellences and his faults,-by taking the testi-
mony of his partial friend,-by gathering up the rumours of the
tattling, and the scandals of the malicious,-by bribing boys with
cake and sugar-plums to tell each other's failings, and provoking
them to engage in pugilistic contests,-by collecting porters and
coachmen, drunk and sober, promiscuously from the streets, and
exciting them to talk and act, to dispute and fight. By these and
*We find in the "Useful Transactions," No. II., a paper with the following title:
"New Additions to Mr. Anthony Van Leuwenhoeck's Microscopical Observations
upon the Tongue, and the White Matter upon the Tongues of Feverish Persons. In
which are shown, the several Particles proper for PRATTLING, TATTling, Plead-
ING, HARANGUING, LYING, FLATTERING, SCOLDING, and other such like Occasions.
Communicated by Dr. TESTY."
This paper was published many years before Dr. Gall's discovery, and they who
read it will find so great a similarity, both in the objects contemplated, and in the
mode of observation, as to create the suspicion that the Glossology of Dr. Testy may
have suggested the Craniology of Dr. Gall.
408
PHRENOLOGY.
other equally doubtful means, the vast body of facts has been col-
lected in which the phrenologists entrench themselves and bid
defiance to all speculative argument. Let it be considered for a
moment, how great is the exposure to error in both parts of the
observation-how difficult it is to adjust all the knotty questions
which arise in determining the proportionate size of the different
organs, how perplexing to ascertain the predominant dispositions
and faculties, and then how the separate errors of each of these
investigations must run into each other and produce false results,-
and the facts will have no value for any but those who are seeking
for the proof of a foregone conclusion.
When opposing facts are presented the phrenologists are always
ready with some mode of escape from the apparent discrepancy;
and the outlets at their command are so numerous that it is impos-
sible to close them all. Is Destructiveness found to be large in
the head of a man who is known to manifest no destructive pro-
pensities, while another man in whom this organ is relatively
smaller is a very Apollyon in mischief? Nothing can be more
easily explained. We are not to consider the size of the organs
as the sole cause of their power; and in the present case we must
suppose, we must do it, because "otherwise phrenology cannot
have any foundation "--we must suppose that the smaller organ is
of a finer texture, and therefore works with more vigour. Is a
diminutive organ of Hope found in connexion with a cheerful and
trusting disposition? There is no difficulty at all in the case. The
individual is of a sanguine temperament; and if we do not admit
that the temperaments have a great influence in modifying the
actions of the organs, "phrenology cannot have any foundation."
Is an uncommon development of Ideality discovered upon the
skull of some Peter Bell, to whom every enamelled meadow is
but a pasture ground, and every cataract a mill-seat? What can
be more simple? he was doubtless compelled in early youth to
bear the brunt of the hard realities of life, and we must remember
that the tendency of any organ may be repressed by unfavourable
circumstances. Does an individual, who has been, up to a certain
point, a wasteful spendthrift, suddenly become miserly in his habits
without any corresponding change in his Acquisitiveness? This
may be readily explained by the supposition that his Acquisitiveness
has become diseased, a chronic inflammation has seized upon it,
and will henceforth act with a vigour disproportioned to its size.
"Education," too, "exercise" and "favourable events" will impart
to a moderately-sized organ, the power of a much larger one.
How easy it would be, with such flexible materials, to construct
any system whatever? How absurd to pretend that in the face of
such difficulties phrenology has been established by facts--that
while the influence due to the mere magnitude of the organs may
be neutralized by their quality-by the degree in which they have
been exercised by the education and circumstances of the indi-
vidual-by his temperament—and by diseases which have no other
PHRENOLOGY.
409
than mental symptoms-there have yet been found a sufficient
number of cases, agreeing in these secondary respects, to furnish
the induction that the size of the organs determines the vigour of
the faculties, and to prove that out of the inconceivable number of
possible combinations of these organs within the skull, a particular
one has place?
The argument against this science is cumulative. Were the
considerations already presented devoid of weight, its facts are all
overthrown, and the whole system demolished, by the impossibility
of ascertaining the degree in which the different parts of the brain
are developed, by the examination of the skull. For a complete.
discussion of this point, we refer to the able lecture of Dr. Sewall,
who has constructed upon anatomical grounds an unanswerable
argument against phrenology. He shows that the skulls of some
individuals are eight times thicker than those of others-that in
the same individual the thickness of the skull varies in different
portions and that in some parts its internal and external tables
recede from each other, forming cavities, called sinuses, of greater
or less extent.
The frontal sinus, situated in the anterior and lower portion of
the frontal bone, renders it impossible to form any judgment of the
development of the brain behind it; and yet no less than nine of
the organs are placed within the region occupied by this cavity.
Eight others are covered by the temporal muscle, through which
it is impossible that their size can be ascertained. Seventeen of
the organs are thus placed absolutely beyond the reach of observa-
tion, nor can the size of any of the others be certainly estimated
from the examination of the living head, in consequence of our
inability to determine the thickness of the skull. These things being
duly considered, the boastful challenge of the phrenologists to refute
their facts, becomes superlatively ridiculous.
The examination of the merits of phrenology, as a theory of the
mind, forms a distinct topic, upon which we cannot now enter.
Their classification of the mental affections includes as paltry a
collection of puerilities as was ever palmed upon the world under
the name of philosophy. There are thirty-five different faculties,
sentiments and propensities-we believe a thirty-sixth has been
added lately—and yet some of the most important phenomena of
the mind are left unexplained. The same grounds upon which
many of the distinctions have been made between different facul-
ties would lead to their indefinite multiplication; and it would
be a decided improvement upon the present system, to maintain
that there are as many faculties of the mind, as we have thoughts
and feelings.
And the compounders of this medley of dogmatism and quackery
are the men who have" opened up to mankind a career of improve-
ment, physical, moral, and intellectual, to which the boldest imagi-
nation can at present prescribe no limits!" These are they whom
posterity will honour" as the greatest benefactors to mankind!"
410
PHRENOLOGY.
Benefactors doubtless they will be, though in a much humbler way
than Mr. Combe supposes. The open shaft of the unsuccessful
miner will at least save others from a useless expenditure of labour
in the same spot. The problem of human perfectibility has not
yet been so fully solved, that we can afford to dispense with the
aid to be derived from observation upon the fruitless efforts and
anomalous movements of the mind. Every mistake and error will
contribute to the increase of our knowledge, even as useful plants
are nourished by the ashes of noxious and worthless weeds.
super.
Phrenology was born some centuries too late. Had it core into
being in the days when astrology and the theory of "herbal signa
tures" were sciences, and the philosophers were as imaginative a
race as poets, it would have gained all suffrages. Porta would
have been delighted to compare together the auguries of the stars
and the skull; Albertus would have availed himself of it in
adding to the talking powers of his man of brass, the gift of reason;
Paracelsus would have compounded no more recipes for making
fairies; and Oswald Crollius would have sought to help the imagi
nation by squeezing the skull into a proper shape instead of apply.
ing to it the brains of swift-winged birds. The degree of popular
favour which this pseudo-science has attained in the present day,
is to be attributed, in part at least, to the fact, that its darkness
shelters the incapacity of its professors, which could not fail to be
visible in other pursuits; and that it flatters its disciples into the
belief that they possess talents and excellences of which they have
no other evidence. But it must soon pass to its place in the history
of the follies of the human mind; and all attacks upon it would be
superfluous save for the hope of accelerating, in some degree, its
natural progress towards its resting-place among the occult fancies
of past ages.
ESSAY XIV.
VESTIGES OF CREATION.*
We have in this work the result of the most elaborate attempt,
which has been made in recent times, to establish a mechanical
theory of the universe. The author, "working in solitude, and
almost without the cognisance of a single human being," has
presented us with the fruit of his labours in a compacted theory,
for the support of which he has drawn, more or less, from almost
every department of human knowledge. Astronomy, geology,
chemistry, natural history, ethnography, physical and metaphysical
science, are all laid under contribution for the establishment of his
theory. His work gives proof of an extensive acquaintance with
modern science, and of singular ability to connect together facts in
real or seeming support of the superstructure which he attempts to
rear. The whole is presented in a style of severe simplicity, and
with such a calm confidence as might seem to be inspired by the
writer's thorough mastery of his subject and complete conviction
of its truth. Even in those parts of his theory which others will
feel to be the most astounding, he proceeds with a step as calm
and assured, as if he were dealing only with universal and neces-
sary truths.
His theory commences, like most recent cosmogonies, with the
nebular hypothesis of Laplace. This hypothesis, which Laplace
gives with great diffidence, as a mere conjecture, our author
puts forward with the utmost confidence, declaring that "it is
impossible for a candid mind to refrain from giving it a cordial
reception." That he himself has, however, but a confused and
imperfect comprehension of it, is perfectly apparent. We propose
to give a condensed statement of his account of the primitive
condition of matter, and the successive changes it has under-
gone, although any attempt to abridge it must necessarily deprive
it of much of its force. The plausibility which the author has
succeeded in imparting to this theory depends very much upon
Originally published in 1845, in review of "Vestiges of the Natural History of
Creation. New York: Wiley and Putnam.”
412
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
the cumulative force of a number of particulars, no one of which
possesses much weight when taken by itself.
The region of infinite space is supposed to have been originally
occupied with matter exceedingly diffused and intensely heated,
termed nebulous matter. Whether this matter be created or
self-existent, whether its properties are to be considered as inhe-
rent, or derived ab extra, seems to us of small moment to one who
adopts the other parts of the theory set forth in this work. It is
but just, however, to state that the author, though at the expense
of his logical consistency, refers the properties of the "Fire-
Mist" from which he builds the universe, to the will of a designing
Creator. Through the action of the active properties with which
this primitive matter was endowed, all subsequent forms and
modes of being, organic as well as inorganic, suns, planets, satel
lites, vegetables, animals, and man himself, are supposed to have
been evolved by mechanical laws, without any interference of the
will of the Creator. The great law of creation is that of develop-
ment, in obedience to which matter, under certain favourable condi
tions, passes spontaneously from one form into another, generating
systems of worlds, with all their different orders of inhabitants.
39
In the first instance nuclei are established at different points
in the nebulous mass, around which the neighbouring matter is
condensed by the attraction of gravitation. How these nuclei
are formed, in the present state of our knowledge of nebulous
matter, we cannot determine; but supposing them to be established,
we can see how the attraction towards the centres should detach
large masses of nebulous matter. And when these masses are
detached, the same force which has separated them, our author
contends, will have given them a rotatory motion upon an axis.
He refers us for illustration of this point to "a well known law
in physics, that when fluid matter collects towards or meets in a
centre, it establishes a rotatory motion; see minor results of this
law in the whirlwind and the whirlpool-nay, on so humble a
scale as the water sinking through the aperture of a funnel."
This is one of many proofs which might be gathered from this
book, that the author's acquaintance with science is extensive
rather than accurate. He is continually at fault when he attempts
to pass from the final results of a scientific research and deal with
the first principles involved. The rotatory motions of wind and
water which he adduces in this instance have no relation to the
matter in hand. They are produced by a hiatus and a pressure.
a tergo, and can of course shed no light upon the method by which
a similar motion might have been established in a nebulous mass
of homogeneous matter acted upon by a simple force. The most
elementary knowledge of the doctrine of central forces would have
been sufficient to prove to him that no single force acting upon the
particles of an isolated mass of matter could communicate to them
a rotatory motion. In such a mass curvilinear motion must
necessarily be the resultant of a tangential impulse and a central
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
413
lous matter.
force. The single force of gravitation could give origin only to
a rectilineal motion towards the centre, unless the particles were
at the same time attracted by some neighbouring patch of nebu-
This mistake does not indeed vitiate the author's
theory, but it detracts from the simplicity which is one of its chief
recommendations, inasmuch as two forces must necessarily be
assigned to perform the work which he ascribes to one; or a
perfectly arbitrary hypothesis must be assumed of the relative
size and collocation of different nebulous masses that their mutual
interactions may account for the result.
The rotation having been established, there is generated a
tendency in the rotating mass to throw off its outward portions.
The least excess of the centrifugal force, thus generated, over
the central force, would separate the outer parts of the mass
which would be left as a ring round the central body, revolving
with the same velocity that the whole mass possessed at the
moment of separation. This process might be successively
repeated, until the mass had attained its utmost limit of condensa-
tion. The excess of the centrifugal force, through which this
separation takes place, is supposed to be due to the agency of
heat.
The condensation of a nebulous mass around its centre is
attended by refrigeration, under which the outer parts acquire a
solidity which begins to resist the attractive force. The conden-
sation of the central mass, in the meantime, going on, a point is at
length reached at which it shrinks away from its outer crust, which
is left, like Saturn's rings, revolving around it.
These rings, unless they are composed of matter perfectly or
nearly uniform, would necessarily break into several masses, the
largest one of which would attract the others into itself. The
whole mass would then take a spherical form, and become a
planet revolving round the sun, and upon its own axis. The rota-
tory motion of this planet might in turn throw off one or more
rings, which by a similar process would become transformed into
satellites, having a three-fold motion on their own axes, around the
planet, and with it around the sun.
Such was the genesis of our solar system, which shows in the
different bodies composing it, all the variations, with one exception,
which this law of construction was capable of producing. It
contains some planets, which when thrown off were too much
solidified, or from other circumstances so conditioned that they
threw off no outer crust, and are therefore without satellites, while
others are attended by these secondary products of the centrifugal
force, in varying numbers. And again, in the space between Mars
and Jupiter, where Kepler, listening only to the harmonies of the sys-
tem, which, as he expresses it," he had stolen from the golden vases
of the Egyptians," had prophesied the discovery of a planet, we have
in the four asteroids an instance, which might have been expected
sometimes to occur, in which the different portions into which
414
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
the planetary ring broke up were so situated that no one of them
absorbed the others, and hence each became a separate minor
planet. In the two rings of Saturn we are also presented with a
case of what might rarely happen, in which the particles of matter
composing the separated crust were so uniform, that it remained
entire instead of breaking up into satellites. These varieties, inas
much as they lie within the possibilities of the hypothesis, are
deemed a confirmation of its truth. So, also, another apparently
anomalous construction, that of solar systems embracing two or
more suns, many of which are visible in our firmament, is supposed
to render support to the hypothesis which at first sight it seems to
threaten. Some of the double stars are found by careful observa-
tion to revolve round each other in ellipses, and hence it is fair to
infer that they all do. A system of this kind would therefore be
generated, precisely like ours, if there were given at the outset two
or more nuclei, instead of one, in the diffused nebulous mass.
At this point the author again stumbles in referring the genesis
of the motions in such a system to the same law which sometimes
produces two or more neighbouring whirlpool dimples upon the
face of a river. "These fantastic eddies, which the musing poet
will sometimes watch abstractedly for an hour, little thinking of
the law which produces and connects them, are an illustration of
the wonders of binary and ternary solar systems." We must be
permitted to say that the musing poet is much more profitably
employed upon the whirling dance of these fantastic eddies, than
the thinking philosopher, unless he thinks to better purpose. The
one, in the subjective law which determines his musing, reaches a
reality, while the other, in his scientific search after the actual law
of production, finds only a shadow.*
This error of the author, however, affects his hypothesis only so
far as its simplicity is concerned. He has, beyond all question,
erred in supposing that he could generate the motions of a solar
system, whether with one or more suns, simply by postulating in
* Another amusing illustration of the carelessness of the author, to call it by
no harsher name, is found on p. 24, where he informs us that "the tear that falls
from childhood's cheek is globular, through the efficacy of the same law of mutual
attraction of particles which made the sun and planets round." Why did he not add
that the soap-bubble preserved its spherical form from the action of the same cause
which determines Saturn's ring? The attraction of gravitation has as much to do in
the case of the bubble as of the tear, that is, it has nothing to do with determining
the peculiar form of either, that form being due to the superficial action of the parti
cles. Familiar illustrations of ultimate scientific principles are dangerous things in
the hands of one who allows himself to think and speak loosely.
We find on p. 28 a still grosser error. "A chemist, we are told, can reckon with
considerable precision what additional amount of heat would be required to vaporise
all the water of our globe-how much more to disengage the oxygen which is dif
fused in nearly a proportion of one-half through its solids; and finally how much
more would be required to cause the whole to become vaporiform, which we may
consider equivalent to its being restored to its original nebulous state." This confu
sion of vapour with nebulous matter is a blunder too gross to have escaped a mind
accustomed to accurate habits of thinking. The conception which the necessities
of the hypothesis compels us to form of nebulous matter is as unlike to vapour, as
it is to granite.
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
415
addition to the other conditions, the property of gravitation in the
particles of nebulous matter. His postulates, thus far, are diffused
masses of nebulous matter filling immense portions of space; this
matter intensely heated and endowed with a tendency to throw
off its heat under the process of condensation; the origination, in
some unknown way, of nuclei or centres of condensation at differ-
ent points in these nebulous masses; and, lastly, the existence of a
property in virtue of which the particles of this matter mutually
attract each other in the inverse ratio of the square of the distance.
These postulates, though by no means distinctly put forth, are all
embraced in the hypothesis, and it is therefore a matter of com-
paratively small moment that the error which we have pointed
out renders an additional one necessary. But it tends to weaken
our confidence in one who offers himself as our guide in tracing.
out the vestiges of creation, when we find him stumbling at the
outset among the first elementary principles of physical science.
Nor is he always consistent with himself. It has been seen that
the hypothesis which he is expounding demands that the nebulous
mass should be accompanied by a process of cooling, so that Ura-
nus, the outermost planet, was formed when the heat of the mat-
ter composing our system was at the greatest, and Mercury when
it was at the least. This, the author supposes, will account for
the decreasing specific gravity of the planets as we recede from
the sun. The outer planets having been thrown off when, in con-
sequence of the greater heat of the mass, its particles were more
diffused, would of necessity be lighter than those which were
subsequently detached. The greater heat, too, which these dis-
tant planets retain, he thinks, may be sufficient to compensate for
the smallness of the portion which they receive from the sun's
rays. And yet in immediate connexion with this exposition he
asks, "where, meanwhile, is the heat once diffused through the
system, over and above what remains in the planets? May we
not rationally presume it to have gone to constitute that luminous
envelope of the sun, in which his warmth-giving power is now held
to reside? It could not be destroyed-it cannot be supposed to
gone off into space-it must have simply been reserved to
constitute at the last, à means of sustaining the many operations of
which the planets were destined to be the theatre.' We cannot
understand why this heat may not be supposed to have passed off
into space and still less can we comprehend how it can have
passed to the sun, when, by the hypothesis, the genesis of
the sun, with its attendant planets and satellites, is to be
explained by the continual escape of heat from the contracting
have
mass.
We see signalized here the extreme, unscientific haste with
which the author frequently leaps to his conclusions. In the first
instance he asks, whether we may not presume that the escaped
heat has gone to constitute the luminous atmosphere of the sun,
the proper answer to which would be, certainly not, unless we
presume at the same time that the whole ground-work of the
416
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
hypothesis, as expounded up to the very sentence preceding this,
has disappeared. And then he passes, without assigning any rea
son except the statement of two alternatives, which are by no
means exhaustive of the possibilities of the case, to the peremptory
conclusion, that this heat must have been reserved to constitute a
magazine at the centre for the use of the system. But how
reserved, and where? and how gathered around the sun after the
cooling process has reached its limit?
"The
A like gross inconsistency appears in his attempt to explain the
apparent condition of the moon. The characteristics of the moon's
surface forbid the idea that it is at present a theatre of life like the
earth, but the author warns us against drawing the inference that
it never can become so. "The moon may be only in the earlier
stage of the progress through which the earth has already gone.
Seas may yet fill the profound hollows of the surface-an atmo
sphere may spread over the whole." The rugged state of the
moon is thus to be explained by the earlier stage of growth at
which this body now is as compared with the earth. But it has
been seen that the hypothesis requires that the moon should have
been thrown off long before the earth had contracted to its present
dimensions: and on the page but one preceding this we find it
stated that" the time intervening between the formation of the
moon and the earth's diminution to its present size was probably
one of those vast sums in which astronomy deals so largely, but
which the mind altogether fails to grasp." In accounting for the
invariable size and temperature of the earth, he again betrays his
ignorance of the elementary truths of physical science.
central heat," he says, "has for ages reached a fixed point, at
which it will probably remain for ever, as the non-conducting
quality of the cool crust absolutely prevents it from suffering any
diminution." It is true that there is no process of shrinking now
going on in our globe, which we have any means of detecting. A
very slight diminution of the diameter would affect the diurnal
revolution of our globe, and it is demonstrable that the time of this
revolution has not varied the three hundredth part of a second for
the last two thousand years. And yet the hypothesis of the author
would seem to require that the continual escape of heat from the
central fires of the earth should lead to a still further condensation
of its mass. This difficulty he meets, with sufficient boldness, by
denying any degree of conducting power to the earth's crust, so
that all the heat which existed within when the surface acquired,
ages ago, this marvellous power, has been retained ever since, and
is now imprisoned beyond all hope of escape. There cannot be
many of our readers who need the information that this non-con-
ducting quality of the crust is a pure fiction. If the crust be im-
pervious to heat, why is it that after we have reached, at the depth
of some sixty or eighty feet, the region of invariable temperature,
we find the heat increasing upon us with every foot that we de-
scend? It is indeed true that the crust has a very low conducting
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
417
power. Only a few years since Mairan and Bailly agreed in making
the amount of heat received from the interior of the globe to be,
in summer, twenty-nine times, and in winter, four hundred times
that received from the sun; a calculation which gave promise
of a speedy congelation from the rapid dissipation of the internal
heat. But Baron Fourier succeeded in proving that the ther-
mometric effect of the central heat upon the surface of the globe did
not exceed the thirtieth part of a degree of the centigrade ther-
mometer. The author of the Vestiges of Creation, however, is
the first philosopher who has ventured to affirm that there is
absolutely no escape of heat from the interior, and to assign as
If the interior
the reason the non-conducting quality of the crust.
of the earth is, as many considerations would lead us to suppose,
in an incandescent state, there can be no doubt that a portion,
however small, of its heat must escape and fly off into space.
The unshrinking dimensions of the earth, which would seem to be
in opposition to this conclusion, might be better accounted for by
supposing that the contraction in some of the elements of the
mass, due to this loss of heat, was balanced by an equivalent expan-
sion of others in passing from a liquid to a solid state; or in many
other ways, rather than by denying that any heat is lost, and
assigning for it a purely fanciful reason.
(6
It ought to be stated, in justice to Laplace, that the author of
this work has, in many respects, misapprehended his nebular hypo-
thesis; and that objections therefore may be justly taken against
his statement of it, which would not lie against it in the form given
to it by its proposer. The method by which he explains the shell-
ing off of planets and satellites, through the hardening of the outer
surface and the resistance thus opposed to the attractive force of
the interior mass, is absurd upon its very face, and utterly insuffi-
cient for the explanation of the facts of the case. Admitting the
action of the principles stated as ruling the case, a spherical shell
would be separated, and not an annular ring. The author con-
founds these together, speaking in one sentence of the separation.
of "the solidifying crust," and in the next terming this crust a
detached ring" not only without any explanation of the manner
in which the spherical shell has become transformed into a circular
band, but apparently without any idea that he is speaking of two
very different things. Into this difficulty he has been betrayed by
introducing the comparative solidification of the crust as the cause
of the separation. This separation is effected, according to
Laplace's hypothesis, not by the hardening of the surface, but by
the accumulation of matter in the equatorial region. In a fluid
body revolving upon an axis, the matter would be heaped up at
the equator; and the centrifugal force of the outer portion of the
protruding belt thus formed being greater than of any other por-
tion of the mass, a point would at length be reached at which there
would be an exact equilibrium between this force and the central
An annular ring would then be separated, which
attraction.
27
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
418
might, as in the case of Saturn's rings, remain entire, or break
and re-unite in a satellite.
up
It would be an easy matter to multiply these special criticisms
until the reader would be abundantly satisfied, that whatever may
be the merits of the nebular hypothesis as expounded by Laplace,
in the hands of this author it is hopelessly encumbered with absur-
dities and contradictions. If this hypothesis admitted of no better
statement and defence, we should be compelled to dismiss it at
once as one of the hasty, vague guesses so often made by unau-
thorized intruders upon the scientific domain. But we are willing,
so far as this part of his work is concerned, to substitute the
sage conjecture of Laplace for his blundering guess.
We e proceed, under the guidance of the author, to trace out the
vestiges of creation as they are found upon our own globe. The
earth, when first separated from the solar mass, filled the moon's
orbit, its diameter being sixty times as great as at present. At
that time it occupied twenty-nine and a half days in rotating upon
its axis. After throwing off the moon it continued to shrink and
cool, until it became stationary at its present dimensions. At this
period the outer crust was a crystalline rock, such as granite,
which was the condition into which the great bulk of the solids of
the earth passed from their nebulous state. At the same time
water was condensed from the atmosphere, and covered the crys
talline mass with seas and oceans. These seas, in consequence of
the unevenness of the crystalline surface occasioned by local ine-
qualities in the cooling of the substance, were of enormous depth,
some of them not less than a hundred miles, however much more.
A process of disintegration would, under these circumstances,
commence, which would be quickened by the great heat of the
water. The matter thus disintegrated would be carried off and
deposited in the neighbouring depths, thus giving origin to the
earliest stratified rocks, which are composed of the same materi-
als as the original granite, but in new forms and combinations.
These sedimentary rocks have not been permitted to remain in
their original position. The pressure of the melted mass below.
has protruded them up in inclined strata, and in many cases.
the granite in a state of fusion has forced itself through,
and cooled in irregular masses. As yet there are found no
traces of organic life, but these appear when we arrive at the
next series of rocks. The oldest remains are of zoophytes,
mollusca, and fishes. Later in the history of the earth, and
separated by an immense period from the preceding formation,
for all these successive vestiges of creation are supposed to be
at a vast remove from each other, land plants and animals begin
to appear. As the earth itself undergoes its series of transforma-
tions, a corresponding change takes place in the prevalent forms
of life. New animals are found when a new condition of things
appears adapted to their support. While through vast periods in
which a thousand years were but as one day, changes were
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
419
slowly wrought by the combined action of air, water, and fire,
upon the surface of the earth, whenever any new pabulum of life
was elaborated, a new race of animals appeared with organs
fitted to the existing condition of things. Most of these races
became extinct, as the progress of change unfitted the earth for
their abode, and left in their fossil remains the data for this pri-
meval history. The author traces these successive changes up
to the point at which the land and sea having come into their
present relations, and the former having acquired, in its principal
continents, the necessary irregularity of surface, the earth became
fitted for the occupancy of a tenant equipped like man.
This part of the work, like the account of the nebular hypo-
The author writes as if he had been at
thesis, is full of blunders.
a geological feast, and come away with the scraps. The most
recent discoveries are strangely blended with antiquated blunders,
crude hypotheses are mingled with facts, and bold, unqualified
assertions are made for which we have not one particle of evi-
dence. It would be easy to sustain each of these charges by
abundant specifications, but to go over the geological argument
in detail would occupy more space than we can devote to the
subject, and we hope to give sufficient evidence, without this, of
the unsoundness of the author's hypothesis, and of his incompe-
tency to deal with a scientific subject.
Thus far we have only the ordinary speculations of recent
geologists, in accordance with which the matter composing the
universe, in virtue of properties inherent, or originally implanted
in it without any action upon it from without, is supposed to have
passed through successive changes until it has reached its present
form. But we now arrive at a startling peculiarity in this author's
hypothesis, his account of the origin and development of vegeta-
ble and animal life. His position is, in brief, that life, in all its
forms and with all its endowments, is evolved through the action
of mechanical and chemical causes. The fundamental form of
organic being is supposed to be a globule, having a new globule
forming within itself, by which it is in time discharged, and which
is again followed by another and another in endless succession.
The production of this globule is a purely chemical process, which
may be any day discovered and repeated in the laboratory. But
the rudimental vesicle, which is the simplest form of organization,
not only propagates itself, it gives birth also to the next higher
grade of being. There is an inherent tendency in matter, work-
ing itself out through mechanical and chemical laws, to ascend
from the inorganic to the organic, and then through successive
degrees of organization from the lowest to the highest. The
most complex form of vegetable life was evolved in a direct line
of natural succession from the simplest,-the most perfect vege-
table, besides perpetuating its own type, gave birth to the rudest
animal, and each form of animal life again evolved a form supe-
rior to itself until the appearance of man, the foremost of animals,
420
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
arrested as yet the progress of improvement. But we have no
good reason to conclude that this process is consummated. The
present race suits the existing condition of our planet,—but the
world is undergoing changes which may make it a fitting field of
action for a higher race than the rude and impulsive one which
now inhabit it. There then may be occasion for a nobler type
of humanity, which shall complete the zoological circle on this
planet, and realize some of the dreams of the purest spirits of the
present race."
The genealogy of man extends thus in a direct line back to the
original nebulous matter of which the universe was composed.
All his attributes of body and of mind are so many modifications
of matter, produced without any extraneous interference, by the
regular operation of natural causes. Thought is but the highest
form as yet known to us of the same substance which in its rudest
form composed the nebulous masses of infinite space; and the
passage from one of these states to another, was effected solely
by the inherent qualities of matter. What further capabilities of
matter may be now lying dormant, it is impossible to say. The
great law of development, in obedience to which the universe
has passed from a chaotic state to its present ordered forms and
motions, has not yet completed its work. New heavens and a
new earth, with new races of beings fitted to occupy them, may
be contained within the undeveloped capacities of the present
order of things. The universe, with its organic as well as inor-
ganic forms, has reached its present state, and will pass on through
all future changes, without any creative act or guiding control on
the part of its Maker. When created, it was created complete in
itself.
In support of the hypothesis that the organic world has been
created, as the author expresses it, by law, or in other words, that
it has been successively evolved by the operation of natural causes
from the primitive form of matter, we have, in the first place, the
analogy of the inorganic world. We have evidence that different
solar systems, with their suns, planets, and satellites, have been
built up and set in motion through the inherent qualities of matter,
without the aid of any directing intelligence. In like manner we
see that our globe has passed spontaneously through successive
changes of state, in each of which it has been tenanted by such
forms of vegetable and animal life as it was fitted to support. As
the construction of the earth and the different changes it has
undergone, are the result of natural laws, why should we not sup-
pose that the contemporaneous changes in the organic world were
produced in like manner? Why should we suppose that the
august Being who brought all these countless worlds into form by
the simple establishment of a natural principle flowing from his
mind, was to interfere personally and specially on every occasion
when a new shell-fish or reptile was to be ushered into existence
66
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
421
on one of these worlds? Surely this idea is too ridiculous to be
for a moment entertained."
A presumption having been thus established in favour of an
organic creation by law, the author proceeds to inquire whether
science can furnish any facts to confirm it. Such facts he thinks
he has found, though he admits that they are comparatively few
and scattered.
The character of some of these facts shows
strongly the difficulty under which he felt himself to labour in this
part of the subject. Crystallization, we are told, is confessedly a
phenomenon of inorganic matter, and its forms have a mimic
resemblance, in some instances beautifully complete, to vegetable
forms.* Electricity also, in its passage, leaves behind it marks
which resemble, in the positive direction, the ramifications of a
66 А
tree, and in the negative, the bulbous or the spreading root.
A
plant thus appears as a thing formed on the basis of a natural
electrical operation-the brush realized." This argument of course
admits of no reply. There is no reasoning against a metaphor.
We should as soon think of attempting to refute the man who
declared that he had such a cold in his head that it froze the water
with which he washed his face. There can be no surer mark of
an unphilosophical mind than this hasty grasping after vague
analogies.
In collecting his few and scattered facts in support of his hypo-
thesis, the author next adduces the production of urea and alan-
toin by artificial means, and infers hence the possibility of forming
in the laboratory all the principles of vegetable and animal life.
It is also ascertained that the basis of all vegetable and animal
substances consists of nucleated cells, that is cells or globules
having a granule within them. All nutriment is converted into
such cells before the process of assimilation; the tissues are formed
from them: the ovum is originally only a cell with a contained
granule. "So that all animated nature may be said to be based
on this mode of origin, the fundamental form of organic being is a
globule, having a new globule forming within itself, by which it is
in time discharged." If then these globules could be produced
artificially from inorganic elements, the possibility of the com-
mencement of animated creation by the ordinary laws of nature
might be considered as established. "Now it was given out some
years ago by a French physiologist, that globules could be produc-
ed in albumen by electricity. If, therefore, these globules be iden-
tical with the cells which are now held to be reproductive, it might
be said that the production of albumen by artificial means is the
only step in the process wanting." We must leave all comment
upon this conclusion to the inimitable Touchstone; "Your If is the
only true philosopher: much virtue in If."
The next class of facts upon which the author relies are those
*Under this head the author gives without authority, but we suppose from
Brande's Journal, an account of the old and now repudiated experiment of the
Arbor Dianae.
422
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
which go to support the doctrine of spontaneous, or as he terms it.
aboriginal generation. This doctrine, exploded for many years,
has been recently revived, and is of course warmly espoused by the
author of the treatise under review. In support of it he contends
that animalcules and vegetable mould may be produced under cir
cumstances that exclude the presence of ova or seeds. Entozoa, or
internal parasitic animals, are also found within the viscera of other
animals, where it is impossible that the living animal or the ova of
such as are oviparous, could have been conveyed through the blood-
vessels. How can their existence be accounted for, except upon
the hypothesis of their spontaneous generation? And still further,
organic life has actually been produced in the laboratory. Mr.
Crosse, in the course of some experiments made a few years since,
had occasion to pass a current of electricity through a saturated
solution of silicate of potash, when he observed to his surprise
insects appearing at one of the poles of the battery. He repeated
the experiment with nitrate of copper, with the same result. Dis-
couraged by the reception his experiments met with, he discon-
tinued them; but they were subsequently repeated, with precisely
similar results, by Mr. Weekes, of Sandwich. Here then we have
an instance in which an organized being has been produced by the
operation of natural laws from inorganic elements. It is true this
creature of the laboratory was but a microscope insect, but it
is sufficient to decide the question of the aboriginal creation of a
living organism.
This experiment will doubtless have all the force claimed for it
by the author in its bearing upon his system, with all who can
receive his interpretation of it. There is no question about the
facts of the case. These no doubt occurred precisely as related
by Messrs. Crosse and Weekes. That is, animalcular insects of
the acarus kind, appeared in the different solutions through which
an electric current was passed. The only question is respecting
the proper interpretation of these facts. The author contends that
it was a true creation of organic life from inorganic elements.
This interpretation is favoured by the fact that the experiment was
made by two independent observers, and in both cases resulted in
the production of a hitherto unknown insect: that every precau
tion was taken by distilling the water, heating the substance of the
silicate, and baking the wood of the apparatus, to destroy any ova
which they might contain, and the atmosphere was effectually
excluded during the course of the experiment; that one of the
solutions employed, nitrate of copper, is a deadly poison, and would
have destroyed therefore the vitality of any ova which might be
contained in it. In reply to this we remark, that Mr. Crosse's
experiments have been repeated by others, and without success in
every instance except that of Mr. Weekes, a name known as yet.
to science only through this dubious experiment. The insect pro-
duced, instead of being a new one, is only a hitherto undescribed
variety, among myriads, of a well-known species. The nitrate of
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
423
copper could not be expected to destroy the ovum, if the insect
lived in it; and some species of the acarus are known to be so
tenacious of life that they will live in boiling water, and in alcohol.
These experiments moreover occupied several weeks, in one case,
eleven months, for their completion. It seems to us much more
rational to suppose that notwithstanding the precautions taken to
destroy and then to exclude the ova of the insect, some of them
lived through the heat applied for their destruction, or gained
access afterwards, during the long course of the experiment, than
that a result was produced not only perfectly novel, but in palpa-
ble contradiction to every other experiment upon the law of cause
and effect. That a living being should be produced by mechanical
causes acting upon inorganic matter, is not only a "novelty in
science," without any kindred or relative phenomena lying in the
same direction, but it is opposed to the whole body of our positive
knowledge. That organic life can be produced only by organic
life, is a law of nature generalized from innumerable instances.
There is no law which rests upon a more general induction. It
may possibly be found hereafter that this is but a particular case
of some more general law, but no candid or philosophical mind will
be prepared to abandon it for such experiments as those of Messrs.
Crosse and Weekes. To invalidate it upon such slender and doubt-
ful ground, betrays a hasty credulity or an over-anxious zeal to
support a foregone conclusion, utterly inconsistent with a philoso-
phical mind. The truth is, Mr. Crosse's manufacture of insects
was one of those blunders of the laboratory, of which like
instances are not wanting, in which the result was hastily announ-
ced before it had been subjected to a sufficiently careful scrutiny.
It has been rejected by every man of science in both hemispheres,
and we suspect that Mr. Crosse himself laid aside his creative
battery, not because of the unfavourable reception given to his
discovery by the scientific public, but because he himself became
satisfied of its unsoundness, and was glad to abandon it as speedily
and quietly as possible. We know nothing of his merits save from
this one essay, but if he possesses any scientific claims, as we are
rather disposed to think he may from his hasty abandonment of
this experiment, he will hardly thank the author of the Vestiges of
Creation for dragging it forth from the obscurity into which it was
passing, and placing it in the foreground of his theory.
The passage from inorganic matter to organized forms having
been thus accounted for, the author proceeds to explain and defend
his theory of the progressive development of superior from inferior
forms of being. There is an obvious gradation among the families
of the vegetable and animal kingdoms, from the simple lichen and
animalcule up to the highest order of dicotyledonous trees and the
mammalia. Though this gradation does not ascend uniformly
along a single line upon which all forms of life can be regularly
placed, yet it is incontestable that there are general appearances
of a scale beginning with the simple and ascending to the complex.
424
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
However different the external forms of animals, it is very remark-
able that they are all but variations of a fundamental plan, which
can be traced through the whole as a basis. Starting from the
primeval germ which is the representative of a particular order of
full-grown animals, we find all others to be merely advances from
that type, with the extension of endowments and modifications of
forms which are required in each particular case. Different organs
are found to fulfil analogous purposes in different animals. Thus
the mammalia breathe by lungs, the fishes by gills. In mammifers
the gills exist and act at an early stage of the foetal state, but
afterwards go back and appear no more, while the lungs are
developed; while in fishes, on the other hand, the gills only are
fully developed, and the lungs appear only in the rudimentary form
of an air-bladder. In many instances, too, a particular structure
is found advanced to a certain point in a particular set of animals,
as feet in the serpent tribe, although of no use, but being carried a
little forward becomes useful in the next set of animals in the scale.
Such are the undeveloped mammae of the male human being. One
species thus hints at or prophesies another higher on the scale.
The higher also often bears traces of the lower from which it has
come. Thus the os coccygis in man is neither more nor less than
the bones of a tail, or as our author phrases it, a caudal extremity
existing in an undeveloped state.
But the most interesting class of facts connected with the laws
of organic development yet remain. It has been found that each
animal passes in the course of its germinal history through a series
of changes resembling the permanent forms of the various orders
of animals inferior to it in the scale.
"Thus, for instance, an insect standing at the head of the articulated animals
is, in the larva state, a true annelid, or worm, the annelida being the lowest in the
same class. The embryo of a crab resembles the perfect animal of the inferior
order myriapoda, and passes through all the forms of transition which characte-
rize the intermediate tribes of crustacea. The frog, for some time after its birth,
is a fish with external gills, and other organs fitting it for an aquatic life, all of
which are changed as it advances to maturity, and becomes a land animal. The
mammifer only passes through still more stages, according to its higher place in
the scale. Nor is man himself exempt from this law. His first form is that
which is permanent in the animalcule. His organization gradually passes through
conditions generally resembling a fish, a reptile, a bird, and the lower mammalia,
before it attains its specific maturity. At one of the last stages of his fetal
career, he exhibits an intermaxillary bone, which is characteristic of the perfect
ape; this is suppressed, and he may then be said to take leave of the simial type,
and become a true human creature. Even, as we shall see, the varieties of his
race are represented in the progressive development of an individual of the high-
est, before we see the adult Caucasian, the highest point yet attained in the ani-
mal scale."
Thus the brain of man resembles in the early stage of foetal
growth the form which is permanent in the fish. It then passes
successively through stages which represent the brain of the rep-
tile, the bird, the mammalia, until it finally takes on a form which
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
425
transcends them all, and becomes the brain of man. The heart
also passes through a similar set of changes, in which it seems to
rehearse the history of the process by which through a series of
ages it has become transformed from the heart of an animalcule
to that of a man.
We are thus led to the supposition that the first step in the crea-
tion of life was a chemico-electric operation by which simple germ-
inal vesicles were produced, and that there was then a progress
from the simplest forms of being to the next more complicated,
and this, through the ordinary process of generation. It is
true indeed that what we ordinarily see of nature would lead us
to suppose that each species invariably produces its like. But
our observation of nature covers but a limited period. The
time that has elapsed since the appearance of man upon this
planet, is but a small fraction of the geological periods which
preceded his birth. The law that like produces its like, is
in all probability only a partial generalization which would give
place to a higher law upon a broader induction. We may bor-
row an illustration here from the celebrated calculating engine
of Mr. Babbage. This machine is so constructed that while in
motion it will present successively to the eye of the observer a
series of numbers proceeding according to certain laws. The
machine may be so adjusted that the numbers shall follow each
other according to a regular law up to any assignable point, and
then the next number shall vary from the law, which shall be
restored again in the succeeding one. Thus it may present in
succession the natural numbers up to the one hundred millionth
term, the next term shall depart from this order, and the next
return to it again. The observer who should watch the operation
of this machine would surely conclude that the law which
governed it was the series of natural numbers. The space for the
induction of this law may be made of any assignable extent; it
may be made to include as many particular instances as there
have been of the production of organized beings since the obser-
vation of man commenced; and yet it is found that this law,
instead of being the governing idea of the machine, is but a par-
tial expression of the method of its operation. So it may be in
nature. Though each vegetable and animal brings forth only after
its kind, so far as our observation has extended, yet through
immense periods, such as geology deals with, it is probable that
one species gave birth to a different and higher one.
The gesta-
tion of a single organism is the work but of a few days, weeks or
months; but the gestation, so to speak, of a whole creation is a
matter probably involving enormous periods of time.
"All that
we can properly infer, therefore, from the apparently invariable.
production of like by like, is, that such is the ordinary procedure
of nature in the time immediately passing before our eyes. Mr.
Babbage's illustration powerfully suggests that this ordinary pro-
426
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
cedure may be subordinate to a higher law which only permits it
for a time, and in proper season interrupts and changes it."
As we do not wish to recur again to this mechanical illustration,
we interrupt our account of the author's system to make a passing
comment upon it. The introduction of this illustration for the
purpose to which it is applied, is of itself enough to settle his
standing as a philosopher. A man of true genius and of high
attainments may sometimes blunder, but this is such a blunder as
no mind accustomed to that accuracy of movement without which
truth can never be discovered, though it may be occasionally
stumbled upon, could by possibility have made. It is not by those
who fight thus uncertainly, as one beating the air, that the cause.
of sound philosophy is to be advanced. In Mr. Babbage's
machine, the effects produced are all alike, so far as causation is
concerned in their production. Certain numbers are presented to
the eye, marked upon dial plates, moved by wheels which are
themselves set in motion by the action of a spring or weight.
The numbers presented have no real differences from each other;
they are distinguished by certain abstract relations which the mind
establishes among them. When the varying term is presented,
the real effect produced is precisely akin to all that have gone
before it. And yet this is brought forward to prove that the law
by which monkeys produce monkeys, may be only a particular
instance of a more general law in accordance with which at the
end of some immense period a monkey may produce a man. Let
us suppose that while watching Mr. Babbage's machine, presenting
to us successive numbers by the revolution of its plates, we should
suddenly see one of those plates resolving itself into types, and
these types arranging themselves in the order of a page of the
Paradise Lost, or even of the Vestiges of Creation, is there any
man in his senses who would not immediately conclude that some
new cause was now at work? The argument drawn from this
illustration is really too absurd for refutation. Its fallacy lies upon
the surface. And it is by such considerations that men are to be
persuaded to exchange the well-settled faith of ages for the great
law of development!
The law of development, the author contends, is still daily seen
at work, though the effects produced are somewhat less than a
transition from species to species. Thus bees, when they have
lost their queen, manufacture a new one by simply changing
the conditions of the larva, so that it shall give birth to the insect
in sixteen instead of twenty days. The same embryo will
become a female, a neuter, or a male, according as it remains six-
teen, twenty or twenty-four days in the larva state. Another
instance, approaching more nearly to the production of a new spe-
cies, is found in the changes which different tribes of the human
family undergo from a change in their physical conditions. Poor
diet and other hardships will in course of time produce a promi
nence of the jaws, a recession and diminution of the cranium, and
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
427
an elongation and attenuation of the limbs; and on the other
hand, these peculiarities will disappear under favourable treatment.
These facts fall indeed far short of the transmutation of species.
But there is one reported case in which this has been effected in
the vegetable world. It is said that whenever oats, sown at the
usual time, are kept cropped down during summer and autumn,
and allowed to remain over winter, a thin crop of rye will be
presented at the close of the ensuing summer.
The idea then of the progress of organic life is, that the sim-
plest and most primitive type, under a law to which that of like
production is subordinate, gave birth to the type next above it,
and so on to the very highest. Whether the whole of any species
was at once translated forward, or only a few parents were em-
ployed to give birth to the new type, must remain undetermined.
If an entire species was advanced, the place vacated would be
immediately taken up by the one next below, so that the introduc-
tion of a new germinal vesicle at the bottom of the scale, would
be all that was necessary to fill up the vacancy.
After attempting thus to establish his theory by facts in natural
history, the author finds further confirmation in the history of the
human race. He enters into a philological discussion to prove
the identity of the different families of mankind, and then inquires
in what part of the earth the race may most probably be sup-
posed to have originated. Tracing back the history of each of
the great human families, we find their lines converging to a
point somewhere in the region of Northern India. This is true
at least of all except the Negro; and, the author adds," of that
race it may fairly be said, that it is the one most likely to have
had an independent origin, seeing that it is a type so peculiar in
an inveterate black colour and so mean in development." We
find thus that history is in harmony with the theory which gene-
rates man from the monkey, as it traces the origin of the race
to that part of the world where the highest species of the qua-
drumana are to be found.
The race at their origin must of course be supposed to have
existed in a rude and barbarous state, from which they gradually
emerged and passed through the various forms of civilization
which have appeared. Here as everywhere, the author makes
the facts of history bend to his purpose. There is not in all
history one well authenticated case of an indigenous civilization.
We have instances upon instances of nations and tribes that have
declined from a comparatively high state of civilization into semi-
barbarism, but not one in which a savage people, without inter-
communication with others, has spontaneously risen from a rude
to a civilized state. But in the face of this uniform historical tes-
timony the author seizes upon an account which Mr. Catlin has
given of a small tribe of Mandan Indians who were able to con-
struct fortifications and had made some progress in the manu-
facturing arts, and builds upon it his argument for the inherent
428
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
tendencies of the race to advance from barbarism to civilization.
This account is given by a single observer of a tribe that has
now passed from existence, and that was seen by him under cir-
cumstances which would naturally lead his imagination to make
the most of the differences between them and surrounding tribes.
If the facts were as reported, of which we stand in great doubt,
we have no hesitation in saying that the history of that tribe, if
it could be traced, would lead back to a state of still higher civi-
lization. To this conclusion we are forced by the concurrent
testimony of all history, in cases where it can be distinctly traced.
That which is clearly known should be made to illustrate that
which is doubtful; though this is a principle which our author
continually tramples upon in his reckless grasping after support
for his theory. A fanciful resemblance, an extemporaneous
blunder of the laboratory, a rough guess of some early geological
explorer, an exaggerated tale of some imaginative traveller,
these are eagerly seized and employed to establish real relations,
to oppose the most mature conclusions of scientific research, and
to contradict the uniform testimony of history.
The historical argument is followed by one drawn from the
mental constitution of animals. And here of course the grossest
materialism opens upon us. Thought, and feeling, too, are real
material existences, akin to the imponderable bodies in nature.
The rapidity of mental action is explained by the velocity with
which light and electricity are transmitted. The alliances
between man and the brute are strongly insisted upon. The
human intelligence is prefigured in the instinct of the lower
creation, and is different from it in degree only, not in kind.
The affections and passions of the human heart all had their pre-
vious manifestations in brutes. "The love of the human mother
for her babe was anticipated by nearly every humbler mammal,
the carnaria not excepted. The peacock strutted, the turkey blus-
tered, and the cock fought for victory, just as human beings after-
wards did, and still do.'
There is no act of the mind, no affection of the heart, in man,
which may not be found in a ruder form in some one or more of the
lower animals. That which is recognised as free-will in man is only
"a liability to flit from under the control of one feeling to the control
of another, nothing more than a vicissitude in the supremacy of the
feelings over each other."
The absurdities of phrenology, as might have been anticipated,
are fully endorsed; and we are told that the system of mind
invented by Dr. Gall, is "the only one founded upon nature, or
which even pretends to or admits of that necessary basis." In the
most unqualified contradiction to this, we assert that phrenology
is the only account of mental operations with which we are
acquainted that has not one particle of support from induction. It
purports to be a science of observation, and yet flatly rejects all
observation, and founds itself upon the purest constructions of the
:
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
429
fancy. It maintains the existence of nearly forty separate organs
of the brain, devoted to distinct functions, when every man who
has ever dissected a brain, or seen one dissected, knows that there
are no such organs there. As a physiological hypothesis it is as
absurd and groundless, as that one particular spot in the stomach
secretes the gastric juice for the digestion of beef, another that of
mutton, and so on through the whole list of digestible articles.
And as a "system of mind," as our author terms it, it never has
risen above contempt in the judgment of any one competent to
form an opinion upon the subject. It professes to make distinction
between mental acts, and assign these to their several organs,
without pretending to furnish any test of the degree of difference
necessary to constitute a difference of organs; and as the organs
themselves have no existence except in the supposed necessity
created by the great diversity of the mental operations, rendering
it impossible that such different work should be performed by the
same instrument, it is fatal to its claims as a system of mental
philosophy that it gives us no criterion of mental acts. If phreno-
logy be true, its truth can only be established by being preceded by
a complete system of mental philosophy. No one who has made
the human mind his study could be for an instant cajoled by the
fooleries of this pseudo-science. There is not a single problem in
the whole range of metaphysical science, upon which, if true, it
would shed the least light. It has accordingly never received the
sanction of one name of note in metaphysics; and it is equally
destitute of authority from physiologists. It has received a certain.
degree of consideration from the populace, for reasons which it
would not be difficult to explain to any one who has ever been in
the track of one of the itinerant lecturers upon its mysteries; and it
has been adopted by a few third or fourth-rate thinkers because it
has furnished them a basis on which to build up a system of mate-
rialistic fatalism. But it has yet to receive its first sanction from
any man, whose attainments in physiology or in mental science have
placed him in the rank of those entitled to speak with authority.
Its place has long since been settled by the only competent tribu-
nal; and if in reply to this, we are referred to Galileo, Copernicus,
and sundry others who were rejected by their generation, we have
only to say that we accept the issue of an appeal to posterity.
The fate of the true seers of the race, who have been in their day
cast out and afterwards exalted to the highest places of honour,
constitutes the stock in trade of all adventurers, from Mesmer down
to the last discoverer of a perpetual motion; and we have no desire
to deprive the phrenologists of any consolation which they may
draw from it.
The author shows the grossest ignorance in dealing with meta-
physical questions. His language, which is not ordinarly deficient
in precision, becomes here so loose and vague as to lead us to doubt
whether he has ever mastered the simplest facts in mental science.
Thus he defines perception as "the access of such ideas (viz.: of
430
VESTIGES OF CREATION..
the external world) to the brain.” With still more vagueness and
barrenness of meaning he says, "Conception and imagination appear
to be only intensities, so to speak, of the state of the brain in which
memory is produced." And memory itself is said to be "a parti-
cular state of each of the faculties, when the ideas of objects once
formed by it are revived or reproduced, a process which seems to be
intimately allied with some of the phenomena of the new science
of photography, when images impressed by reflection of the sun's
rays upon sensitive paper are, after a temporary obliteration,
resuscitated on the sheet being exposed to the fumes of mercury."
More senseless jargon than this we will venture to say was never
uttered respecting mental phenomena. Imagination, an intensity
of that state of the brain in which memory is produced! If this
be not to darken knowledge with words, we know not where it
can be found. Does he mean that imagination is only a more
intense kind of memory? It would seem to be impossible that
any man could perpetrate such an absurdity, and yet it is the only
meaning which we can educe from his words.
When the author comes to treat, at the close of his work, of
"the purpose and general condition of the animated creation," he
is, as might have been foreseen, sadly at fault. What has a mecha-
nical system of the world to do with purposes? Upon what part
of his theory can he graft any general or ultimate ends? How
can it furnish any standard to discriminate between superior and
inferior, better and worse? It is an ontology, deprived of deon-
tology, and its highest affirmation must of necessity be, whatever
is, is. The highest conception to which it can reach is pleasure
and yet if the pleasurable feeling of a sensitive being and the cloud
that hangs in the atmosphere, are alike products of nature, who
shall say which is better, this or that? That we may not here do
injustice to the author we will quote his account of the purpose of
creation.
"That enjoyment is the proper attendant of animal existence is pressed upon
us by all we see and all we experience. Everywhere we perceive in the lower
creatures, in their ordinary condition, symptoms of enjoyment. Their whole
being is a system of needs, the supplying of which is gratification, and of facul-
ties, the exercise of which is pleasurable. When we consult our own sensations,
we find that, even in a sense of a healthy performance of all the functions of the
animal economy, God has furnished us with an innocent and very high enjoyment.
The mere quiet consciousness of a healthy play of the mental functions-a mind
at ease with itself and all around it-is in like manner extremely agreeable.
This negative class of enjoyments, it may be remarked, is likely to be even more
extensively experienced by the lower animals than by man, at least in the propor-
tion of their absolute endowments, as their mental and bodily functions are much
less liable to derangement than ours. To find the world constituted on this prin-
ciple is only what in reason we would expect. We cannot conceive that so vast
a system could have been created for a contrary purpose. No averagely consti-
tuted human being would, in his own limited sphere of action, think of producing
a similar system upon an opposite principle. But to form so vast a range of
being, and to make being everywhere a source of gratification, is conformable to
our ideas of a Creator in whom we are constantly discovering traits of a nature,
of which our own is but a faint and far cast shadow at the best."
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
431
The author confesses the difficulty which he finds in reconciling
this view with the many miseries which we see all sentient beings,
ourselves included, occasionally suffering. After much talk about
general laws, which has very little bearing upon the difficulty
which he is seeking to relieve, he arrives at the consolatory con-
clusion that "the individual is left to take his chance amidst the
melée of the various laws affecting him. If he be found inferiorly
endowed, or ill befalls him, there was at least no partiality against
him. The system has the fairness of a lottery in which every one
has the like chance of drawing a prize." We are thus at the close
fairly landed without any disguise," in the sty of Epicurus."
We have given as full an account of this remarkable work, as
our limits would permit, accompanied by such special criticisms ast
we wished to dispose of in passing. Our first general remark
upon the system which it teaches is, that no one can be at a loss
in determining its place. It is the Epicurean system defended and
embellished by modern science. This system, though it has re-
ceived the name of Epicurus, existed before his day, and has since
continually re-appeared under slightly differing forms. We find
it taking a distinct form at the earliest period to which we can
trace the Greek philosophy. It was clearly taught by Anaximan-
der, of the Ionian school, the friend and disciple of Thales. His
great difficulty, like that of the mechanical philosophers of all
ages, was to account for the construction of organic beings; but
it appears to us that he was quite as successful in overcoming this
difficulty, as our author has been with all the appliances of modern
geology and chemistry. He supposes that our globe was originally
composed of a mixture of land and water, and assumed its present
condition from the action of the sun, evaporating a portion of the
original moisture. So long as the earth was more moist than at pre-
sent, the sun's action was greater; and by a process similar to what
may even now be witnessed on a smaller scale in marshy regions,
it produced fermentous bubbles in the humidity, which being out-
wardly enclosed by filmy bladders, were converted within, into
living creatures by the solar heat. In progress of time these living
creatures burst their shells, and came forth upon the dry ground,
where, however, they lived but a short time. These first animals
were rude and imperfect, and a progressive development was
necessary, before higher species could be produced.` Man, he
teaches, did not come at once in his perfect shape and complete
equipments upon the earth. He was originally a fish, and reached
gradually his perfect development. The genesis of organic life
was supposed to be effected by a long and composite series of
natural processes; and the higher forms of life to be evolved from
the lower.* And we see not why the filmy bladder of Anaxi-
mander, engendered by the solar heat, is not as good and philoso-
phical a starting point as the germinal vesicle of the author of the
See Ritter's History of Philosophy, vol. i., p. 275.
432
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
Vestiges of Creation, produced by a chemico-electrical operation.
The same system, in substance, was taught by Anaxagoras. It
was indeed the prevailing system of the Ionian school of philoso-
phy. It would be easy to trace this mechanical theory down
through history, and show that it has never been for any considera-
ble period, without its advocates. It is one of the possible forms
of philosophy, and we must expect to find it re-appearing, however
often refuted, whenever any philosophical movement takes place.
In more modern times its most noted defenders have been Gas-
sendi, Hobbes, the French school of Encyclopedists, Darwin, and
Lamarck. The only novelty in our author's exposition of it, con-
sists in the diligence with which he has collected and arranged the
fragments of various sciences in its apparent support.
Some difference of opinion we perceive has existed respecting
the atheistic character of this work. The author cannot, we think,
with propriety be branded as an atheist. He recognises the exist-
ence of a Deity. He speaks of a personal God, distinct from the
active energy implanted in matter. He sometimes breaks forth
into apparently truthful and hearty expressions of reverence
towards the Creator. It is indeed true that in his system we can
discern no ground for this reverence. We cannot see why we
should be called upon to adore and praise a Being who has mani-
fested no moral ends in our creation; who has made us for gratifi-
cation only, and left us so insecure of that, that in the chance melée
we fail as often as we succeed; and to whom it is impossible we
can be bound in any duty. But if the author, even while expound-
ing this heartless, bestial system, remains so far under the influence
of better things that his moral feelings respond to their influence,
we see not why he should be termed an atheist. That the system
which he teaches, however, is an atheistic system, there can be no
doubt. It has been so recognised in all ages of the world. It
makes the senses the only inlet of ideas, and induction the only
instrument for reaching the truth. From this beginning atheism is
the necessary conclusion. When we have reasoned back from the
phenomena presented to our senses until we have arrived at the
primary nebulous matter, so disposed and endowed as to evolve
itself into all the forms which have subsequently proceeded from
it, upon what principle of reasoning are we warranted in inferring
the existence of anything antecedent to, or aside from this primary
matter? If we are acquainted with no phenomena but those of
matter, then the hypothesis of an original matter endowed with
certain forces, the nature and extent of which we learn by reason-
ing backward from their effects, is amply sufficient to account for
the universe. As Laplace has said, "we do not need the hypo-
thesis of a Deity." An original, uncaused, self-existent matter,
capable of becoming all that we have seen it become, and of taking
on in the future such forms as our science is able clearly to predict,
this is the ultimate point which can be reached by the philosophy
of induction, generalizing its conclusions from the phenomena pre-
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
433
sented to the senses. Every effect must have a cause, or rather
every phenomenon must be preceded by an antecedent, adequate
to its production; this principle will carry us back from the state
of the universe to-day to its state yesterday, and so on through the
teeming days of the interminable geological periods, until we have
arrived at the simplest condition to which we are able to trace the
complicated phenomena by which we are surrounded. Here our
progress is arrested. Of a creation strictly so called we have had
no experience, and it is of course impossible that it can be estab-
lished by any empirical principles of reasoning. If the principle
that every effect must have a sufficient cause is a general truth
which we have reached by induction, nothing can be more illogical
than to apply this principle under circumstances entirely different
from those within which it was generalized. It was gathered from
observation upon changes in existing matter; what application
then can it have in explanation of the origin of matter? It is
evident that the materialist cannot get beyond the reduction of the
matter with which he starts to its most elementary form, except by
the sacrifice of his logic.
The author of this work does indeed admit an original creation,
but every intelligent reader will feel that this is a needless and
bungling superfluity in his theory. If matter, during the indefinite
period which has elapsed since its creation, a period only not eter-
nal, has maintained itself in being, and by virtue of its inherent
properties formed itself into systems of worlds, and clothed these
worlds with vegetable and animal life, there will be no difficulty in
dispensing with the idea of creation. And while we see a logical
necessity for surrendering this idea, we cannot perceive any moral.
or other advantage to be gained by retaining it. Of what avail is it
to give us the idea of a creator, if He who created does not govern
us?
The Creator in this system created necessarily, and all things
are bound together in the necessary chain of cause and effect.
The universe, in all its parts and beings, in all its processes and
results, is but a stupendous machine, whirled about by its own
inherent tendencies, and driving on to we know not what end.
In what relation then do we stand to the Creator? Shall we mag-
nify Him for the power and intelligence displayed in His work?
But power and intelligence are not proper objects of adoration
except when directed to worthy ends. Shall we praise Him for
his wisdom and goodness? But of these we can find no sufficient
traces. We cannot pronounce upon His wisdom, while in utter
ignorance of the end of creation, and of His goodness we are left
equally in the dark. Abandoned to the operation of general laws,
that without any discernible purpose or feeling work out their
results-left to take our chance amid the prizes and blanks, and
worse than blanks, distributed by a stern undiscriminating neces-
sity-we see not that there is any occasion for admiration, reve-
rence, or love towards the Creator. To love Him would be, as
28
434
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
Spinosa says, to deny His nature. To pray to him would be as
idle as a dog baying the moon.
It is instructive to observe how a pure materialism and a pure
idealism meet in the same final result, though reaching it by such
different roads. The system constructed by the author of the
Vestiges of Creation is destitute of all moral purposes and aims-
man is only a self-conscious wheel in the machine-and God can
be nothing higher than the active energy which works through all.
In like manner Spinosa, starting with his “unica substantia,” a pure
mental abstraction, an ens rationis, constructs a system in which
morality is identified with gratification, and God with the principle
that permeates and acts through all things.
"
With most of our readers we trust it would be deemed an ample
refutation of any system to show clearly that it was atheistic in
its essential character. But we propose to make a further exami-
nation of this system upon its merits as a scientific hypothesis.
And here we have a preliminary word to say upon the relations.
existing between science and revelation. The author of this work
affects to consider the common notions entertained of the agency
of the Deity in the creation, as grossly anthropomorphic and
degrading. That He should put forth his power for the creation
of man, that He should be summoned to interfere whenever a new
species of animalcules or zoophytes was to be called into being,
this is to take a very mean view of the creative power. That the
august Being, who called all worlds into existence, was "to inter-
fere personally on every occasion when a new fish or reptile was
to be ushered into existence on one of these worlds, surely this
idea is too ridiculous to be entertained for a moment. It shows
a singular obliquity of vision that he should not have seen that the
only anthropomorphism here is in his own conception. It is not
unworthy the Divine Being to have created even the minutest
insects, for he supposes Him to have created them in the original
act of will by which He created matter. But it is derogatory to
suppose that He created them succcessively, by separate acts of
will! Why it should be deemed so, we cannot conceive, except
by transforming the idea of God into conceptions framed accord-
ing to the standard of our own capacity of thought and action.
From the limited nature of our faculties we are incapable of
attending, without such distraction as impairs our efficiency, to
more than one object at a time. Hence we feel when we see a
man perpetually occupied with trivial affairs that he is acting an
unworthy part, because we know that, from the infirmity of his
nature, while thus employed he must be neglecting weightier
matters. Shall we judge the Almighty by the same standard?
Shall we conclude that while he is numbering the hairs of our
head, he is failing to guide Arcturus and his sons-that while inter-
fering to create a reptile or a fish, he is suffering some world to
rush to ruin, or some angel to perish from neglect! Reason
teaches us to infer at once from the idea of God, that his infinite
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
435
*
thought comprehends alike the great and the small, that his power
and his goodness, omnipresent and almighty, act with undivided
care in the production and government of the minute as well as
the vast. It is only when men attempt to frame conceptions of
the Divine Being from their gropings among dead matter, when
they resolve freedom into necessity, will into law, the infinite into
the indefinite, and the absolute into the conditioned, that they
shrink from the irreverence of supposing that God notices the fall
of every sparrow, and brings forth every lily of the field, and
numbers every hair of our heads.
The author of this work is evidently fearful, after all his glosses,
that his views will not be considered altogether consistent with the
Scriptures; for he adds, "I freely own that I do not think it right
to adduce the Mosaic record, either in objection to, or in support
of any natural hypothesis." It is undoubtedly true that the Scrip-
tures were not given to teach us natural philosophy; but it is
equally plain that some truths of natural science are so distinctly
asserted, and so interwoven with the moral system therein
revealed, that they must stand or fall together. Such are the ori-
ginal creation of matter and the subsequent creation of man, by
the fiat of the divine will. Such, too, we regard the descent of all
mankind from one original pair, though the author says "this is an
open question." The Scriptures not only plainly assert this as a
historical fact, but it is so connected with the doctrine of the
depravity and redemption of the race, that if it should be disproved
it would discredit the pretended revelation which teaches it. As
a general proposition, it may be granted that the Bible teaches us
no physical truth except in subserving to some moral end, but
some such truths it does teach us, and these we are satisfied can
never be set aside by the ultimate results of any true science.
In passing the chief points of the Vestiges of Creation under
review, we are led in the first place to examine the foundations of
the nebular hypothesis. This hypothesis, the author says, "is sup-
ported by so many ascertained features of the celestial scenery,
and by so many calculations of exact science, that it is impossible
for a candid mind to refrain from giving it a cordial reception, if
not to repose full reliance upon it." This he says, as we have
already shown, without having mastered this hypothesis in its
statements or in its principles, and while giving ample evidence of
his utter incompetency to decide upon what is necessary to legiti-
mate a scientific hypothesis. Hypotheses, as distinguished from
theories, may very fitly be made by the natural philosopher to
assist and guide him in his investigations. Indeed they are essen-
tial to the successful prosecution of scientific research. Without
an hypothesis, by which the philosopher supposes some explanation
of an observed fact by which it may be related to other facts, he
could only make his experiments at hazard, instead of putting to
nature the "prudens questio" of Bacon. If his experiments are
not made at random, it must be for the purpose of testing some-
436
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
thing which he has beforehand supposed, that is, of determining the
truth or falsity of some hypothesis which he has framed. The
more general this hypothesis becomes, that is, the greater number
of dissimilar but analogous facts it explains, the more important it
becomes as a guide to further experiment and reasoning. But a
sound philosopher will always preserve the just boundary between
hypothesis and theory. He will never confound a supposition
with a real truth, a suffiction with a substance. He will use his
hypothesis only as a suggestive contrivance, which classifying
together certain facts, in an artificial relation, puts him upon the
search after others which may confirm or modify the supposition
already made. It was only in this light that the nebular hypothe-
sis was proposed by Laplace, and subsequent observation has
tended to diminish instead of increasing the evidence in its favour.
"The features of celestial scenery," which suggested this hypothe-
sis, were the appearances presented by the different nebula which
are found distributed through celestial space. The powerful tele-
scope of the elder Herschel first disclosed the fact that these remark-
able objects, one or two of which are visible to the naked eye, existed
in immense numbers, and presented very different appearances.
Some of them appear like luminous clouds, irregular in shape, and
with spots of varying degrees of brightness. Others are spherical
or elliptic in form, and increase in brightness towards a central
point. Sir William Herschel suggested that these brighter spots.
were centres of condensation around which the nebulous matter
was slowly collecting, and this suggestion was the foundation of
Laplace's hypothesis. Assuming the existence of a nebulous mass
with a condensation going on towards the centre, and a rotation
round an axis, he showed that such a condition of things might
exist as would lead to the separation of successive rings, revolving
round the central mass; which rings might in turn break up and
form into planets, with satellites, generated in like manner, revolv-
ing around them. This hypothesis pretends to nothing higher
than to show the physical possibility of such a construction of our
solar system. It is a brilliant imagination; and no man who
understands the difficulties of the problem, of which this is a con-
jectural solution, would venture to give it at present any more
substantial character.
It is said that the first fruits of discovery with the great telescope
of Lord Rosse have been the resolution of many of the hitherto
unresolvable nebulæ into distinct stars. This, if true, weakens
and goes far to destroy the chief evidence in favour of the
hypothesis. It was conjectured from the different appearances
which these objects presented that they were composed of nebu-
lous matter existing in different states of condensation, and under-
going changes which are but a rehearsal of what once occurred
in our system. If it turns out that these appearances were
fallacious, and that the nebula which were supposed to exhibit the
successive stages of condensation are composed of distinct bodies
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
437
already formed, the ground for this conjecture is greatly weak-
ened.
But M. Comte claims to have given a mathematical verification
of the nebular hypothesis, and this claim is fully endorsed by
our author. M. Comte is a bold and brilliant writer. Many of
his generalizations show the divination of genius; and, on the
other hand, under the show of great profundity, he is not seldom
exceedingly shallow and superficial. In this matter, as in some
others in his " Philosophie Positive," he has leaped to his con-
clusion. He has done nothing more by his parade of mathe-
matical analysis than to prove, under another form, the well-
known theorem, that a body revolving around another, in obedi-
ence to a central force, is affected by the mass but not by the
magnitude of the central body. Kepler's law he has not proved,
nor is it possible that he should, without making assumptions as to
the law of density of a nebulous mass, in making which he could
have no other guide than the fact to be explained by it; that is, he
must reason from the facts to the conditions necessary to account for
them, and then assuming these conditions offer them in explana-
tion of the facts. M. Comte has not made the first step towards a
mathematical confirmation of the nebular hypothesis; nor do we
believe that the problem can ever be brought within the compass
of mathematical analysis. It never can become a theory until we
are in a condition to explain why so many and no more planets
were thrown off,-why they were separated at the precise dis-
tances at which we find them from the sun-why the ring which
separated between Mars and Jupiter formed itself into four planets
instead of one-why Saturn's ring did not break up and form a
satellite-why some of the planets have satellites and others not-
and why some of these satellites move from east to west in orbits
exceedingly oblique. And if all this were done, so as to establish
it as a scientific theory, it would by no means follow that it gave
us the true history of creation. Unless we can bring existing
nebulæ sufficiently near to obtain our data from them, we can
only arrive at the necessary data by suppositions derived from the
phenomena to be accounted for. The primitive constitution of
the nebulous mass to which we are thus led can never be aught
else than an abstraction. If we could, by postulating a nebulous
mass of defined extent, density, and velocity of rotation on its axis,
show that the present solar system is the necessary result, it would
assuredly be the most splendid triumph which science has yet
achieved. But it would by no means prove that the system had
actually been constructed after this fashion. It would be a true
theory, but whether it would be truth of fact or not is an entirely
distinct question. The nebular hypothesis, which our author
makes his point of departure, is as yet entitled to no higher consi-
deration than a conjecture; and should it in the progress of science
be established, which seems to us impossible, it will be only an
438
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
analytical explanation of how the universe might have been con-
structed.
It will be found upon a careful examination of the argument
drawn from geology, that our author has failed as egregiously in
translating the records of the earth, as in deciphering the truths
written upon the heavens. We have no intention of following him
through this part of his argument. Whatever else may be proved
by geological facts, it is certain that when placed in their proper
order they lend no aid to the two points which he is most anxious to
establish, the origination of life, by natural laws, from inorganic
matter, and the transmutation of one species into another. To
seek for evidence of these truths in the fossil remains of an extinct
world, while there is nothing to warrant them in the living pro-
cesses which are now going on, is another illustration of the sin-
gular tendency of this author to interpret the clear by the obscure.
The laws of life surely ought to be sought among the living, not
the dead. If it can be shown that there is no ground, in any of
the living operations of the present economy, for supposing that
life is ever produced by the agency of mechanical or chemical
laws from inorganic matter, or that one form of life ever begets
other than its like, we may rest satisfied that these conclusions will
never be set aside by any reasoning founded upon the exuviae of
extinct generations.
We proceed, then, to inquire into the reasons which the author
has given us for believing that living organisms may be constructed
from inorganic materials by the inherent properties of matter.
The resemblances given by crystallization and the electrical brush
to some forms of vegetable life we have already dismissed as
puerile conceits in the discussion of such a subject. His next
argument is that urea and alantoin have been made in the labora-
tory. To discern the bearing of this upon the question in debate,
it will be necessary to consider with more precision than he has
done what are the phenomena comprised in organization. In the
lowest form of life we find two perfectly distinct operations, the
production of an organic material, and the construction of the vital
organs out of this material. The earliest observation which can
be made of the germs of plants or of animals, presents a small
globule or disc of albuminous matter, in which we can discover
as yet no forms or attributes of the future being. The organs
through which life is to be manifested and maintained have as yet
no existence. Haller, and others after him, supposed that all the
parts of the plant or animal existed already in miniature in its seed
or ovum; but this is an assumption of a material existence against
the evidence of the senses, the only authorized judges, and for
which there is no reason except the metaphysical necessity created
by a particular hypothesis of life. The most powerful microscopes
have failed to detect in different seeds any such difference of struc-
ture as may furnish ground for a prediction of the genus or spe-
cies which will be developed from it. This fact alone is sufficient
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
439
to destroy the theory that life is only the harmonious co-operation
of the different organs of the living body, and that death is the
result of their discordant action. There is in a living structure a
mutual dependency of parts and functions, any serious interrup-
tion of which is the occasion of death. But to make life consist
in this harmony is to put the effect for the cause. The harmonious
play of the organs is itself the result of some principle which per-
vades and regulates the whole machine, and which must have pre-
ceded the machine, inasmuch as its agency is concerned in the
construction and collocation of its different parts.
In tracing the progress of vegetable organization, we find, when
the requisite physical conditions of heat, moisture, and oxygen, are
supplied, that an action commences, the first observable effect of
which is the appearance, in the fluid of the seed, of minute gra-
nules, among which are soon seen some of larger size and more
sharply defined than the others. These increase in size apparently
from the coagulation of the smaller ones around them. From
these granules the cells are formed; and the different tissues which
make up the plant are all developed from the cells thus con-
structed. The nuclei formed by the aggregation of the minute
granules, and the cells into which these are transformed, are each
of them "a living organism, analogous in its vital attributes to the
simplest forms of vegetables and animals. It imbibes or is pene-
trated by the surrounding plasma (organizable matter) that serves
for its nutriment, acts on, modifies, and metamorphoses it, appro-
priates what is fitted to its own particular nature, and rejects what
is not adapted to its nature or function as excrementitious."* The
construction of all the elementary tissues of which both vegetable
and animal bodies are composed is by development from cells. In
some pre-existing organizable material, which may be situated
either within or without a cell already formed, new cells are deve-
loped, and these cells, by various changes and transformations, are
converted into the elementary tissues.
Here are obviously two processes, going on contemporaneously,
which ought to be distinctly observed. The first is the formation
of the material from which the different organs are made, the other
the disposition of this material, the shape and collocation given to
it so as to fit it to play its part in the living structure.
The orga
nizable material of which the vegetable tissues are composed is
gum, produced directly by a formative process, or through the
intermediate state of starch, from inorganic elements. The
proximate principles of animal tissue are fibrin, albumen,
gelatin, ozmazome, and fatty matter. Each particle of the elemen-
tary organ attracts to it particles which it assimilates to its own
substance, and endows with its own vital properties. While this
process of nutrition is going on, the organ, which is growing up,
receives at the same time its shape and proportions. The princi-
Introductory Lecture, by Samuel Jackson, M. D. Philadelphia, 1844.
440
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
ple which determines each particular organ and builds up the
entire structure, with each part complete in itself and harmoniously
adapted to the whole, may and ought to be clearly distinguished
from the assimilating power by which the organic material is
elaborated. It may admit of question whether these are different
methods of operation of the same fundamental law, or whether
they must be traced to distinct causes, but they are obviously very
different phenomena, and any theory, physiological or metaphysi
cal, which does not separate between them, must involve itself in
inextricable confusion.
In the process of assimilation a striking change is wrought in
the properties of matter. The vegetable, seizing upon carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, converts them into its own tissues,
which again furnish the proximate principles of animal organiza-
tion. These are in all cases at least ternary compounds of chemi-
cal elements; and, what is singular, the most important of them,
fibrin and albumen, when analysed in the laboratory, are found to
consist of precisely the same organic elements, combined in the
same proportion. The materials thus furnished, when taken up by
the particular organs of the body, are not only assimilated to them,
but receive the like power of assimilating other particles. This
process of transmutation bears a resemblance to those which are
effected in the laboratory. The changes wrought in the organic
material furnished, may be due to nothing more than modifications
made in the arrangement of its ultimate particles. We are not
disposed, therefore, to deny the possibility that fibrin or albumen
may be some day manufactured by the chemist, though we fear
not, for reasons which we have not space now to give, to hazard
the prediction that they will for ever clude his grasp. Urea and
alantoin, it is said, have been thus made, and our author founds
upon this a confident augury that all the proximate principles of
organization will ultimately be compounded at will in like manner.
His theory then quietly proceeds as if this work had already been
accomplished. The absurdity of this is apparent, when it is
remembered that urea and alantoin, though they are products of
living organisms, make no part of the material which enters into
any organic structure; they are elaborated in the production of
other things and thrown off as excrementitious. Let it be marked,
too, that this refuse of the organic laboratory has been imitated
only by using other animal products in its manufacture; and it will
be seen how much ground the author has for his augury that
albumen, which, in his utter and shameful ignorance, he declares
to be "a perfectly co-ordinate compound" with urea and alantoin,
may any day be produced in the laboratory.
But let us suppose that the hourly expectation which our author
encourages us to cherish has been fulfilled, and that “ some French
physiologist has given out" that the art has been reached of com-
pounding albumen and fibrin, and all other organic elements.
What progress shall we even then have made towards the organi-
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
441
zation of life? Precisely the same progress that was made
towards the construction of the Parthenon when the marble was
lying in shapeless masses, out of which the shapely temple was to
be built. The power is yet to be evoked that shall give form to
these materials, and build them up into a structure in which each
part shall be fitly fashioned and placed for the discharge of its
functions in its ministry to the design of the whole. From matter
prepared for that purpose, a cunningly devised mechanism is to be
framed, giving evidence of the highest skill in the precise adjust-
ment of its complicated members, and their harmonious co-opera-
tion to the production of a common end. Can we suppose that the
power through which this is wrought is a property of matter!
We confess that nothing seems to us more incredible and absurd,
though this opinion we know has been maintained by many eminent
physiologists.
It should be observed, however, that the question now under dis-
cussion does not lie within the proper province of the physiologist.
It is his vocation to observe the phenomena of organization, and
trace the relations subsisting between them. His science deals only
with phenomena, and the laws at which he arrives are, in no
proper sense of the term, causes of the effects ascribed to them.
They are but generalizations of particular facts. When the further
inquiry is made, after the substance which underlies the phe-
nomena, the law-giver who has established the law, and the agent
by whom it is executed, the physiologist has no advantage over
other men.
The course of his studies may rather have tended to
make him an unsafe reasoner upon these higher questions. The
habit which he has acquired of explaining one material phenome-
non by a reference to some other of a like kind, disposes him to
rest satisfied with the complete analysis of matter, and to feel
when he has succeeded in determining the law under which any
given fact falls as if he had arrived at its efficient cause.
Intent
upon his own science, in which he traces the ever-shifting forms
and states of matter, until he has succeeded in reducing them to
order, by classifying them under one or more general abstract
terms, he pronounces the word law, and declares that herein we
have arrived at the limit of human intelligence. It is not per-
mitted to man to know more; all beyond is conjecture and doubt.
Physiologists are apt, in the bigotry produced by exclusive devo-
tion to a single science, to sneer at the mazy dreams of meta-
physical speculation, forgetful that the moment they undertake to
pronounce what is, as distinguished from what appears, they are
themselves trespassing upon the department of metaphysics. We
would not debar the physiologists from the discussion of these
questions, but we would have them understand that when they
take them in hand they have laid aside the scalpel and the micro-
scope, and stand only upon equal terms with other metaphysical
reasoners. The "Metaphysic" of Bacon, which is as veritable a
science as any other, and the true and proper end of all the rest,
442
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
can be reached by no man while he confines himself within his
own particular department. We return therefore to the discus-
sion of this point, unawed by the prestige of any physiological
authority that may be arrayed against us.
In every organized being we have, in the entire structure, and
in each member of it, a peculiar form evolved and maintained,
at the same time that the material which enters into its composi-
tion is elaborated. To suppose that this peculiar material, neces-
sary for the manifestation of life, and the wondrous shapes into
which it is fashioned, each one instinct with intelligence and
design, are the spontaneous products of matter, or the results of
blind and unintelligent forces, seems to us in plain contradiction
to every sound principle of reasoning. Wherever we find form,
we have the evidence of a pre-existent idea of which it is the
realization. To make matter the cause of form is as absurd as to
make it the cause of its own existence. Matter as it exists in
amorphous masses, or under the geometrical forms, given to us
in inorganic nature, might be supposed the result of a concourse
of atoms impelled by necessary laws. A blind unreasoning
power is all that is necessary to account for it. But the mind at
once perceives when organic forms are presented that these in-
volve a previous intellectual conception. It is impossible for any
mind that has not been bewildered by sophistry, to contemplate a
plan thoughtfully, without receiving the impression of a pre-
existing idea, the thought that when yet but begun in the germ it
had a perfect existence somewhere, and that the elements of
which it is composed, and the mechanical agencies employed in
its construction, are but the instruments of a power which is
itself the agent of and dependent on the organic whole. The
assimilating, plastic power which transmutes the inorganic into
organic matter, cannot itself be the cause of the organism, for it
is one of its attributes. The dynamic forces, the chemical agen-
cies of nature, so far from producing life and organization, cannot
operate to effect organism without the presence of life, or to
destroy it except in its absence. We are driven thus to the con-
clusion that there is a specific principle of organization of which
the vital or assimilative agency is the actuating power. Whether
this principle is the creative idea of Plato, the constitutive form
of Aristotle, the plastic nature of Cudworth, the anima of Stahl,
the nisus formativus of Blumenbach, or the vital force of some
modern physiologists, it is not needful that we pause to inquire.
We are desirous not to explain the best method of conceiving it,
but to make manifest the necessity of conceiving it under some
form.
Every theory which refers the phenomena of organization to
the properties of matter must leave the principal fundamental facts
unexplained. If we admit that the vital processes are carried on
by a species of chemistry, we still need the chemist. If electricity,
as our author contends, is identical with the nervous power, we
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
443
still need the electrician who, instead of leaving this fluid to range
and burst in lawless disorder, directs it with evident purpose
and infallible precision to the accomplishment of the ends of the
animal economy. What reason then have we for supposing that
the attractions and repulsions of inorganic nature, however directed
by human skill, can ever generate the organizing power which is
necessary to the construction and maintenance of a living struc-
ture? Every à priori presumption is against it, and all experience
contradicts it. We cannot indeed prove the abstract impossibility
of such a genesis of life. The mode in which the organic princi-
ple has been conditioned for its manifestation in matter we can
learn only from observation. But observation conducts us to the
conclusion, that the necessary condition of its manifestation is the
existence of a germ, which is the product of a previous organism:
and that in the absence of this the production of a living being,
either fully developed or in embryo, is as strictly a creative act
as the calling new matter into existence. We cannot prove à
priori the impossibility of generating matter by transmitting an
electrical current through a vacuum, or by operating on existing
matter, so that it should increase by the aggregation of new par-
ticles. We cannot prove this impossibility, because we know not,
prior to experience, how the will of the Creator, the true efficient
cause, has conditioned the introduction of new matter into the uni-
verse, But all expereince has proved that, abstraction being made
of the creative cause, de nihilo nihil fit. So with equal conclu-
siveness experience has proved that the organic power can never
be called into action except by means of a germ which has been
elaborated by an organized being.
To oppose this induction, which is sustained by instances with-
out number, what has our author to produce? Mr. Crosse's
experiment upon the manufacture of animalcules, already suffi-
ciently noticed; the report given out, some years ago, by some
French physiologist, that globules might be produced in albumen
by electricity, and if albumen could be made artificially, and if
these globules were identical with the reproductive cells of physio-
logy, the process would be complete; and lastly, a few obscure
facts in vegetable and animal economy. These facts demand a
brief notice. In the first place we are told that white clover, under
certain circumstances, will spring up in soils where we have every
reason, except the growth of the clover itself, to suppose that there
were no seeds; and that mushrooms may be made to spring up in
an artificial compost in which no seeds have been sown. In both these
cases the presumption certainly is that the seeds, though unsown
and undiscovered, were present. It is known that seeds may remain
for ages without losing their vitality-some have come down to
us from the days of the Pharaohs--and as in all other cases clover
and mushrooms spring from seeds, and this is seen to be the law
of vegetable creation, we are led to infer that in these cases also
the lime and the prepared compost do but supply the favouring
444
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
circumstances to stimulate to germination seeds already existing in
the soil.
His next facts in favour of equivocal generation are founded on
observations upon the production of the vegetation called mould,
and the infusory animalcules. Into the details of these observa-
tions we cannot enter. They are to us entirely unsatisfactory.
The infusoria or mould may have arisen from dried animalcules
or their germs, borne in the air; the water may have contained the
ova, which have afterwards multiplied rapidly; they may have found
their way through some of the gases used in the experiment. The
accuracy necessary to exclude such minute bodies is scarcely
possible. That in all these cases the generation was by means of
the pre-existing germs is rendered almost certain by Ehrenbrg's
experiments. He succeeded in detecting the real germs of the
vegetable mould, and thus rendered it probable that, as this sub-
stance, like all other vegetable productions, grew from a germ, in
the cases of its unexpected appearance, it also arose from germs,
that had been diffused through the air or water, having found the
situation requisite for their germination. He succeeded too in
showing that the smallest animalcules, only the two thousandth of
a line in diameter, possessed a complicated stomach, and organs of
motion in the form of cilia, and thus overthrew one great argument
in favour of their spontaneous origin. In others he detected the
ova, and the propagation by means of ova. He found also that no
animalcules were produced, when in addition to other precaution-
ary measures, the air used in the experiment was passed through
sulphuric acid. The result of his experiments, conducted with a
view of testing the validity of those upon which the exploded doc-
trine of equivocal generation was revived, was decidedly at every
point in favour of the universal law, omne vivum ex ovo.
The only other class of facts that calls for notice is the existence
of entozoa, or internal parasitical animals. The ova of these
animals, it is said, are too large to be conveyed in the air, or to be
absorbed by vessels from the food and carried to their nidus in the
viscera. Such worms have even been found in the viscera of
embryos. The existence of these parasitic worms is, we admit,
exceedingly obscure and difficult of explanation.* In many cases
we can trace the process by which the ova are introduced, and in
those where we cannot, the hypothesis of their origin ought to be
in analogy with all else that we know of the production of life.
66
We have on the one side an induction comprising innumerable
instances, deciding that the fixed law of organic production is
omne vivum ex ovo; " we have on the other side a few obscure
facts, in some of which it is difficult to trace the prevalence of this
law, but not one of them of such a nature as necessarily to exclude
*“Entozoa have been found in embryos, and in the eggs of birds: so also have pins
and small pieces of flint." See Dr Clark's paper, in the Reports of the British
Association, vol. iii., p. 113.
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
445
it. There can be little doubt that a sound philosophy must lead
us here to pronounce in favour of the law.
The other corner-stone of our author's theory, the transmutation
of species, need not detain us long. The chief fact which he
brings forward in support of the supposed transmutation, is the
passage of the highest forms of life through successive states that
are permanent in inferior animals. We cannot now enter into the
anatomical details involved in this question; but we refer to the
paper of Dr. Clark, already quoted, for evidence that the author
has misconstrued and falsified the facts of the case, to establish
the desired resemblance. But grant the analogy to be as complete
and as strict as possible, what inference are we warranted in draw-
ing from it? Nothing more than that we find, in organic nature,
gradations of an original power, manifesting different energies
under different conditions, and working out results that are similar
after a general plan. The resemblances traced, however close,
are only the adumbrations of the unity of organic nature. To
construct a history out of these resemblances is to found a science
upon a fancy.
But we have one instance in nature, the author contends, of an
advance in species, and that the more interesting because it is
effected, so to speak, "by a prolongation of the gestation at a
particular part of its course." It has been found that oats, if kept
cropped down through the summer and autumn, will yield a crop
of rye the next summer. In the first place we doubt the fact, and
in the second, if true it is nothing to his purpose, unless it be first
proved that the rye is borne by the identical roots which sent up
oat stalks the previous year.
In addition to these facts we have the account of the method
pursued by bees to raise a queen from the same larva, which
under other conditions would have produced a neuter or a male:
this needs no comment, for there is here nothing like a change of
species. For the same reason we pass by the account of the
changes produced in the human species by exposure to privation
and hardship. It is a familiar truth that imperfect diet combined
with other unfavourable physical conditions will, in course of time,
affect injuriously the features and proportions of the body. But
communities and tribes of men have been for ages exposed to
such hardships, they have suffered through successive generations.
all that debasing physical conditions could inflict on them, and yet
we have never seen the slightest tendency towards a loss of species.
The Greenlander, and the Hottentot, and the pigmy tribes of Ethi-
opia, have not only kept the human heart which responds to the
touch of nature that makes the whole world kin," but they have
preserved a body, in no other sense approaching to the brute, than
that it is less symmetrical and perfect than it would have been
under better culture.
Upon such grounds as these the author would seduce us into the
belief that we who now stand at the head of creation, have grown
446
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
up from the simplest form of vegetable, by successive translations
of species, until we have reached our present state. It will be
seen that we have not a single fact that bears definitely and cer-
tainly upon the theory which he aims to establish, while in oppo-
sition to it we have an unvarying experience from the beginning
of recorded time until now. The earth
The earth is full of seeds, the air is
full of them; no sooner does the work of the coral insect, far off at
sea, rise above the water and collect a soil, than it is covered with
vegetation. Countless myriads of seeds are continually germinating,
and yet it has never been found that the seed borne by one plant
produced a species different from its parent. The same law, without
exception, governs the propagation of animals. Experiments
without number have been made to effect a change of species, but
without success. Individual varieties have been produced, but
strictly limited by the essential character of the species. There
is no law of nature more firmly established than that like produces
like, in the vegetable and animal world. The two points upon
which the author's theory turns, spontaneous generation and the
transmutation of species, are alike destitute of foundation. They
are wild guesses among the possibilities of things, as far removed
as possible from the prescient surmises which often point out the
path of discovery. The author himself says of Lamarck's system,
which differs from his only in being less conjectural and more con-
sistent, that "we can only place it with pity among the follies of
the wise." He has good reason to fear that his theory is not des-
tined even to as long a life as is accorded sometimes to the mis-
takes of genius in its random divinations.
We confess that there is one argument for believing that man
may have come from the brute, stronger to us than any he has
adduced; it is that men exist who are capable of maintaining such
a theory. The author indeed becomes quite sentimental in his
censure of the common feeling that there is any degradation in
such an origin; but if he will devise an explanation of how this
feeling came to exist so universally, and also why it is that the
nearer the brute approaches the human form, the greater is our
aversion, he will be driven to a deeper philosophy than he has yet
reached, and may learn to know and reverence the sacred dis-
tinction between a person and a thing. If nian were the creature
that his theory makes him, if he possessed no faculties except such
as are found in an inchoate form in the brutes, if he were designed
for nothing higher and better than gratification, though we should
still reject his theory as a scientific blunder, we should feel no
aversion to it.
This brings us to the true point from which this system should
be viewed, the phenomena of man's intellectual and moral nature.
The author finds that man is "bound up, by an identity in the
character of his mental organization, with the lower animals,"-
and he is naturally led to seek for evidence of a common origin ;
we also find in man a certain resemblance to the brute, but co-exist-
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
447
come.
ing with this, in palpable contrast and most evident superiority to
it, we find quite another image, even the image of God,-and we,
therefore, in seeking for his origin, are driven at once to some dif-
ferent line of derivation from that by which the lower animals have
His system, while it professes to render a full account of
man, owes all its plausibility to the suppression of the chief facts
to be accounted for. It is as if a man in constructing a theory of
the vegetable world, should confine himself to an account of the
material elements which enter into the composition of plants,
neglecting the assimilating process by which these elements are
transmuted, and the shaping power by which they are fashioned.
There is a ground which is common to the organic and the inor-
ganic world, but there is also a distinctive peculiarity by which
the plant is differenced from the stone; and he would deserve
small thanks at the hands of philosophy who should overlook this
capital fact in constructing this theory. So in man, though there
are common points between him and the lower animals, there are
other features in which the only resemblance is one of contrast;
and to omit these, or what is quite as bad, if not worse, to mistake
their true character and debase them into bestial qualities in a
theory which aims to explain the origin and destiny of man, this
to say the least of it is the very extreme of ignorance. The man
who in attempting to give a theory of electricity should seize only
upon the fact that electrical attraction is in inverse proportion to
the square of the distance, and the attraction of gravitation in the
same ratio, and hence infer their identity, would justly expose him-
self to the ridicule which would assign him a place among the phi-
losophers of Laputa. What better place does he deserve who
sinks the attribute of free-will into a "liability to flit from under
the control of one feeling to the control of another," who main-
tains that reason in man is nothing more than the educated instinct
of a brute, who confounds obligation with interest, and makes vir-
tue synonymous with agreeable sensations, and after this shameful
degradation finds sufficient likeness between man and the lower
animals to warrant the conclusion that his perfections are but the
full-blown flower which in them is seen in the bud? It is indeed
easy for the gypsy, after he has stained the skin of the stolen child
and clothed it in rags, to establish its likeness to his own brown
and tattered offspring.
The sacred Scriptures apart, which give a different account of
man's origin, we should be perfectly willing now to yield every
position which we have taken against this author's theory, and
grant that man's body may have been derived, as he supposes, by
a regular line of succession through the brute creation; still we
contend that he has that within him which never could have been
thus derived. It is by certain analogies existing between him and
the lower animals that this descent is established, but we find that
that which distinguishes man, that which constitutes and denomi-
nates him what he is, is out of all analogy with anything that
448
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
appears in the brute creation; and if we are led therefore to seek
for the origin of his body, together with those qualities which are
found in a less degree in irrational animals, by transmission from
them, we are compelled by the same analogical argument to con-
clude that the higher qualities, "the nobility of reason, the infinity
of faculties, the apprehension, like a god," by which he is contra-
distinguished from them, are to be sought, not by tracing a line of
ascent from below, but a line of descent from above. If man's
body with its appetites and powers came from the gradual improve-
ment of the bestial form and nature, we must nevertheless conclude
that God met this body and implanted in it a soul stamped with his
image. To establish this conclusion we have only to show that
man is possessed of faculties of which no rudimentary types are
found in the inferior animals.
This the author denies. He carries out the philosophy of sensa-
tion to its legitimate conclusions, with fearless consistency. "It is
hardly necessary to say, much less to argue, that mental action,
being proved to be under law, passes at once into the category of
natural things. Its old metaphysical character vanishes in a
moment, and the distinction usually taken between physical and
moral is annulled as only an error in terms." It is difficult to reply
to such shallow dogmatism as this. It is true that there is regu-
larity and order in human action, so that a sagacious man may
often predict far-off results. It is true, as this author asserts, that
statistics have shown that in large cities about the same number of
mistakes is committed annually in the direction of letters; and, he
might have added, that in France it has been ascertained that the
number of suicides and murders is the same from year to year, and
not only so, but the different methods of death by poison, strangu-
lation, drowning, and deadly weapons, have each its nearly constant.
number of victims; so that in cases where we might most cer-
tainly expect to find the wildest irregularities of caprice we detect
the operation of constant causes. But it is surely most extraordi-
nary reasoning to infer from this regularity, the existence of a
physical law by which it is secured. This is another instance still
of the disposition which this author shows to seize upon superficial
and partial resemblances in different objects, and conclude upon
their perfect identity. "No man can say what may be the weather
of to-morrow; but the quantity of rain which falls in any particu-
lar place in any five years, is precisely the same as the quantity
which falls in any other five years in the same place." "So also,
the number of persons taken in charge by the police of London
for being drunk and disorderly on the streets, is, week by week, a
nearly uniform quantity, showing that the inclination to drink to
excess is always in the mass about the same, regard being had to
the existing temptations or stimulations to this vice." We have in
these cases a uniform result; and the immediate inference is, that
the same law of causation prevails, and that the human heart with
all its affections and passions is controlled and determined to a
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
449
specific course of action by the same kind of influence which distils
the rain from the clouds. Has the author no eye for the differen-
ces between these phenomena which he so unceremoniously iden-
tifies? Are the inward misgivings of the drunkard, the awful
struggles with which he attempts to break from an indulgence
which he knows is destroying him, the sense of shame and self-
reproach, and the dread feeling of responsibility which prey upon
his soul, are these of no account in determining whether the influ-
ence which prevails over them is the same in kind with that which
determines physical events? Is the difference between physical
and moral to be annulled, as only an error in terms, simply because
we find that in one case as well as the other, like causes produce
like effects? Are the facts given us by human consciousness to be
thrust aside in determining this question?
This is, after all, the ground upon which the contest between
this philosophy and a higher one must be decided. It is doubtless
important to detect and expose the scientific blunders of every
particular system of materialism that is at any time set forth,
with sufficient pretension and plausibility, to make it dangerous.
But though we may thus refute one, we leave the way still
open for the introduction of another. We have shown that the
author of this work has failed at every point, in establishing
his different positions, but we have not shown that some other
explorer in the same direction may not be more successful. It is
among the facts of consciousness that we must find the evidence
which sets aside this, and all other systems of like kind. We are
undoubtedly subject, in a degree, to the same kind of restraint
which governs the physical world. We are placed within the
range of the law of cause and effect, and form thus a part of
nature. If we are entirely subject to this law, then we have no
philosophy possible, but to etherealize matter and become ideal
pantheists, or to make mind only an error in terms and run into
materialistic fatalism. These are the only two courses left open
to us, and it seems to us a matter of small moment which is taken.
We see little to choose between the spectre world of Spinosa and
the sty of Epicurus. When a man has taken away virtue from
us we are not what also he takes or leaves. But if besides the
world of necessity there exists also a world of freedom, and if
these two worlds manifest their interpenetration in man's conscious-
ness, then another philosophy is not only possible but necessary,
and materialism and idealism are both discredited as partial and
incomplete.
This author maintains that "all mental phenomena flow directly
from the brain," a fact which we learn, as he says, from observa-
tion. We contend, on the other hand, that this observation, inas-
much as it is limited to the external conditions of the phenomena,
without regard to their intrinsic character, must necessarily lead
to an erroneous conclusion. As fitly might we conclude that the
air which by its vibrations conveys some ravishing strain of
29
450
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
melody is the cause of music, because the presence of the one is
essential to the existence of the other. Observation proves that the
brain is the organ upon which the manifestation of mental pheno-
mena is more immediately dependent, and this is all that it proves.
To learn whether the brain is the proper cause of mental states, or
only the necessary condition of their manifestation, we must extend
our observation beyond the brain itself and consider the character
of the effects of which we are seeking the explanation. The
moment this is done consciousness decides the question. We feel
that in every mental act a percipient agent is involved. Matter
can only give us phenomena, and that which perceives must
necessarily be different from that which appears. The simplest
case of perception, the transformation of an external object into an
act of thought or will, is sufficient to overthrow every system of
materialism.
But brutes perceive no less than men. They manifest intelli-
gence, affection, and will. Here again, if instead of confining
ourselves to rude outward resemblances, we look calmly into our
own consciousness, we discover abundant evidence that we possess
something different, not in degree only, but in kind, from anything
that is found in the brute creation. In the highest development of
instinct we find nothing more than a kind of intelligence which
selects and uses means adapted to secure immediate ends; and all
the purposes and acts of the animal are strictly determined by its
organization. The beaver, the bee, and the bird, each build
according to a law impressed upon them, and if thwarted or
placed under circumstances demanding some variation from the
type, their contrivances are limited to an approximation to the
original plan. Man too builds, but he builds after no type. He is
free from all law except that which is self-imposed. He builds not
only for convenience and use, but often for no purpose but the
pleasure of giving expression to an idea. Instead of being restrict-
ed by types, he is himself a creator of types. Here he stands in
direct opposition to the brute. If we compare together the dam
of a beaver, and the Apollo Belvidere, we find the rude resem-
blance, that they are both constructions. But when we look more
closely we find that the resemblance vanishes, and that they stand
in marked contrast. The beaver builds according to a predeter-
mined type, and for immediate use. The sculptor, without any
regard to use, and in the exercise of perfect freedom, forms a con-
ception which he feels to be beautiful, and then transfers this con-
ception to the marble, in which the idea is so inwoven that it lives
through all time, and speaks intelligibly to all hearts. In giving
expression to his idea the artist is no copyist of a type that has
been set him, either by previous labourers, or by nature herself.
Neither the secret of his power, nor the source of our pleasure,
lies in imitation. Had the sculptor who gave us the Laocoon
group, copied the writhing and contorted limbs, the livid cheek, the
agonizing struggles of some father, with his sons, crushed in the
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
451
convolutions of a huge serpent, we should have felt, while looking
at it, such painful sympathy as the sight of the actual scene would
awaken. But instead of this he has so subdued the suffering, that
it becomes the translucent medium through which we see the
"brave resolve of the firm soul alone;” nor is this all, but the for-
titude itself is so consummately expressed that the mind rests not
in that, but is borne inward until it is lost in communion with that
humanity, of which fortitude is one of the attributes.
"Here, lovely as the rainbow on the dew
Of the spent thunder-cloud, to Art is given,
Gleaming through grief's dark veil, the peaceful blue
Of the sweet Moral Heaven."
Here is manifested a creative power, like in kind, though infi-
nitely less in degree, to that which the Divine Creator put forth,
when he fashioned chaotic matter into shape, weaving through it
his thought, and giving it expression that made the angels sing over
it for joy.
It is a part of that image of God in which man was
made; and he only deludes and degrades himself who seeks a
kindred faculty among the brutes.
It would be easy also to show that man is contra-distinguished
from the inferior animals by his possession of a faculty which gives
him necessary truth, independent of all experience. He is capable
not only of generalizing, from the notices of the senses, but he has
intuitions of truths that are universal and necessary.
We pass
this, however, and ask the attention of the materialist to another
fact in human consciousness. Besides the perception of the useful
and the agreeable, which we have in common with the brute-the
beautiful and the true, which we have in contra-distinction from
them-we find ourselves possessed with the idea of the good.
This idea is not subordinate to that of "gratification," as our
author makes it. An act is never good because it gives us plea-
sure—on the contrary, it pleases us because it is good. It is written,
"blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness," and
not, righteous are they that hunger and thirst after blessedness.
Goodness is not a means but an end. We not only have this idea,
but we feel its supremacy over all our other ideas. It is for the
perception and realization of goodness that we have been made and
endowed with all our powers of whatever kind. Hence in connex-
ion with this we find the feeling of moral responsibility, involving
in it the consciousness of freedom of will. This is the capital dis-
tinction of man, his capacity to perceive the moral excellence and
to feel its power. It is through this that he becomes a partaker of
the Divine nature, and feels himself to be immortal.
Of this part of man's nature it cannot be pretended that we find
any anticipative prophecy in the lower animals; and hence the
difficulty is met by denying substantially the validity of moral per-
ceptions and qualities in man. Man is made for gratification, the
distinction between moral and physical is an error in terms, free-
452
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
will is a liability to flit from one feeling to another, virtue is of
course but a name or a sound, and the feeling of moral responsi-
bility a delusion of the weak and ignorant. Here is the proper
turning point of this whole system. If these conclusions to which
the author is driven, and which he does not hesitate to embrace, are
true, then let his whole system be true. It is no longer worth a
contest. But if they are false, then is his theory a falsehood and
a foul libel upon human nature. If the sense of freedom which
springs up amid the earliest play of our spontaneous impulses, and
accompanies us onward through their regulation and control, in the
exercise of which we feel ourselves standing over against nature,
exempt from the law of necessity which binds all things else
together by an adamantine chain-if this be a delusion, interposed
to cheat us out of the knowledge that we are no more free than
the river that seems" to flow by its own sweet will," then let us,
like the old Egyptian, feel and cherish our brotherhood with the
bat, the beetle, and the crocodile, nay with the ocean and the air,
the storm and the pestilence. If the feeling that we were made
for something higher than gratification is a superstition, if the
visions of good that sometimes break in upon us, pure and glorious
as the light of Heaven, are the unrealities of a distempered imagi-
nation, then let us dismiss our feelings of remorse, since in the per-
petration of the greatest crimes we only make an unprofitable
investment of capital, and the simple regret which might even be
due to this as a blunder, defeats us of the happiness which might
yet be at our command. But if, on the other hand, the peremptory
truths of reason and conscience within us are realities-if we feel
them to possess objective validity, so that we are constrained to
believe in the real existence of things that are honest and fair and
lovely-then the system gives the lie to our consciousness, and we
know that it must be false, whether we are able or not to detect its
scientific fallacies. Every man knows that the cause of his deter-
mination to any particular course of action is different in kind from
that which sends the cannon ball along its path. This is a plain
and decisive fact, than which none other can be more certain.
By the mass of mankind it is never called in question. We never
hear the criminal excusing himself on the ground that his brain
was badly organized, unless he has been under the tuition of some
phrenologist. It is indeed possible for a man to deny the primary
truths of consciousness; he may call in question the existence of
any higher virtue than prudence, and obliterate the distinction
between physical and moral as an error in terms. He
He may do
this, for it is impossible to set limits to the capabilities of a vicious
theory, or a vicious life. But after he has succeeded in proving
that we are subject to the same necessity which governs other
creatures, and that the notions of right and wrong, of merit and
demerit, which are entertained by the whole human race, are but
universal delusions, the idola tribus of Bacon, he will still, when
off his guard, involuntarily betray, by his admiration of self-sacri-
VESTIGES OF CREATION.
453
ficing virtue, and his sharp indignation against wrong, his recogni-
tion of the morality which he has disproved. The denial of this
power does not destroy it. At a thousand points the will, which
he has thrust aside, rushes in and tears to atoms the conclusions of
his puny logic.
Here, then, we leave this system, effectually discredited at the
bar of human consciousness. In order to establish the derivation
of man from the brutes, it is driven to overlook or to deny the very
qualities by which man is constituted what he is, a rational and
immortal being, and to set at naught the plainest of all facts, the
most certain of all knowledge.
ESSAY XV.
ANALYTICAL GEOMETRY.*
THE science of Analytical Geometry is one of the most brilliant
inventions of modern times. Next to the Calculus, it is the most
important contribution ever made to our mathematical knowledge.
Its power, as an instrument of investigation, is unrivalled. Nor is
it less remarkable for the singular beauty with which it classifies,
in their proper relations, an endless number of particular results,
than for the facility with which it discovers them.
No other branch of human knowledge is so entirely the product
of one man's labours. Other sciences have reached their perfec-
tion by slow degrees. The surmises of one generation have
become the discoveries of the next. Fractional and ill-arranged
truths have preceded integral forms and scientific order. The
guiding idea, or, as Coleridge would have called it, "the mental
initiative," which is necessary to discover the relations subsisting
between the truths which make up any science, and arrange them
in their proper order, and without which there can be no science,
but only an assemblage of isolated results, has been, in most cases,
gradually evolved through the successive labours of many men.
One approximation after another, each nearer the truth, has pre-
pared the way for the production of the happy idea which is to
crystallize an indigested mass of truths into order and beauty.
Astronomy was so ripe for the principle of universal gravitation at
the time of its discovery, that the bustling Hooke almost stumbled
upon it, and filled the ears of the Royal Society with clamours
against Newton for having robbed him of his property. And the
previous researches of others, especially of Wallis, had approached
so near the Calculus that Newton and Leibnitz divide the glory of
its invention. The remote parentage of the Calculus of the moderns
may indeed be distinctly traced to the "method of exhaustions"
*Originally published in 1841, in review of "An Elementary Treatise on Analyti-
cal Geometry: translated from the French of J. B. Biot, for the use of the Cadets of
the Virginia Military Institute, at Lexington, Va.; and adapted to the Present State
of Mathematical Instruction in the Colleges of the United States. By Francis H.
Smith, A. M., Principal and Professor of Mathematics of the Virginia Military Insti-
tute, late Professor of Mathematics in Hampden Sidney College, and formerly Assist-
ant Professor in the U. S. Military Academy at West Point."
ANALYTICAL GEOMETRY.
455
of Archimedes. But there was no such preparation for the appli-
cation of algebraic analysis to define the nature and discover the
properties of lines, surfaces and solids. This invention is the sole
property of Descartes, and it has conferred upon him an immortal-
ity which his more laborious speculations in metaphysics have
failed to secure. His mathematical researches, of which he
thought little, now constitute the basis of his fame.* His Geome-
tria, a quarto tract of 106 pages, is one of the few treatises which
mark an epoch in the history of science.
Geometry, until this time, had been confined within narrow
limits. Previous to the institution of the school of Plato, it had
discussed only the properties of rectilineal figures, the circle, the
cylinder, the cone and the sphere. The method of investigation
was that which is given in the Elements of Euclid, in which
nothing is permitted to be done but the drawing of a straight line
or a circle, and nothing is assumed as true but a few element-
ary principles, denominated axioms. The Platonic school contri-
buted to Geometry three other curves, known as the Conic Sections,
the properties of which were investigated in a similar manner. In
this school originated also the celebrated problems of the duplica-
tion of the cube and the trisection of an angle, the first of which
was solved mechanically by Plato, and geometrically by his pupil,
Menechme, by the intersection of two parabolas.
The conic sections were a most important addition to the stores
of Geometry, but the chief glory of the Platonic school is derived
from the invention of the Geometrical Analysis. We have the
authority of Proclus for ascribing this invention to Plato himself.
According to this method, the problem to be solved is assumed as
done, or the theorem to be proved as true, and from the relations
established by this assumption a train of reasoning is carried on
until we come to some conclusion known to be true or false, possi-
ble or impossible. A synthetical proof or solution is then found
by returning from the elementary truth or construction to the ori-
ginal assumption. The conception upon which this method rests
is a refined one, and the method itself more fruitful in the discovery
This great man seems to have been singularly unfortunate. In his own day he
was harassed by persecutions, under the charge of atheism, though he maintained
that the most certain of all our knowledge, next to our own existence, is the Being
of a God. And but scanty justice has been meted out to him since. Absurdities
have been laid to his charge which he never taught, and others have received credit
for discoveries of truth to which he is fairly entitled. His famous "Cogito, ergo
sum," the starting point of his philosophy, has been misconstrued and derided. He
has been made to teach a doctrine respecting innate ideas which he expressly dis-
claims, his true opinion on that subject being nothing more than must be held by
every one who would escape from the materialism to which Locke's philosophy was
carried in the hands of Condillac. And he has been accused of fatalism, though he
was the first to teach the paramount authority, in all our reasonings upon the human
mind, of the evidence afforded by consciousness, and to apply this principle in proof
of the liberty of our action. But whatever may be thought of the value of the con-
tributions made by him to our knowledge of the mind, he was indisputably the first
to cast off the trammels of authority, and set the example of a proper method in
mental philosophy. He was a great man among the great men of his age.
456
ANALYTICAL GEOMETRY.
of truth than any other of the inventions of the ancients. In the
hands of Apollonius and Archimedes, it led to those beautiful con-
structions and demonstrations which excited the astonishment of
the mathematicians of the 14th and 15th centuries, who were igno-
rant of the means by which they were accomplished.
But the geometrical analysis of the ancients, though the only
tentative method which they possessed for the discovery of truth,
and the most valuable of all their inventions, is tedious and elabo-
rate in its processes. It contains no general rules or methods of
investigation. The discovery of one truth has little or no tendency
to lead to the discovery of another. The preliminary construc-
tions and steps of reasoning to be employed, must depend upon
the particular circumstances of each question, and much tact is
often required to conduct the investigation to a successful issue.
A kind of contrivance is necessary in selecting the affections of
the quantities upon which to found the analysis, and in making the
proper graphical constructions, which, proceeding upon no genera!
methods, demands for its successful practice only that sort of inge-
nuity which is no essential part of a philosophical mind. Lagrange
or Laplace might be at fault in the solution of a mathematical
riddle, which would present less difficulty to some contributor of
the Diarian Repository, who had spent his life in poring over par-
ticular results instead of studying general principles; even as
Napoleon, we doubt not, might have been foiled at fence by many
a petit maitre of Paris.
The only other general method of investigation known to the
ancients, was that which has been called the method of exhaus-
tions, the invention of Archimedes. The general object of geo-
metrical science being the measure of extension, it was soon found
that the same methods which sufficed for determining the ratios of
right lines to each other, or of the areas contained by right lines,
failed when the question was respecting the length of a curve, the
measure of the space bounded by curve lines, or the volume com-
prised within a curve surface. Right lines and rectilineal figures
are compared with each other on the principle of superposition.
Two lines are of the same length, when the one being placed upon
the other, they would exactly coincide-two triangles, parallelo-
grams, or other rectilineal figures, are equal, if it be shown that
they can be made to occupy the same space. In the last analysis
of our reasonings in elementary geometry, it will be found that
they rest upon the idea of equality derived from coincidence in
space. But this principle of superposition is obviously inappli-
cable when we come to consider curve lines, cuvilinear areas, and
volumes. In a curve, like the circle, which is of uniform curvature
throughout, we might take any portion of it as a linear unit and
determine the ratio which it bears to the whole curve, or any
assigned portion of it; but we could not thus, by means of the
principle of superposition, solve the general problem of assigning
the length of the circumference of a circle, or any other curve, in
ANALYTICAL GEOMETRY.
457
terms of a right line. The same difficulty prevents the compari-
son of curvilineal with rectilineal spaces. It was to overcome
this difficulty that the method of exhaustions was invented by
Archimedes. This method essentially consists in inscribing a rec-
tilineal figure within a curve, and circumscribing another around
it, and obtaining thus two limits, one greater and the other less
than the required perimeter or area. As the number of sides is
multiplied, it is evident that the difference between the exterior and
the interior figure, and, a fortiori, between either of them and the
curve, will be continually diminished. In pursuing this method of
approximation, it was found, in some cases, that there was a cer-
tain assignable limit towards which the perimeter or area of the
inscribed figure tended, as the number of its sides was increased,
and that the circumscribed figure tended to the same limit. This
limit was taken to be the perimeter or area of the intermediate
curve. It was thus that Archimedes proved that the area of a
circle is equal to the rectangle, under its radius and semi-circum-
ference, by proving that this rectangle was always greater than
the inscribed, and less than the circumscribed polygon. Any modern
mathematician would accept the demonstration founded upon this
principle as sufficient, but the ancients always felt it necessary to
strengthen it by means of the reductio ad absurdum. But the
cases are comparatively few in which such a limit can be found.
When, for instance, the length of the circumference of the circle is
sought, it is impossible to determine any line which shall be con-
stantly greater than the perimeter of the inscribed, and less than
that of the circumscribed polygon. The only resource in such cases
is to approximate to the value sought, by increasing the number of
sides of the interior and exterior polygons, and thus diminishing the
difference between them, and of course between either of them and
the intermediate curve. It was thus that Archimedes, by inscrib-
ing and circumscribing a polygon of 96 sides, discovered the
approximate ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter,
to be as 22 to 7, a result which is too great by the 800th part of the
diameter, but of which, nevertheless, this greatest of the ancients.
was so proud that he directed it to be engraved upon his tomb.
This method of investigation, though subtle and ingenious,
laboured under very serious difficulties. Like the Geometrical
Analysis, it furnishes no general methods, so that the discovery of
one truth puts us in no better condition for discovering another.
The reasoning, too, is in all cases indirect, and the demonstrations
to which it leads are so involved and difficult, that without some
more compendious and effective instrument of research, science
must ever have remained in its infancy. The ancient geometers
succeeded in discovering and demonstrating the chief properties
of rectilineal figures, the circle, and the five regular solids. When
we add to this an imperfect investigation of the conic sections, the
cissoid, the conchoid, the quadratrix of Dinostrates, and the spiral
of Archimedes, we have the sum of the ancient geometry. But
458
ANALYTICAL GEOMETRY.
instead of wondering at the fragmentary and imperfect character
of abstract science among the ancients, our wonder ought rather
to be, that with such feeble instruments they were able to accom-
plish so much. That their methods were not more general and
powerful was a necessary consequence of the early state of sci-
ence; that with these methods they were able to reach so many
valuable results, is in the highest degree creditable to their skill and
subtlety.
From the decline of Grecian science until the seventeenth cen-
tury, a period of nearly two thousand years, geometry made no
considerable progress. The Romans were incapable of appreci-
ating what the Greeks had done, much less of adding to it; and
the Arabs did nothing more than to translate the works of the
Greek geometers. In the same state in which Archimedes and
Appollonius had left it, the science came into the hands of Des-
cartes, but it left them completely revolutionized. Before the time
of Descartes algebra had been applied to geometry by Bombelli,
Tartaglia, and especially by Vieta, in his treatise on angular sec-
tions. But they had applied it only to the solution of determi-
nate problems, and derived from it no advantage, except in the
greater brevity and power of the language with which it fur-
nished them.* The general method of representing every plane
curve by an equation between two unknown quantities, and
deducing all its properties by algebraic operations upon this
equation, is unquestionably the sole invention of Descartes. No
hint of it is to be found in any previous writer; and they who
have adduced the algebraic solutions of geometrical problems
given by Vieta and others, in disparagement of the claim of
Descartes, have shown thereby that they had not penetrated the
real spirit of the Cartesian geometry.
In attempting to explain the fundamental conception of the
modern geometry, it will be necessary, in the first instance, to
establish the possibility of translating, in all cases, considerations
of a geometrical nature, into such as shall be purely analytical.
There is no apparent connexion at first sight, between geometrical
forms and analytical equations; and yet a little reflection willl
show that it is in all cases possible to substitute pure considerations
re
* The following illustration will put the reader in possession of the difference
between a determinate and an indeterminate problem. Suppose the problem to be,
upon a given line as a base to construct a triangle, of which the other two sides.
shall be equal to two given lines;" it is evident that the conditions are sufficient to
determine the triangle in magnitude and position; and the problem is said to be
determinate. The vertex of the triangle would be at the intersection of the two
circles described around the extremities of the base as centres, with the given lines
respectively as radii But, if the base be given, and the vertical angle, and it be
required to find the vertex of the triangle, it is evident that an infinite number of
points may be found which would satisfy the conditions. Suppose the vertical angle
to be a right angle, then since every angle contained in a semicircle is a right angle,
if we describe a semicircle upon the given base, every point in this semicircle will
be the vertex of a triangle which will fulfil the conditions of the problem. The
problem in this case is indeterminate, and the semicircle upon which the required
point is situated is called the locus of the point.
ANALYTICAL GEOMETRY.
459
of quantity for those of quality, and thus bring the whole science
of geometry within the range of analysis. All our geometrical
ideas may be distributed into the three classes of magnitude,
form and position. No ideas can enter into any geometrical
question which are not comprehended in one of these three cate-
gories. The first of these presents no difficulty. The ratios of
magnitudes to each other are expressed by numbers, and come
properly within the scope of algebraic representation and analysis.
The second class of geometrical ideas, those which relate to form,
may be always reduced to the third, since the form of a body must
of necessity depend upon the mutual position of the different points
of which it is composed. The form of a triangle is completely
determined, if the place of every point on its three sides is known;
and so of any other figure. The idea of form, in its widest extent,
is evidently comprised in that of position, since every affection
of form may be made to depend upon an affection of place.
The preliminary difficulty then, which seems to lie in the way of
subjecting geometry to the analytical operations of algebra, is
reduced to the simple question of representing, in all cases, consi-
derations of position or place, by those of magnitude or quantity.
In showing how to effect this representation, and thus flashing a
sudden light over the whole field of geometry, Descartes did
nothing more than to generalize a method which is every day
used, even by the most ignorant. Whenever we wish to indicate
the situation of an object, the only means which we can employ is
to refer it to other objects which are known; and this reference is
made by assigning the magnitude of the geometrical elements
which connect the unknown with the known. Thus we determine
the place of any point on the surface of the earth by its distance
from the equator, and from another fixed line chosen as a first
meridian. Or if one point be determined, we can assign the place
of any other, provided its bearing and distance from the known
point be given. These two common methods of defining the
position of a point on the surface of the earth are complete illus-
trations of the two kinds of construction most used in analytical
geometry. The methods are obviously susceptible of universal
application. Let us call the geometrical elements whatever they
may be, which make known the position of a point, the co-ordinates
of the point, the name imposed upon them by Descartes, and
continued by all his successors. The co-ordinates of a point upon
a plane are evidently two in number. The position of any point
upon a plane is determined if we know its distances from any two
fixed lines, not parallel to each other, in the same plane. These
distances are the rectilineal co-ordinates of the point; and the
two fixed lines, which are generally taken perpendicular to each
other, are termed the axes. We may also fix the position of a
point upon a plane, provided we know its distance from a fixed
point, and the angle made by the line of direction of this distance
with a fixed line. These two elements, the distance of the point.
460
ANALYTICAL GEOMETRY.
and the angle contained between its line of direction and the fixed
line, are the polar co-ordinates of the point. An infinite number
of other systems, besides those of rectilineal and polar co-ordinates
for determining the position of a point, may be imagined, but these
are the only two systems that are of extensive use. But whatever
may be the system of co-ordinates adopted, it is evident that by
means of them we may in all cases make ideas of position depend
upon simple considerations of magnitude, since we may represent
always a change of place in a point by variations in the numerical
value of its co-ordinates.
If a
Having thus shown that all ideas of position, and, consequently,
all our elementary geometrical notions, may be reduced to simple
numerical considerations, it will be easy to conceive the funda-
mental idea of Descartes, relative to the analytical representation
of geometrical forms. It is at once evident, from the account
which has been given of the manner of representing analytically
the position of a point upon a plane, that when a line has been
defined by any characteristic property which it possesses, this de-
finition will give rise to a corresponding equation between the
variable co-ordinates of the point which describes the line.
point be supposed to move irregularly upon a plane, its two co-
ordinates being connected by no relation, will be independent the
one of the other. But if the point moves, subjected to such a
condition as to make it describe any definable line, it is plain that
its two co-ordinates will have, throughout its course, a constant
and precise relation to each other. This relation may be express-
ed by a corresponding equation between the co-ordinates, which
will be an exact and rigorous definition of the line, since it will
express an algebraic property which belongs exclusively to all
the points of this line. The numerical relation which, for every
point upon the line, exists between its co-ordinates, may be in
some cases difficult to discover; but it is clear, from general con-
siderations, that such a relation must exist, even though we should
be unable, in any particular case, to determine its precise nature,
and express it by means of an equation. One of these co-ordinates
we know must be a function of the other, though the form of
this function may not be in every case assignable.* These con-
siderations seem sufficient to show, in its widest extent, the possi-
bility of defining any curve by means of an equation between the
* One quantity is said to be a function of another when they are so related that
the value of the one depends upon the value of the other. Thus the space passed
through by a falling body is a function of the time of descent: the length of the
circumference of a circle is a function of its radius: and, in general, y is a function
of x, if the value of y depends in any manner upon the value of x. There are
many cases in which it can be shown that one quantity is a function of another,
though we are not able to assign the precise form of the function, and others still
in which we can determine the analytical form of the function, but are unable to
find its calculable value. The object of every department of natural science is to
determine the relations subsisting between the phenomena which it considers, or to
discover the form of the functions which connect them. The moment this is done,
the science passes into the hands of analysis, and takes a rational form.
ANALYTICAL GEOMETRY.
461
co-ordinates of every point situated upon the curve. And this
equation will so exactly and completely represent the curve, that
the one can receive no modification, however slight, without pro-
ducing a corresponding change in the other. Every property of
the curve will be implicitly included in its equation, and may be
deduced from it by proper analytical operations.
We have, for the sake of simplicity, confined the illustration of
the leading principle of the modern geometry to the case of
curves, all the points of which lie in the same plane. Since every
such curve may be represented by an equation between two co-
ordinates, the discussion of their properties is termed geometry of
two dimensions. A similar course of reasoning would show that,
as the position of a point in space is completely determined when
we know its distances from three fixed planes, no two of which
are parallel to each other, we may define any curve of double
curvature, or any surface, plane or curved, by means of an equa-
tion between the three co-ordinates of every point upon the curve
or surface. The definition, or the mode of genesis, of the curve
or surface will express a property common to every point upon it,
and the algebraic expression of this property, in terms of the
three co-ordinates, will constitute its equation. We thus have a
geometry of three dimensions.
We have attempted thus to state, and to justify, upon general
principles, independently of its application to this or that particu-
lar case, the conception upon which Descartes founded his ge-
ometry. There is not in the whole range of science a conception
that has been more fruitful in results. It would be difficult to
overrate its importance in a scientific view. Immediately upon
its announcement geometry passed beyond the narrow limits which
had hitherto circumscribed it, and entered upon a career which
can never be exhausted. Nor did geometry alone profit by this
fertile discovery. The science of rational mechanics was re-
modelled by it, physical astronomy derived from it inestimable
advantage, and it is at this day lending its aid to almost every
department of natural philosophy. It has afforded substantial
help to experimental science by giving the means of constructing
and expressing those partial hypotheses, which, prior to the dis-
covery of a complete theory, are necessary to classify the facts.
that are already known, and guide to the investigation of new
ones.
In comparing together the ancient and the modern geometry, it
is impossible not to be struck, in the first instance, with the great
advantage possessed by the latter in its language. This advantage
is so striking that some writers have been deceived into making
it the essential distinction between the two methods. All mathe-
matical language consists of two parts; the one expressing the
objects themselves about which we reason, the other expressing
the manner in which these objects are combined or related, or the
operations to which they are subjected. In the ancient geometry
462
ANALYTICAL GEOMETRY.
magnitudes are represented by real symbols, a line by a line, an
angle by an angle, a triangle by a triangle, &c. ; and the relations
of these magnitudes to each other, and the operations to be per-
formed upon them, are described in words. In the modern
geometry, on the contrary, the magnitudes about which we reason,
the relations which they bear, and the operations to which they
are subjected, are all denoted by conventional symbols. These
symbols are simple, brief, and comprehensive. Instead of a dia-
gram, sometimes exceedingly complicated, accompanied by an
enunciation of the truth to be proved, often awkwardly expressed
because of the limitations by which it must be guarded, and a de-
monstration which brings the matter slowly and in successive
portions before the mind, we have in the symbols and operations.
of algebra, as applied to geometry, so much meaning concentrated
into a narrow space, expressed with such distinctness and force,
and brought with such entireness to the notice of the mind before.
the impression made by one part has been weakened, that the
reasoning powers cannot but be greatly aided, and guarded against
error. These symbols afford us also the means of simplifying all
the operations to be performed. By means of them we are ena-
bled to reduce all possible relations between the objects of our
reasoning to the simplest of those relations, that of equality; and
a still more important advantage is gained in the substitution.
which we are able to make of the arithmetical operations of multi-
plication and division, instead of the geometrical method of the
composition and division of ratios.
But immense as is the superiority conferred upon the modern
geometry by the comprehensiveness and power of its language,
it is not in this that its essential spirit resides. Without the aid
of this language it never could have reached its present state of
perfection; but we are not entitled therefore to infer that its pecu-
liar character is derived from the symbols it employs. The use
of these symbols, or of others possessing a like simplicity and con-
centration of meaning, was essential to the development of the
science as we now have it, but its logical character is indepen-
dent of its language. This language may be, and often is, applied
to the solution of determinate problems in geometry, which pos-
sess, nevertheless, the character of the ancient geometry; and it
is possible, on the other hand, to apply, in some cases, the sub-
stance of the modern method without the use of its peculiar
notation. A little reflection upon the spirit of the two methods
will be sufficient to show, that any independent investigation of a
particular truth, whether conducted by means of graphical con-
structions representing by real symbols the quantities about which
we reason, or by algebraic characters and processes, that is,
that any special result which is obtained in any other way than
by the application of some more general truth to the particular
case, belongs essentially to the ancient method in geometry. The
ancient geometry is, in other words, an assemblage of particular
ANALYTICAL GEOMETRY.
463
results; the modern geometry is a collection of general truths,
each comprising under it an endless number of particulars.
We have spoken of geometry as the science which has for its
object the measure of extension. This definition, though it may
seem at first sight, by its precision, to limit the scope of geometry,
does in reality require, for the absolute perfection of this science,
that it should discuss all imaginable forms of lines, surfaces and
volumes, and discover all the properties which belong to each form.*
This statement immediately suggests two essentially distinct modes.
of investigation; the one by taking up, one by one, these geometrical
forms, and determining separately all the properties of each; the
other, by grouping together the discussion of analogous properties, no
matter how different in other respects may be the bodiest to which
they belong. In other words, our geometrical researches may be
conducted, and the results of them arranged in relation to the differ-
ent bodies which are the object of study, or in relation to the proper-
ties which these bodies present. The first of these was the method
pursued by the ancients. They studied, one by one, the properties of
the straight line, the circle, the ellipse, the hyperbola, &c., separating
the different questions pertaining to each from those which related
to other curves or surfaces, no matter how strong the analogies
might be between them. This method of investigation, though
simple and natural, is obviously characteristic of the infancy of
science. The complete mastery of the properties of one curve
affords no aid for discovering those of another, beyond the skill and
tact which the previous study has imparted. No matter how
similar may be the questions discussed respecting different curves,
the complete solution of them in relation to one leaves us to com-
mence investigation anew for every other. However similar a
problem may be to one already solved for some other curve, we
can never be certain beforehand that we shall have sufficient
address to solve it under its modified form. Though we may, for
example, have learned how to draw a tangent to an ellipse or hyper-
bola, this gives us no aid in determining the tangent to any other
curve. Geometry, thus studied, is, as we have already called it,
evidently nothing more than a collection of particular results, des-
titute of those general classifying truths which are necessary to
constitute a science.
The modern geometry, on the other hand, instead of investigat
ing seriatim the properties of each geometrical form, groups toge-
ther all affections of a like kind and discusses them without regard
to the particular bodies to which they belong. It passes over, for
instance, the particular problem of finding the area of the circle,
and solves the general problem of finding the area bounded by any
*For a lucid exposition of this and some other points briefly discussed in this
article, the reader is referred to M. Comte's Cours de Philosophie Positive, Leçon
10e.
We use the term body, for convenience sake, to designate the objects of geome-
trical study, lines, surfaces and volumes.
464
ANALYTICAL GEOMETRY.
curve line whatever. Instead of investigating the asymptote to
the hyperbola, and then remaining in no better condition than
before for discovering whether any new curve has asymptotes or
not, it puts us in possession at once of a general method for deter-
mining the asymptotic lines, straight or curved, which belong to
any curve whatever. The modern geometry treats thus, in a
manner perfectly general, every question relative to the same geo-
metrical property or affection, without regard to the particular
body to which it may belong. The application of the general
theorems thus constructed, to the particular circumstances of this
or that curve or surface, is a work of subordinate importance, to
be executed according to certain rules that are invariable in their
mode of application and infallible in their promise of success.
Let any new curve be proposed to one who is destitute of the
resources of the modern geometry, and he must commence first
by surmising, and that chiefly through the suggestive power of
graphical constructions, what its properties are, and then endeavour
to prove by methods altogether peculiar to the curve in hand, that
it possesses the properties the existence of which he has divined,
with no certainty derived from his previous knowledge that he will
be able to succeed in this particular case. Foiled amid its intri-
cate specialities he may be reduced, as was the great Galileo, to
the mortifying necessity of calling in the mechanical aid of the
scales to supply the defect of his mathematical resources.
* Let the
same curve be proposed to one who has the modern geometry at
command, and he will immediately determine its tangent, its singu-
lar points, its asymptotes, its radius of curvature, its involute and
evolute, its caustics, its maximum and minimum ordinates, its
length, its area, the content of the solid generated by its revolu-
tion, in short all its important properties.
The
The brief exposition which we have given of the different
methods pursued by the ancient and the modern geometry, is
enough to show on which side the scientific superiority lies. In
the ancient geometry special results are obtained separately, and
without any knowledge of their mutual relations, though they may
be, in truth, only particular modifications of some general truth
which embraces them and innumerable like phenomena.
modern geometry investigates this general truth, and then applies.
it, in the way of deduction, to all particular cases.
Had we gone
on for ages in the steps of the ancients, we could have done nothing
more than add to the indigesta moles of particular truths; and no
matter how great our success there would still always remain an
infinite variety of geometrical forms unstudied and unknown. On
* The only stain upon the scientific reputation of this great man is his seeking to
determine the area of the cycloid in terms of its generating circle, by cutting the
cycloid and the circle out of a lamina of uniform thickness and weighing them. It
is a striking illustration of the power of the modern analysis that any tyro can now
solve problems that eluded the forces of such men as Galileo, Fermat, Roberval, and
Pascal.
ANALYTICAL GEOMETRY.
465
the other hand, for every question resolved by the modern geome-
try, the number of geometrical problems to be solved is diminished,
for all possible bodies. The one is a science, with its general theo-
rems lying ready for all possible cases; the other is made up of
independent researches, which, when they have gained their par-
ticular end, shed no light beyond it.
It is not our purpose to enter fully into the exposition of the
peculiar logic of the modern analysis, or to contrast in detail its
merits with those of the ancient geometry. Many interesting
points of view could be obtained by pursuing this comparison to
a greater length; but we have gained the end which we at pre-
sent have in view if we have given an exposition of the subject
sufficiently plain and extended to enable the reader to pronounce
upon the scientific claims of the two methods. We entertain no
doubt what will be the judgment rendered.
The superiority of the analytical methods of the moderns is so
evident and vast, that there has been no attempt, since the publi-
cation of the "Geometry of Curve Lines," by Professor Leslie,
to revive the ancient method. This attempt was a signal failure.
Mr. Leslie avows himself the champion of a juster taste in the
cultivation of mathematical sciences, but unfortunately for his
success, no sooner does he enter upon any question which lies
beyond the mere elements of geometry than he betrays most
painfully the poverty of his resources. We have but to open his
book and read of "a tangent and point merging the same con-
tact," of points "absorbing one another," of " tangents melting
into the curve," of "curves migrating into one another," &c., to
make us sympathize with the humiliation which he must have felt
in invoking the aid of poetry to establish the theorems of geome-
try. We know of no similar attempt made by any scholar since.
It is now universally conceded that without the aid of the modern
analysis, the science of geometry cannot be established upon a
rational basis. And without the help of geometry, thus established
and ordered, all the real sciences, excepting only those included
in the department of natural history, must be deprived of their
full development and perfection. The new geometry has its
ample vindication in the" Mécanique Analytique" of Lagrange,
and the "Mécanique Céleste" of Laplace.
In our own country, prior to the publication of the work named
at the head of this article, we had but two treatises on the subject
of Analytical Geometry; the one a republication of the elementary
treatise of Mr. J. R. Young, which is chiefly made up from the
"Application de l'Algèbre a la Géométrie" of Bourdon; the other,
a more recent publication from the pen of Prof. Davies. We
do not, for reasons that will be obvious enough, include among
treatises upon Analytical Geometry, the Cambridge translation of
the imperfect and antiquated work of Bèzout. We are glad that
Prof. Smith has added his contribution to our scanty stock, by
giving us a translation of the masterly work of Biot, one of the
30
466
ANALYTICAL GEOMETRY.
most perfect scientific gems to be found in any language. The
original needs not our commendation, and of the translation it is
enough to say that it is faithfully executed.*
We regard the multiplication of text books, on this subject, as
affording cheering evidence that juster ideas are beginning to pre-
vail in our country respecting the proper scope of mathematical
education. And yet there are colleges in our land that comprise,
in their course of study, nothing of the geometry of curves beyond
what is contained in Simpson's or Bridge's Conic Sections, that
leave the study of the Calculus optional with the student, and
that are compelled, therefore, to teach, under the name of Natural
Philosophy, a system that, at the present day, is scarcely level
with the demands of a young ladies' boarding school. The gra-
duates of these institutions may be able to classify plants, insects,
and stones; they may fancy themselves qualified to decide upon
the comparative merits of rival systems of world-building in
geology; but they cannot read, understandingly, the first ten
pages of any reputable treatise on mechanics from the French or
English press. We have grieved long over this state of things,
and we hail with pleasure every symptom of a change for the
better in public sentiment. If our ancient and venerable institu-
tions of learning will not elevate their course of study into some
approximation to the existing state of mathematical science, the
day, we hope, is not far distant when the public will discern that
they are standing in the way of a thorough education, and visit
them accordingly.
* We regret to see so many typographical errors in the work, and some of them
of a character fitted to perplex the student. On page 88 there is an omission of the
transformation of an equation of the Ellipse, to remove the origin from the vertex
of the axis to the centre of the curve, which confuses all the subsequent investiga-
tion.
ESSAY XVI.
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
*
WHILE the existence of different religious sects in the world.
opens a wide field for the exercise of Christian charity, the most
rational foundation for that charity is laid in the principles of the
separation. Each Protestant sect admits, and with great propriety,
that a way to heaven may lie through the territories of all other
Christian denominations, and that every one of the numerous forms
in which the truth is held and preached, may be instrumental in
producing and sustaining a saving faith in Christ. We expect to
find true piety in every division and under every name of the
Christian church. The various denominations of Christians, which
have gained any considerable note in the world, have kept up by
means of their forms of worship, doctrine and order, their broad
distinctions from one another; while, as to degrees of practical
piety, no one of these prominent and prosperous sects has proba-
bly varied more from the others, than the same sect has, in differ-
ent times and circumstances, varied from itself. We are, there-
fore, as reasonably bound to cultivate a fervent charity towards
the members of other denominations as towards those of our own.
We know not at what point in the progress of the sincere but mis-
taken upholders of error, our charitable regards should stop. In
this state of mingled truth and error, it is impossible for man to fix
the precise line where the light of saving truth is bounded by the
verge of total darkness. No mere man since the fall can be sup-
Originally published in 1838 in review of, 1. "Constitution of the American
and Foreign Bible Society, formed by a Convention of Baptist Elders and Brethren,
held in the Meeting House of the Oliver street Baptist Church, New York, May 12
and 13, 1836.
2. " Proceedings of the Bible Convention of Baptists held in Philadelphia, April
27-29, 1837.
3. "Report of the Board of Managers of the American and Foreign Bible Society,
embracing the period of its Provisional Organization. April, 1837.
4. "Christian Review and Translations of the Bible, Nos. 5 and 8. March and
December, 1837.
5. "First Annual Report of the Executive Committee of the American and For-
eign Bible Society, presented April, 1838."
468
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
posed to have held the truth in perfection, and since sanctifying
grace does always co-exist with some degree of doctrinal error,
who shall presume to tell the precise degree of error which limits.
the saving operation? Who is prepared to say how much false
doctrine is the most that a man can hold and still be saved?
We make due distinction between error itself and those who
hold it. To regard a heretic with charity is one thing; it is
another to countenance his heresy. We do not deem it a light
matter that false doctrines so widely prevail in the world, that men
are so easily captivated by them, and that the church is so deeply
troubled and broken into so many fragments; yet when the abet-
tor of error evinces the Christian spirit in even the smallest degree,
we are bound to receive him with kindness, and extend towards
him all the offers of Christian fellowship, which may consist with
the safety of those concerned. The error may be dangerous, while
it still has not ruined the man. It might prevent his being a
child of God, but does it actually prevent him? And if not, ought
not the spark of life, in its perilous exposure, to be fanned and
guarded, and tenderly nourished up unto life eternal ?
These remarks are suggested by the view we are about to pre-
sent to our readers, of the several matters connected with the
documents named at the beginning; and our reasons for offering
them here are these two: Because the principles stated are
involved in our general subject; and because they indicate the
spirit in which we propose to subject the matters before us to this
public examination.
pecu-
The Baptists in the United States have shared, in their measure,
the general improvement which has distinguished, for the last seve-
ral years, the progress of religion in this country. Their numbers
have increased, perhaps, in fair proportion to the increase of other
denominations; the civil regulations of some important States of
the Union afford them greater facilities for maintaining their
liarities than they could formerly command; the zeal of some por-
tions of their body, in elevating their intellectual and religious
character, has had praiseworthy development; their missionary
spirit has, from several peculiar causes, been greatly enlivened,
and the general results of their growing strength and activity,
both at home and abroad, must be gratifying to every friend of
pure and ardent piety.
In some recent acts of large bodies, representing the most
important branch of the Baptist denomination in this country, they
have assumed a position before the Christian public, which, as a
matter of history, is new, and, in its ecclesiastical aspects, bold and
startling. We allude to their late proceedings relative to the trans-
lation of the Bible.
The history of these transactions is substantially as follows:
In the year 1835, one of the Baptist missionaries wrote from
Calcutta, to the secretary of the American Bible Society, inquir-
ing whether money could be obtained from that society to aid in
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
469
printing and circulating the Bengalee Bible, translated on Baptist
principles. The subject was submitted to the board on the sixth
of August, 1835; it was discussed freely at that meeting, at the
next regular meeting of the board on the fifth of November fol-
lowing, at adjourned meetings on the nineteenth of November, the
third of December, and the fourth of February, 1836; and on the
seventeenth of February, after the long and serious discussion
above mentioned, the board passed, by a large majority, the fol-
lowing preamble and resolutions :
"1. By the constitution of the American Bible Society, its mana-
gers are, in the circulating of the holy Scriptures, restricted to such
copies as are 'without note or comment,' and, in the English lan-
guage, to the version in common use.' The design of these
restrictions clearly seems to have been to simplify and mark out the
duties of the society, so that all the religious denominations of which
it is composed might harmoniously unite in performing these duties.
"2. As the managers are now called to aid extensively in cir-
culating the sacred Scriptures in languages other than the English,
they deem it their duty, in conformity with the obvious spirit of
their compact, to adopt the following resolutions as the rule of
their conduct in making appropriations for the circulation of the
Scriptures in all foreign tongues.
Resolved, That in appropriating money for the translating,
printing, or distributing of the sacred Scriptures in foreign lan-
guages, the managers feel at liberty to encourage only such ver-
sions as conform, in the principles of their translation, to the com-
mon English version, at least so far as that all religious denomina-
tions represented in this society can consistently use and circulate
said versions in their several schools and communities.
"Resolved, That a copy of the above preamble and resolution
be sent to each of the missionary boards accustomed to receive
pecuniary grants from this society, with a request that the same
may be transmitted to their respective mission stations where the
Scriptures are in process of translation, and also that the said seve-
ral missionary boards be informed that their applications for aid
must be accompanied with a declaration that the versions which
they propose to circulate are executed in accordance with the
above resolutions."
This act of the managers was approved by the American Bible
Society at its annual meeting on the twelfth of May, 1836.
At the annual meeting of the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions
in Hartford, April 27, 1836,* a letter was communicated from the
secretary of the American Bible Society, announcing the appro-
priation, by the board of managers, of five thousand dollars to the
Baptist Board of Foreign Missions, to promote the circulation of
the Scriptures in foreign tongues; stating, however, that this appro-
priation was made in accordance with the resolutions of the board
See Report of the Managers of the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions, p. 24.
470
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
above given. On this communication, the Baptist board unani-
mously adopted the following preamble and resolutions:
"Whereas this board, at their annual meeting, held in Salem, in
April, 1833, adopted the following resolutions:
66
Resolved, That the board feel it to be their duty to adopt all
prudent measures to give to the heathen the pure word of God, and
to furnish the missionaries with all the means in their power to
make the translations as exact a representation of the mind of the
Holy Spirit as may be possible ;-Resolved, That all the mission-
aries of the board who are, or who shall be, engaged in trans-
lating the Scriptures, be instructed to endeavour, by earnest prayer
and diligent study, to ascertain the meaning of the original text;
to express that meaning as exactly as the nature of the languages
into which they shall translate the Bible will permit; and to transfer
no words which are capable of being literally translated: And
whereas the board still adhere firmly to these resolutions, as
expressing, in their judgment, the only true principle on which
translations can be made; and as uttering what they believe to be
the decided opinion of the great mass of the denomination whom
they represent, therefore,
"Resolved, That the board of managers of the American Bible
Society be respectfully informed that this board cannot, consist-
ently and conscientiously, comply with the conditions on which
appropriations are now made; and cannot, therefore, accept the
sum appropriated by the board of managers on the 17th of April,
1836."
From the time of passing the above resolutions to the annual
meeting of the American Bible Society, on the twelfth of May
following, the interval was improved in summoning the largest
possible representation of the denomination to convene in New
York on that day; on the presumption that the society would
approve the act of its board; and with the avowed purpose, in
that event, to propose at once a separate "organization for Bible
translation and distribution in foreign tongues.
""
The American Bible Society did, as above stated, approve the
resolutions referred to. Whereupon the Baptist convention, then
assembled,_immediately adopted resolutions declaring that "the
American Baptists enjoyed great facilities for prosecuting the work
of faith and labour of love in giving the word of God to the
heathen ;" and resolving "that it is the duty of the Baptist denomi-
nation in the United States to form a distinct organization for
Bible translation and distribution," and they appointed a committee
to report a constitution, nominate officers, and prepare an address
to the American public. The next day a constitution was adopted,
designating the new institution as "The American and Foreign
Bible Society, the single object of which shall be to promote the
wider circulation of the holy Scriptures, in the most faithful trans-
lations that can be procured:" officers were appointed, and a reso-
lution passed providing, "that the first annual meeting of the
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
471
society be held in Philadelphia, on the last Wednesday of April,
1837, and that the doings of this meeting and of the society be
submitted to such of the brethren, from different parts of the United
States, as may then and there meet in convention, for the purpose
of securing the combined and concentrated action of the denomi-
nation in the Bible cause." The convention at Hartford, in April,
1836, postponed the whole subject to the same last Wednesday of
April, which was also the time for the annual meeting of the Bap-
tist Board of Foreign Missions at the same place.
There were, consequently, three distinct voices convoking the
Baptists of the United States in Philadelphia on the said last
Wednesday of April, 1837:-The committee appointed by the
conference at Hartford, the first annual meeting of the embryo
Bible society, and the annual meeting of the Baptist Board of
Foreign Missions ;-all bearing on the absorbing question of Bible
translation, and altogether adequate to convene what the presi-
dent called "the largest body of baptized believers in the world,
by a delegation unparalleled either for number or influence among
them." The occasion was deemed "a crisis" to the denomination,
and the strength and wisdom of the body were put in full requisi-
tion. The organization previously formed in New York was
apparently disregarded, except to be pronounced presumptuous and
premature, and the question of a Baptist Bible society came up de
novo. The proposal was strongly sustained, and the society was
organized, and earnestly commended to the people of their con-
nexion throughout the United States.
The design of this article requires that we here take particular
notice of the views of the denomination, and of the bearings of
the new society, as they were disclosed in the debates and other
proceedings of that convention.
The two questions raised respected, 1st, The expediency of a
distinct organization for Bible distribution; and, 2d, The extent of
the object which that organization should contemplate. The alter-
native in the first question was, either to create a new society to
do what the Baptists could not conscientiously do through the
American Bible Society, or to commit that department of their
enterprise to the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions. The second
point brought up the question whether the new society should con-
fine its operations to the foreign field, or engage also in home dis-
tribution.
On the first question it was argued against the new organization :
That it would render their system of benevolent action needlessly
complicate; that the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions had
hitherto proved itself competent to conduct the work of Bible
translation and distribution, which, as a part of the missionary
work, belonged to that board; and to create another instrument to
do a part of the proper work of that board, would imply a suspi-
cion of malversation or incapacity in that institution, which had
not yet been charged upon it; that the Baptists of the United
472
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
States had too partially expressed their wishes for such a society
to warrant that body to form one: that the American Bible So-
ciety was formed rather on principles of conciliation, than by com-
promise of opinions, and a sectarian organization would dig the
grave of great Bible society principles: that the disunion of Chris-
tians in the work of distributing the Bible, appeared ill before the
world that the American Bible Society, embracing different
denominations, had been the means of joining hearts together
which had otherwise been alienated: that the brethren were pain-
fully divided on the question of separating from that society; and
that such a separation was fraught with serious consequences,
would prove a bar to union in all time to come, and ought not to
be urged, except for very powerful reasons.
In favour of a distinct society, it was asserted: That the Ame-
rican Bible Society had attempted to govern the consciences of
Baptists that the Baptists were able and bound to give the true
unmutilated Bible to all the world: that the Baptists in the United
States had extensively expressed their desire for such a society,
and that the organization would, by the increase of Baptist
resources, and the progress of Baptist principles, come into
increasing demand.
The reasonings against the new organization, although of a
liberal tenour, savoured of no indifference for Baptist principles.
They were respectful and conciliatory, implying confidence in the
American Bible Society, and admitting that it afforded the Baptists
ample facilities for circulating the Scriptures in a form which
favoured no sectarian principles more than their own.
betrayed also the suspicion that the project of a new society verged
towards the proposal of a Baptist version of the Bible in the English
tongue, and alarm lest the present proceedings should occasion
another subdivision of the denomination.
They
In favour of the new society there appeared an ardent and
exclusive zeal for the peculiarities of the sect. The purpose was
more than intimated of renouncing participation in Paedobaptist
operations, and of pushing, at all hazards, the enterprise of making
a Baptist Bible for all the world. The advocates of the measure
seemed to presume that the kingdom was given to the Baptists,
and that the pregnant signs of the times summoned them forth to
the sure and speedy conquest of the earth. One of the most pro-
minent speakers of the convention "would not fetter the new
society, to hinder its doing soon what may not now perhaps be
done;"" a precaution unworthy the majesty of truth, and unbe-
coming the dignity of the great denomination for which we act;
the only denomination, as we profess to believe, that is willing to
follow the Redeemer whithersoever he may lead, and dares to
re-echo to the world the whole and whatsoever he has said."
The other and most agitating question related to the limits they
would set to the operations of the new society; whether they
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
473
would confine it to the foreign field, or employ it also in home dis-
tribution.
It was argued in favour of the limitation: That the denomina-
tion called for the new organization to engage in foreign transla-
tion and distribution only; that the proposed enlargement of the
society's powers was not warranted by the resources of the
denomination, embracing not above 250,000 real supporters of
benevolent enterprise, with literary and theological institutions
upon their hands, and not a single institution endowed ;* that the
American Bible Society had resolved to complete the home supply,
and was able to do it, and, therefore, another society with a home
department would be superfluous; that the proposed extension
would draw a line of broader distinction between the Baptists.
and the rest of the great Protestant family, and involve the
interests of the Bible cause in needless complexity; that the dele-
gates to that convention had no authority to meddle with the home
distribution, having been appointed with reference to a society for
foreign operations, and no other; that the foreign department was
the only one in which the brethren could unite; and that restrict-
ing the society to the foreign field would counteract the impression
that has gone abroad, that the denomination was about to put forth
a Baptist Bible in the English tongue.
Against restricting the operations of the society to foreign trans-
lation and distribution, it was insisted: That the Baptists, ill-used
as they had been, were impelled to withdraw from the American
Bible Society altogether, and were now too highly incensed against
the society to do anything any where through its agency; that such
a restriction would disable the society from doing anything suc-
cessfully, and imply a distrust of the denomination, lest they should
at some time, and without good reasons, undertake to mend the
English version of the Bible; a step which would not be taken
immediately, and ought not therefore to be a source of apprehen-
sion; and that the limitation would imply that the received English
translation ought never to be amended, and the real mind of the
Holy Spirit on the ordinance of baptism never given to the world
in intelligible terms.
We have thus sifted out all that seems to have been intended as
argument on both sides, from the printed report of the long and
desultory debates of that convention. The proceedings of the
body, even as they appear in the printed report, remind us at every
* "Much had been said with regard to the strength of the society, and the glorious
laurels that were to be gained by it. Now what were the facts in the case? We had
500,000 communicants, and no doubt the greater part of them were good people; and
when he had said that, he had said all. The Baptist ministry were men of heart,
and they had done gloriously. He argued, that the real supporters of benevolent
enterprise in the Baptist denomination did not number more than 250,000 souls. He
next adverted to the condition of the literary institutions, and theological colleges
and schools, and lamented their want of funds. He mentioned as an extraordinary
fact, that not a single institution was endowed." (Speech of Mr. Thresher of
Boston, as reported in the proceedings of the Bible Convention.)
474
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
step of the justness of an expression of Dr. Wayland on the floor
of the convention, that "it seemed as if brethren hardly knew for
what they had come together." We pass no strictures here on the
debates in general. Our concern is only with the arguments on
the points before us. It would give no satisfaction, either to our-
selves or our readers, to attempt to reconcile the dignity and weight
of those discussions with the sublime idea of an assembly of Chris-
tians deliberating on the enterprise of "translating the unadulte-
rated words of the Holy Spirit for all the nations of the earth."
In the sketch of proceedings and arguments given above, our
readers cannot fail to discern the two following points under which
we propose to arrange the remaining matters of this article:
I. That the Baptists are heartily weary of the controversy
about the meaning of the word. Barrit, and have resolved to try the
short method of exchanging it for some other word.
II. That their project of Bible translation presupposes the ulti-
mate and speedy prevalence of Baptist principles in the world.
We feel no temptation to speak reproachfully or uncharitably
on this subject; for neither the present position of our Baptist
brethren, nor any part of their past proceedings, has disturbed our
brotherly kindness towards them; and if we have any other motive
in pursuing the following reflections, besides the desire for their
good and the good of our common cause, it is the satisfaction of
contemplating the aspect and bearing of the proceedings as a mere
section of ecclesiastical history.
1. We have the strong impression that the Baptists are bent on
getting rid, at all events, of the word " baptize." It is doubtless
to them an uncomfortable term of theology. In translating the
Scripture into foreign languages, they expect numerous and una-
voidable occasions to adopt new words, and give new senses to
old ones; for how can such a mass of peculiar ideas as the Bible
presents be conveyed to a heathen people without the use of new
and peculiar words, or of words in peculiar senses? And in most
such cases they will doubtless transfer, as all translators do, and as
the nature of written language often requires; or, they will appro-
priate vernacular terms to an uncommon use, which is in substance
equivalent to transferring. But in the present case they take no
choice. They seem to presume, and we think with great plausi-
bility, that some other word may be to them a more convenient
appellation for the ordinance of baptism, and may designate their
form of the rite more decisively than "baptize." We are not
surprised at the presumption. It is but natural that they wish to
put away from their theological nomenclature a term which costs
them so much disputation, requires so much learning to handle it,
and yields them, after all, so incomplete satisfaction, and exchange
it for a word about which there can be no controversy; Barrisw is
not sufficiently exclusive. It does not clip the argument about the
form of baptism with the requisite decision. The word undoubt-
edly means what they would express by it ;-admit, for the pre-
βαπτίζω
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
475
sent, that their sense is its most common and prominent one; yet
it draws after it such a number and diversity of ideas, that they
must either cut its trail off or traffic the word itself away; and
having failed to make clear work of the former, they seem resolved
to attempt the latter.
To place in fair light the character of this procedure, we pro-
pose to consider the avowed intent in connexion with the
unavowed bearings of the proceedings related above; the general
views with which, in the minds of the Baptists, this design of trans-
lation stands associated; the philological recommendations of their
course; and its sectarian policy.
ω
ய
The avowed design of the American and Foreign Bible Society
is said, in the printed report of the society formed in New York, to
be," to give the whole world a literal translation of the Bible :"*
-to create " a distinct institution among the Baptists, having for
its object the diffusion of their religious principles through the
instrumentality of literal versions of the Bible." The sole occa-
sion of the rupture with the American Bible Society was its
declining to aid in circulating copies of the holy Scriptures in
which Barrig is rendered according to Baptist views.
"The
American Bible Society," says the address of the new society to
the public, "has refused to aid us in giving the 'most faithful'
versions of our missionaries to the perishing heathen, merely
because the original word Barriga and its cognates have been
translated." And "the Baptists, ill-used as they have been, had
no other course left them to pursue but to withdraw from the
American Bible Society." It is no secret, therefore, that the
original word does not answer Baptist ends. Our brethren seemed
apprehensive that Paedobaptist fellowship in Bible distribution
was purchased by them at too dear a rate, and that the prospect
of teaching the world their mode of baptism by the language of
the present English Bible was a forlorn hope. The head and front
of the American Bible Society's offending against the Baptists
was its adherence to the very word by which the Holy Spirit
chose to denote the sacramental washing; and because our
brethren were determined to put that word out of their versions
and substitute a word not strictly synonymous in its place, the
separation was proposed.
We request special attention to this avowed occasion of their
proceedings. And so do they. They renounce, with emphasis,
all other causes of dissent. Because they insist on introducing
into the text of their translations, their "note and comment" on
the word “baptize," cutting off all further controversy about the
word, and presenting their "four hundred millions" of readers with
a term from which they may derive, clear, separate, and alone,
the idea of immersion, they have created a new society, and
resolved to abandon the old. Their premonitory horror of carry-
*
Report, page 21.
† Report, page 22.
I
476
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
ing the controversy about baptism among the unlettered millions
of Birmah and Bengal has a natural source in the history of the
rite. They are obliged to admit that under the lax restraint of the
original "baptize," the Christian world has largely backslidden
from dipping, and gone up step by step out of the water on the
secondary senses of the word, till the ordinance of baptism has
suffered, as they say, a general misunderstanding and perversion ;
and the Paedobaptist "error of sprinkling,
error of sprinkling," to use their own
words, "has obtained the blind and almost universal suffrage of
what is called the Christian world."* It is, therefore, the avowed
design of our Baptist brethren in their new Bible Society, to
make the translated text of the Scriptures the vehicle of propa-
gating their peculiar views of the mode of baptism in foreign
lands.
From this declared object of our brethren, it is difficult to sepa-
rate the unavowed bearing of their proceedings; the tendency
towards a Baptist version of the Scriptures in the English tongue.
The immediate project of an English translation was not only
unavowed, but disavowed by the members of the convention.
Instead, therefore, of putting, in so many words, the impertinent
question, whither are they going, we will simply observe which
way they have set their faces.
First, then, our Baptist brethren were aware of their being
suspected of a design of " putting forth a Baptist Bible in English ;"
and talked of passing resolutions "to allay the apprehensions of
brethren of other denominations." Second, every principle of the
movement was general, and every argument of the convention
went in fact as strongly for an English translation as for a Birman
or a Bengalee. Third, every speaker who alluded to the matter
of translation at all, seemed to look, with one eye at least, towards
an English translation. The expressions were artful indeed, but
significant. "We have no intention of originating a translation
in English." "We think it ought not now to be done." One
"did not think it would be done this year nor the next, nor
without the approbation of the denomination." "Who knows,"
exclaims another, "that the forty-nine translators were such very
learned men ?" "Where are their learned works, their critical
and extensive knowledge ?" Cannot brethren "allow the possi-
bility of forty-nine Baptists meeting together and making an
amendment in the version of the Scriptures?" "Shall we hesitate
to assume the name of American because it would look towards
the period of a change in the version?"+ Such remarks could
have been naturally prompted only by a decided inclination towards
the project of a Baptist translation in English. Fourth, the society,
formed with express reference to translations, insisted long and
disputatiously on taking the name of American and Foreign,-
*
Report, page 23.
† Speech of Mr. Cone of New York, President of the American and Foreign
Bible Society.
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
477
epithets which look to the sphere of its operations;—and refused
to adopt the restricting clause "in foreign tongues." Fifth, "The
Christian Review," which we suppose to be as really a leading
work of the American Baptists, as any publication can be among
a people who disclaim the reproach of ever being led, had caught
a rumour about an amended version of the New Testament; and
in the number for March, 1837, repelled the suggestion with ex-
emplary indignation, great vivacity, and some logic.
"We pro-
claim," says that paper, "our sincere and unchanged attachment
to the good old English version made by the order of king James
I. It is our hearts' desire and prayer to God, that this venerable
monument of learning, of truth, of piety, and of unequalled purity
of style and diction, may be perpetuated to the end of time, just
as we now have it. Let no daring genius meditate either change
or amendment in its structure and composition; neither let any
learned impertinence presume to disturb the happy confidence of
the tens of thousands who now regard it as-next to the original
languages-the purest vehicle through which the mind of the
Holy Spirit was ever conveyed to mortals. Under God and with
God, we feel prepared to stand or fall with this consecrated instru-
ment, known and quoted, and familiarized, as the common standard
version."*
But in the number for December following, after the
Philadelphia convention, and when the new version had been
more than hinted at, an article appears on the "principles of Bible
translation ;" and the hope is expressed "that the Baptists in both
countries will be enabled to persevere firmly, yet kindly, in main-
taining the right principles on the subject of translations;" and
the belief is asserted "that these principles must ultimately pre-
vail." So the opposition of the Christian Review to a Baptist
version, melted down into attachment to abstract principles of
translation. Sixth, nature points out the course of our brethren
from where they now stand; for since they make the translation
of a word so awful a matter of conscience, how can they confine
their good work to four hundred millions of the human race, while
the field is the world. It was only by mutual compromise, that
they confined their operations for one year to foreign lands. But
soon the home distribution must commence; indeed at the recent
annual meeting of the society in New York, they resolved to take
it up at once; and then they encounter again the untranslated
Barrigw, and after the Birman precedent of conscientiousness, what
will conscience dictate then? How long will the translating
society be content to translate into one language and transfer into
another?
Whether, then, we may confidently look for the speedy appear-
ance of a Baptist Bible in English, or not, it seems that our brethren
have it in mind; and the full development of their inceptions
towards it is probably to depend on future circumstances.
* Christian Review for March, 1837, p. 21.
478
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
The aspect of these proceedings receives a tinge from the
general views of the Baptist denomination, on the subjects most
nearly related to the design of the new society. We would not
affront our brethren by imputing to them any theological system,
which is common to all their tribes, and which can be represented
by any extant epitome of Christian doctrine. The multiform
views of the denomination are not reducible to any single standard.
The supposition of such a standard, to be applied by ecclesiastical
authority, as a test of doctrine in the churches, is irreconcilable
with their theory of independence. It is doubtless from this cause
that so little effort is expended in their most popular periodicals to
reduce the doctrinal views of the body to uniformity on any points
except baptism. We are struck with the evidence that appears no
less in the publications which hail from that quarter, than in the par-
ticular effects of their dispensation of doctrines and ordinances, that
the primary sensibilities of the Baptist conscience are awakened to
baptism; and that the design of Christian ordinances as means of
grace is liable to be frustrated among them, by exalting the observ-
ance of those ordinances into a term of salvation. We will not insist
here, at length, on the Antinomian character of the practical religion
which is cherished among the less intelligent classes, by the Baptist
administration of truth among them. When we witness, among
the phenomena of conscience, the cases of persons who "feel a
burden on their spirit, and can find no rest until they have taken
up the cross and followed the Saviour into the water, and were
buried with him by baptism," we see what we judge to be the
legitimate effects of a dispensation of religious truth which makes
a particular form of baptism an essential constituent of religion.
While, then, baptism constitutes so much of the Baptists' religion,
the very name of the rite becomes fraught with peculiar solemnity.
The ordinance must not be called, in any language, by an ambigu-
ous name. It is but natural that a supposed error in that name
should be intolerable in a translation of the Bible, and that the
advantages of uniformity of translation throughout the Christian
world should be freely sacrificed to a scrupulous precision in that
simple term. The change of the English version it would there-
fore seem must come. We see no place between India and Ame-
rica, where such views of the name and nature of baptism will
permit a consistent and conscientious Baptist, in this work of trans-
lation, to stop.
We deem it proper, then, here to consider the propriety of the
course of our Baptist brethren as tested by the laws at the present
state of the philological controversy.
A great part of the dispute about the mode of baptism has
turned upon the meaning of the original word; and this is now as
much disputed as ever. No point that favours the Baptist side of
the question is now any nearer being settled than at the beginning.
Our brethren, therefore, by translating the word in their sense, cut
off the unsettled controversy, and abruptly leave the ground. They
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
479
take the thing for granted, which they have utterly failed to prove.
We propose to present here a few such points of the argument as
will place this remarkable instance of begging the question in the
strongest light.
Let it be distinctly observed that we propose here not to settle,
nor to make any effort towards settling, the question in dispute
between the Baptists and the Paedobaptists, but merely to show
that the question is not settled; and that to proceed in translation
as though it were decided, is precluding argument by assuming
the point to be proved.
W
The point assumed is that the Greek word Barrit means only
and always "to dip, to plunge." The only just warrant for trans-
lating the word in that sense, where it relates to the Christian
ordinance of baptism, is, that, in this relation, it can have no other;
and whether it can have any other sense, in such a connexion, is
to be determined by its original signification, and by the circum-
stances of its appropriation as the name of a Christian sacrament.
The position which we are now concerned to support is simply,
that neither the original and classic use of the word, nor its use as
a term of Christian theology, confines it to the sense which our
brethren insist on giving it in their translation. So long as it
admits of doubt, and especially so long as there exists so clear a
certainty, that the word has ever been employed in a variety of
particular senses, it will be unlawful to institute a general princi-
ple of translation which shall restrict it to any one.
Take, of the many instances which might be adduced from the
classic authors, these two from a single writer, which, though not
palpable, are sufficiently so for our purpose. Aristotle speaks of
baptizing hay with honey for diseased elephants. He also speaks
of certain places, beyond the pillars of Hercules, which, when it is
ebb-tide, are not baptized (Barriceolai), but at full-tide are overflowed
(karak\všsodai). This last instance, where the word is put in syno-
nomy with karakλugw, is conclusive. To deluge, to inundate, is surely
a different process from dipping or plunging; in the one case, the
water being applied to the subject, in the other, the subject to the
water. Here is one instance in which Barris undeniably means
something different from taking a body and plunging it down into
water. Can our brethren then quote classic authority to justify
the rendering of the word, in every case, by a term which denotes
only the particular process of dipping a body in water?
But though the classic objection to our brethren's proposed
translation is insurmountable, we propose to lay chief stress on the
cases presented in the Bible. It is there only that we find the word
employed to denote a religious ceremony. And in the New Tes-
tament the word Barrigw, except when used in a figurative sense,
never occurs but with some reference to a religious rite.
The
We do not here follow the word back to its root Banrw.
senses of that term can decide nothing, we think, in regard to the
biblical sense of Banricw, for two reasons. 1st. It is settled by the
480
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
most satisfactory research, that Barra was used in some senses,
which are never ascribed to Barrisw-in one sense, at least; that
of dying, tinging, colouring. 2d. Barro is never employed to
denote the Christian rite of Baptism. If, therefore, we briefly
examine some of the most prominent scriptural uses of the word
Banriw, we shall present the difficulty which our brethren so
promptly dispose of in their plan of translation.
In Mark vii., 3, 4, the Pharisees and all the Jews are said, "when
they come from the market, not to eat except they baptize them-
selves" (Barlowvra Middle voice.) This baptism is defined in the
verse preceding: "Except they wash their hands often” (or care-
fully) they eat not; holding the tradition of the elders." We are
aware that Gale and some others insist that the two cases differ
from each other; that the case mentioned in the third verse, was
the common washing of the hands before every meal; while the
baptism referred to in the fourth verse was a bathing or immersion
of the whole body, on account of the peculiar defilement contract-
ed in the market. The first was only a washing, as they say; the
other was a baptism, and hence, was designated by a term which
signifies more than washing. But baptism is the word used for
that washing in another place-Luke xi., 38. The Pharisee
wondered that Christ had not first baptized himself (Barrioon) before
dinner. As we have no reason to suppose that Christ had been to
the market, his baptism must have been only the customary wash-
ing before every meal. It is further insisted that the hands, though
they were the only parts washed, were immersed in the process,
and hence the baptism was still immersion so far forth. Be it so.
It follows, nevertheless, that the immersion of the hands was taken
for the baptism of the person; and accordingly the language cor-
responded to that idea. "He marvelled that he had not first
baptized himself before dinner." So the complete ceremony of
baptism was performed in this case, at least, by applying water to
a part of the body, or, if you please, a part of the body to water;
and Barrigo therefore does mean something besides the immersion of
the whole body. At least it is far from being settled that it does
Yet we see our brethren engaged in translating the word as
though it were no longer in dispute, among the best judges, whether
the word should not in every case be rendered by a term which
signifies the immersion of the whole body in water. "The Phari-
see marvelled that he had not immersed his whole body in water
before dinner !”
not.
Our brethren will permit us to state our impression of the diffi-
culty they must encounter in translating the word in some of those
instances where it occurs in reference to the religious rite of John
the Baptist and of Christ. Matt. iii., 11. "I indeed baptize you
with water; but there cometh one after me-he shall baptize you
with the Holy Ghost and with fire." So Acts i., 5. For John
truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy
Ghost." In both these passages, the word is used first in a literal
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
481
C
sense and then in a figurative. Whether John immersed or not-
a question which it is not to our purpose here to decide-we doubt
not he made copious use of water, as the reference to the figura-
tive baptism with the Holy Ghost implies. But when we compare
this figure of baptism as employed to denote the future effusions of
the Holy Spirit with the figures employed to describe the events
when they occurred, we meet an insurmountable objection to the
proposed Baptist translation of the word. And our brethren, we
think, must feel it. In no case are the actual presence and opera-
tion of the Holy Spirit represented under the similitude of immer-
sion. The Spirit falls on men, as the Scriptures express it, is shed
down, is poured out on men, but never are men said to be immersed
in it. Baptize" is therefore to be taken here in a wider sense
than "immerse" will bear. Admitting that John did immerse in
water, it is certain that God is never said to immerse in the Holy
Ghost; and that "immerse" cannot, therefore, in these cases, be a
full substitute for "baptize." The idea of baptism conveyed by
these two uses of the term "baptize" cannot be compressed into
the smaller capacity of the word "immerse." As the translation
now stands, if John be supposed to have immersed, there is between
the two ideas of baptism with water, and baptism with the Holy
Ghost, an incongruity demanding a latitude in the sense of "baptize"
of which that word is plainly susceptible, but of which the stricter
term "immerse" will not admit.
Let us suppose a Baptist missionary, with his Baptist Bible in
his hand, conversing with an intelligent and sagacious Brahmin on
the conversion and baptism of the Ethiopian by Philip, Acts viii.,
26. He opens at the prophecy which the man was reading when
Philip joined him, found in the fifty-third of Isaiah; and the first
question propounded by the Brahmin will naturally be, "Of whom
speaketh the prophet this?" the question put by the Ethiopian to
Philip. This question leads them back to the thirteenth verse of
the fifty-second chapter, and there, like Philip, our Baptist brother
begins his exposition. He shows how this Scripture is fulfilled
in Christ. "Behold my servant
shall be exalted,
and be extolled, and be very high (his visage was so marred
more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men).
So shall he sprinkle many nations. He was despised and rejected
of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and we hid
as it were our faces from him; he was despised and we esteemed
him not." The Brahmin is satisfied with the Baptist's explanation
of the prophecy so far as it refers to the humiliation, sufferings, and
exaltation of Christ; but "where," he will say, "is the sprinkling
of many nations? your Scriptures say, Ezek. xxxvi., 25, I will
sprinkle clean water upon you.' Hence I suppose the sprinkling
of many nations is to be a water sprinkling. Please to explain this
sprinkling. Philip preached Jesus to the Ethiopian, beginning, you
say, at this same Scripture; that is, the prophecy commencing at
Is. lii., 13; and when they came to a certain water, the man pro-
31
482
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
posed of his own accord, as your Bible reads, to be immersed, or
plunged all over under water. What part of this Scripture, as
Philip probably explained it, put that sort of baptism into his
mind?" We mistake if our Baptist brother would not, in such
a conversation, find "baptism," a more convenient word than
immersion.
Our intelligent and conscientious Baptist translators must find
serious embarrassment with Rom. vi., 4-"We are buried with
him by baptism into death." We adduce this passage as one in
which, if they apply their principles of translation, they must beg
the question twice. First, by assuming the disputed point, that
baptism is, in this place, itself a figure of the burial and resurrec-
tion of Christ, and second that its figurative fitness depends on the
particular mode of baptism by immersion. Baptism is understood,
on all hands, to denote a profession of faith in Christ, of the hope
of salvation through his death, and of our obligation and purpose
to obey his commands. When we have mortified the sinful affec-
tions by the exercise of faith and hope in Christ crucified, we are
said by the apostle to have crucified the old man, with Christ; and
the burial is that of the body crucified. For why speak of burying,
in the likeness of Christ's burial, what is not dead in the likeness of
his death? Can it be supposed that such a writer as Paul would
construct a figure of speech upon the resemblance between bury-
ing a dead body in the earth, and dipping a living body into water
and taking it immediately out? It surely must require the prepos-
sessions of a Baptist to perceive the resemblance, much more to
justify such a use of it. That the comparison ever entered the
Apostle's mind is far from being clear. We know that many,
chiefly Baptists, hold that it did; and we know too that many of
equal authority think otherwise, and with strong reasons; so that
it is not to be hastily taken for granted, as our brethren propose to
do, that the form of baptism is here referred to as an emblem of
the burial of Christ. But admitting that it is, the allusion is not to
the form alone, but also to the import of the rite. Now the Bap-
tist prefers his word in this place merely to give exclusive promi-
nence to the form, as if that alone were embraced in the figure.
He insists on putting "immersion" for "baptism" here, that he
may concentrate the reader's attention on the act of immersing,
and on the resemblance between the act and the burial of Christ,
as the only reason why the ordinance of baptism is referred to at
all. He puts a living body into the water, and lifts it instantly out,
and calls that act an imitation of laying out the dead body of
Christ in the spacious vault of Joseph of Arimathea! And then,
what a jumble of ideas follows on: Buried with him by immersion
under water, that like as he was raised from the dead, so we (to
keep the figure whole) should be raised up out of the water.
if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death; i. e.
buried under water as he was buried in the tomb; we shall be also
in the likeness of his resurrection; i. e. we shall be raised up out
For
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
483
of the water! We do yet feel a confidence that our brethren will
not risk their reputation as Biblical scholars amidst a nation of criti-
cising and sagacious idolaters, upon so evident a distortion of plain
Scripture and of common sense.
The case of 1 Cor. x., 2, the last we shall here mention, presents
a difficulty which our brethren, as we should apprehend, would
find to be insurmountable. "And were all baptized unto Moses in
the cloud and in the sea."
6
The first two verses of this chapter are generally supposed to be
susceptible of only the interpretation which is, for substance, this :
"To persuade you, brethren, to the greater diligence and persever-
ance in the Christian life, and to secure you the more against a fatal
relapse into idolatry, we would remind you of the awful example of
the Israelites, who all signified their belief in the true God, and in
the divine authority of Moses, by committing themselves to the
protection of the cloud, and marching under the direction of Moses
through the Red Sea. As it is said in Exodus xiv., 31, And the
people feared the Lord, and they believed the Lord and his servant
Moses.' This we suppose to be the true interpretation. The
Israelites' solemn submission to Moses on that occasion, was a
declaration of faith in God, equivalent to that which the Christian
makes in submitting to the ordinance of baptism. The allusion is
to one of the significations of the rite, namely, its import as a
declaration of faith. There is no reference to the actual adminis-
tration of baptism in any form whatever.
""
The Baptist Bible is to read, "And were all immersed unto
Moses in the cloud and in the sea." The doctrine is, that "bap-
tize means only to dip, plunge, immerse; and it must not be taken
metaphorically here, because the baptism must be made out to have
been an actual event. We understand baptism to be mentioned
here, instead of the thing signified by it. Being baptized unto
Moses means, in our view, declaring belief in Moses. But our
brethren insist that the ordinance itself, as well as the faith it sig-
nifies, was there at the Red Sea; and that there was consequently
an immersion. "The cloud," says Dr. Gill, "passed from before
them over their heads and stood behind them, and as it passed it
poured down rain upon them," Ps. lxxvii., 17. Thus with the
cloud successively before and behind them, and the wall of waters
on either hand, and dry ground beneath, they were completely
immersed. This was verily like plunging a person into water!
any
We feel strongly tempted to rally our brethren upon their sup-
posed observance of an ordinance of Christianity, thousands of
years before Christianity was introduced, and some time before
Jewish type of Christianity was established; and upon their sup-
posed administration of that ordinance to two or three millions of
people in the mass, with their cattle too, and all the appendages of
that immense caravan; and upon their supposed immersion in a
cloud, instead of proper water, while all stood on dry ground; and
upon their not being dipped or plunged into the element, but the
484
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
element being brought and placed upon them; and, more than all,
upon the baptism of thousands of children, for which the Baptist
feels such instinctive abhorrence ;-but considering that this is not
a theme nor occasion for trifling, we proceed to state what we
deem the insurmountable obstacle which the passage before us
throws in their way.
66
To put "immersed" in the place of "baptized," and for the
reasons assigned, will make the passage a contradiction of histori-
cal fact. The thing which our brethren mean by their term was
not done. There is no intimation that a sole of the people's feet,
or a hair of their head, was moistened during the whole of that
wonderful transaction. They went through the midst of the sea
upon dry ground." All our impressions of that complete preser-
vation and deliverance lie against the idea of their having been
touched by water on that occasion at all. As to the cloud, there
is no proof of its having been a watery vapour; and its luminous
appearance by night, together with its manifest independence of
atmospheric impulse, gives strong ground of presumption that it
was essentially supernatural. The thunder and rain mentioned
Ps. lxxvii., 17, were more natural and probable concomitants of the
violent reflux of the waters upon the Egyptians, than of the quiet and
safe transit of the Israelites over the dry bed of the sea. Where
then was the immersion? When the Birman reader of the Baptist
Bible comes to his minister for an explanation of this passage, what
explanation can be given that will consist at once with Baptist
exegesis and historical fact?
It is improbable that the jealousy and opposition of an intelligent
idolater will suffer such palpable discrepancies to pass unobserved.
The Bible is ever to encounter the depraved ingenuity and learning
of the nations to whom it is sent; its entire structure is to be
repeatedly and sagaciously scrutinized, and every word disputed,
which admits of plausible contradiction. Especially so, since the
heathen nations are to receive the gospel in connexion with those
facilities for general learning, which now exist in unprecedented
fulness, and which have ever kept science far in advance of reli-
gion, throughout the civilized world. Christianity will unmake
idolaters faster than it will make Christians. It will discredit idol-
atry; it will persuade many to abandon their false religion before
they are prepared to adopt the true. Hundreds will throw off the
yoke of idols before they will take up the yoke of Christ; and, free
from the bondage of superstition on the one hand, and the restraints.
of true religion on the other, they will revel in the intellectual licen-
tiousness of infidelity. Such men are the most formidable enemies
of the Bible in heathen countries. The missionary encounters in
them an obstacle, the most discouraging, perhaps, that hinders his
success. Such men will abound in Birmah; and it behooves
Christians to shun the needless exposure of their lively oracles to
the cavils of these industrious and ingenious enemies.
We now respectfully invite the attention of our brethren of the
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
485
new society to the unanimous concessions of their own writers, as
to the meaning of the word βαπτίζω. And as these concessions
relate equally to this word and to Barrio, its reputed root, we shall
here take the two words together. We shall regard them as syno-
nymous, although eminent scholars insist, and we think with some
good reasons, upon a difference between them. Especially since
the Baptists themselves insist on the synonymy, we are willing to
yield them all the advantage of the concession. In the following
remarks, therefore, we treat the two words alike.
Gale, in the midst of his quotations from classic authors
(Reflections on Wall, p. 104), after adducing the most decisive
passages, says: There are other passages somewhat akin to
these, which seem, however, to leave a little more room for the
objections of our adversaries; where, though the word is used, it
appears, by other circumstances, that the writer could not mean
dip by it." He then quotes Aristophanes, representing an old
comedian of Athens as practising the Lydian music, and making
plays and (Barтoμevos Barpaxcios) smearing himself with tawny paints.
He quotes also Aristotle, saying of a certain colouring substance,
that when it is pressed (Barra) it stains the hand. He represents
these uses of the word as metaphorical. But how can a man of
sense talk so? To smear or tincture the mind as Marcus Anto-
ninus says thoughts do, and to stain the character, are metaphors.
But to smear the face, or stain the hand, is as literal a form of
speech as can be employed. To stain may be a secondary or
derivative sense of Barw, but not a metaphorical. To understand
signified at first merely to stand under; and, as a term of litera-
ture, denoted the translation or explanation of a book placed line
for line under the text. By the natural progress of language, it
came to be said that perceiving the nature or the meaning of a
thing was the understanding of it. And now, if to speak of under-
standing a matter, is to speak in a metaphor, there is nothing but
metaphor in any language; for except technical terms, and a few
words of very uncommon use, scarcely any words in any lan-
guage retain their original signification. To stain, then, is one of
the senses of Banтw, and by Gale's own showing, is used in a case
where "the writer could not mean dip by it." The word, there-
fore, does not always mean to dip.
The same writer quotes from Aristotle, respecting the ground
beyond the pillars of Hercules, which was not baptized at ebb-
tide; and on that use of Barrica he accords the following admis-
sion, p. 117. "The word, perhaps, does not so necessarily express
the action of putting under water, as, in general, a thing's being
in that condition, no matter how it comes so; whether it is put
into the water, or the water comes over it; though indeed to put
into the water is the most natural way, and the most common, and
is, therefore, usually and pretty constantly, but it may be not neces-
sarily implied." The word, then, may mean the application of
water to the subject, and not of the subject to the water.
486
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
Again, page 137, he says that in the Apocrypha and the Septua-
gint Old Testament, the words Carr and Barris occur in but
twenty-five places; in eighteen of which they undoubtedly mean
to dip. Well: and what do they mean in the other seven? On
Lev. xiv., 6, where a living bird, a bunch of cedar wood and hys-
sop and scarlet, were to be dipped in the blood of a single bird that
was slain, he remarks: "We readily grant there may be such cir-
cumstances, in some cases, which necessarily and manifestly show
the thing spoken of is not said to be dipped all over." P. 138.
Put together now these three concessions, and they are enough.
First, the word does not always mean to dip or plunge, but may
signify actions of another kind entirely. Second, it does not
necessarily imply that the thing or person baptized is applied to
the water, but the water may be brought up and put upon the sub-
ject. Third, it does not in all cases imply that the thing baptized
is entirely covered with the water, but it may denote a partial
application. That is to say, the words permit the form to be other
than dipping, they permit the water to be applied to the subject,
and in less quantity than to cover the body. So says a strenuous
Baptist; and he concedes all that the Pædobaptists contend for;
enough surely to give his brethren no small trouble in their work
of translation.
This writer also found great embarrassment from the use of
Barro by the Septuagint in Daniel iv., 33 [30] and v., 21. He is
the only Baptist whom we recollect to have set himself in earnest
to conquer this difficulty; and after long and bitter complaint
against the license of the Greek translators, the substance of his
evasion is this: page 142, &c. As the word is acknowledged on
all hands to mean primarily and generally to dip, there can be no
difficulty in determining its meaning in this place. For, since the
Greek word commonly and properly signifies to dip, and is put for
a Chaldee one of undoubtedly the same meaning, it must be very
natural to judge that to be the true sense, and what the writer here
intended. And further, as a part of Nebuchadnezzar's dominions.
lay in Africa where the dews were remarkably copious, he must,
by lying out all night like a beast, have become drenched with
dew; and the word Barr is used to show that he became very
wet; as wet as though he had been dipped!"
66
We refer our readers to the six pages which Gale devotes to
this quibble, as a curiosity; and we do it with the greater empha-
sis, from the high authority of that writer among the Baptist
denomination. He was undoubtedly a man of talents and learn-
ing. The work to which we refer won for its author a high repu-
tation among the English dissenters of his day, and gained him
great and merited influence among his own people. But we can
feel little respect for an opinion which rests for any part of its
support on such artifice and systematic cavil as is pursued in that
book.
In short, the current qualification of the Baptist forms of speech,
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
487
in relation to the meaning of the words in question, concedes all
that our argument requires. Gale qualifies his general assertions
by saying "immersion is its proper and genuine sense. Constan-
tine almost always renders it so." "In eighteen places out of
twenty-five in the Septuagint, Old Testament and the Apocrypha,"
says he for substance, "it means to dip, and in the other seven it
does not, to say the least, mean to sprinkle or to pour." The
Christian Review for March, 1837, says, "While the English lan-
guage was yet in its crude elements, to baptize meant ordinarily to
immerse or dip." The report of the board of managers of the
American and Foreign Bible Society says, "When the Anglicized
Greek word baptize was admitted into the English language through
the influence of the Roman hierarchy, it was then almost univer-
sally understood to mean immersion." The same report appeals
"to profane Greek authors; to Josephus and Philo among Jewish
writers, to all the lexicographers, to the Septuagint, and to the
most learned of all the commentators, all of whom admit the pri-
mary rendering which we give to the word Banritw."-Pp. 26, 27.
The Christian Review reiterates Dr. Owen's concession," that the
original and natural signification of the word is to dip, to plunge,
to dye." We respectfully ask the writer of the article from which
the above is quoted, whether his eye ever fell on Dr. Owen's
assertion "that no one instance can be given in Scripture in which
the word baptize does necessarily signify either to dip or to plunge."
The same work quotes also Dr. Hammond's opinion, " that it signi-
fies not only the washing of the whole body,
but washing
any part, as the hands, by immersion in water." It appeals
also to Dr. George Campbell, who "maintains that immerse is very
nearly equivalent to baptize in the language of the gospels.'
"The pious and learned men," says the same work, "whose
authority Booth has so copiously adduced in his Paedobaptism
Examined, could see only immersion in the primary signification
of the word." "We are of opinion" (we quote still from the
Christian Review) "that the idea contained in the word baptism,
as used in the New Testament, cannot be adequately expressed by
any single word in our language. It means more than immersion."
"We are prepared to show that all versions, in languages using
the Roman character, were made with the express understanding,
that Barrio was transferred and not translated, because there did
not appear to be, in those languages, words of an import fully
equivalent." Carson, an eminent writer on baptism, acknowledges,
that in adopting immersion as the only meaning of baptism, he has
the lexicographers and commentators against him.
""
As we wish to judge our brethren out of their own mouths, we
adduce only such expressions as abound in Baptist writers; and
we have multiplied our quotations to show how freely they admit
the thing we claim that Barrigw does not exclusively signify
immerse, and that immerse, dip, plunge, no one, nor all of them,
in the English language, nor any word corresponding to them
488
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
in other languages, would be full equivalent for baptize. When
the question recurs, then, on the meaning of the word as the
name of the Christian sacrament, and appeal is had to the ori-
ginal and general senses of the term, what is the result? Is the
question decided in their favour? Their proposed translation is
simply an argument for their mode of baptism derived from the
meaning of the term. Is the argument sound? Is its conclusion
so far beyond dispute, that it may be incorporated in the translated
text of inspiration, and made a part of the true and infallible word
of God? Mark the logic. The Baptist admits that the word
baptize means sometimes to put water on a part of the body, and
then translates it by a word which signifies to put the whole body
into water, and adds his assertion that this is the only rendering
which the word will bear! We hazard nothing by insisting that
the question is yet unsettled in their favour; that the argument
against their doctrine remains in all its force, and that they hold
those views of the sense of that word, as expressed in their trans-
lation, against their own free and candid concessions, and “the
almost universal suffrage of what is called the Christian world."
We meet our brethren, therefore, at this point, with these twe
dissuasives against their course:
First, they assume the point which they have failed to prove.
Their sole reason for changing the name of baptism is that their
interpretation of the name has been called in question; and they
must give it a new name because they cannot silence the objec-
tions to their peculiar use of the old. If baptize had only one
meaning and that were undisputed, the word would suit them still.
But they find their opinion disputed, refuse to argue the point any
longer, and proceed to cut the Gordian knot which they could not
untie. They leave us in full and quiet possession of all the ground
we fought for, and quit the field in a manner not clearly compa-
tible with dignity and self-respect. They go on to translate the
word according to their views, while they leave their recorded
testimony in favour of ours. For let it be remembered that the
Paedobaptist doctrine on the philological point is simply that the
word will not, in all cases, bear their sense. We do not insist that
it means only to sprinkle. We do not contend that baptism may
not be performed by immersion; but that it is not confined, by the
meaning of the word, to immersion. This is the point in contro-
versy; and our charge against our brethren is, that they first con-
cede this point, and then assume the opposite.
Second, they propose to translate the Bible on principles which
their own reasonings do not uphold. It is certainly incumbent on
the Baptist to prove, or, at least, to believe himself, that baptize
signifies only immerse, and neither more nor less, before he pro-
ceeds to put it, in every instance, out of the Bible, and put immerse
in its place. But this he neither proves to others, nor believes
himself. We hear him say, "that immerse, dip, plunge, no one
of those, in the English language, nor any words corresponding to
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
489
them in other languages, can be a full equivalent for baptize."
The most he claims is that these words express the primary, ori-
ginal, ordinary, general sense of the term. What then is he to
do? The word must be translated, but how? On his own prin-
ciples, what but a circumlocution will represent its meaning fairly.
He must have a "faithful version" of the word; but he has no
terms to make it of, as he himself admits, and still he persists in
translating the word, though he strips it, in the process, of a portion
of its sacred import.
After all, when we consider that baptize has been appropriated,
and that any other word would soon become equally so, the change
of terms seems unnecessary and unavailing ;-unnecessary, because
this term may serve the Baptist as well as any other; unavailing,
because the Paedobaptist can serve himself as well with any
other as with this. What forbids the Baptist's associating invaria-
bly with the word baptize the sense which he thinks it ought exclu-
sively to retain? And suppose the change effected, in all the
versions of every sect, would not the new name convey the same
idea to the Paedobaptist mind as the old? The name would not
define the rite, but the rite the name. Immerse, were that the sub-
stitute, would be taken from the common vocabulary, and inserted
on the list of theological terms. No one would go to the classical
dictionary to find its technical meaning. We should go to theolo-
gical books for that; and when the Baptist has chosen his terms,
the world will employ them as they do the terms now in use.
If
baptize means immerse, then immerse means baptize, and both will
unchangeably denote the ceremony "of washing with water in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." We should no more
speak of the Christian immersion in the ordinary sense of immer-
sion, than we now speak of a baptism of hands and garments that
are cleansed by washing, or of a pastor of sheep and cattle.
We tender to our brethren the fraternal admonition, that they
will never satisfy any large portion of the intelligent Christian
world with their reasons for shaping a religious ceremony, having
its specific character and design, by the original and general sense
of the term chosen to denote it. We wonder that such signal and
solemn stress should have been laid on the sense of this word, as
determining the form of the institution of which it is the name. How
has it happened that this zeal for circumstantials has not seized on the
Lord's Supper, and wrought the form and time and circumstances.
of its observance into minute conformity to this name of the insti-
tution? Do our brethren test the validity of their eldership by
the primary and general signification of the name? How do they
render on in their new translation so as to retain exclusively
the original and primary sense of the word? And STICKOTOS and
πрεaßUTEрos? How do they translate certain names of weights and
measures? "No man lighteth a candle and putteth it under a
bushel." Have λuxvos and podios precise synonymes in Birmese? If
not, how can they translate them? We understand the Baptist
490
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
translators have borrowed many words from various languages to
express their scriptural ideas in the Birman language; and parti-
cularly, that they have transferred the word evayyov entire into
their version!! The Greeks translate by Tεpireμvw; the Latins
by circumcisio; we, by circumcision; all the translations convey-
ing, in the primary senses, ideas which have no connexion with
the Hebrew original. Perhaps the Baptist translators, in their
"faithfulness,” are giving us the broad Birmese and English of the
rite, and making the name a literal definition of the ceremony.
What but this are they proposing to do in relation to baptism?
Why, in that particular instance, do they cling with such pertina-
city to a particular and primary sense of the word? Is baptizing
a person in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and
with sole reference to a spiritual cleansing, synonymous with sink-
ing a stone in the pool, or a ship in the sea, or plunging one's self,
for health, pleasure, or personal cleanliness, into a bath? Does
the resemblance require both to be called by the same name? and
must the name express, in either application, only those ideas which
are common to both? What would such principles make of the
church, its pastors, its preaching and its other sacrament? Will
the brethren tell us how, in their view, the Lord's Supper can be
valid, observed in the morning or any time of day before dinner;
and with the least assignable quantity of the elements, instead of
the full meal which the name implies? Our respected brethren
must perceive some weight in the consideration that they are
translating the Bible on principles which they themselves acknow-
ledge to have but a partial support; and to proceed on such
grounds to alter the received version of the holy Scriptures, or to
disturb the long settled agreement of protestant Christendom in
the principles of translation, would be an act of presumption, the
discredit of which they must be reluctant to incur.
Having extended our remarks on this branch of our subject to
an unexpected length, we have but small space for observations
on the sectarian policy of the Baptist translation.
Our remarks on this point are prompted by sincere desire for
the prosperity of that portion of the Baptist denomination who
hold what we receive as the fundamental doctrines of the gospel.
We seek their unity, purity, and success. We make common
cause with them, and should feel their adversity to be our own
affliction.
The recent movements of the Baptists in this matter threaten
the brethren concerned in them with mutual alienation and divi-
sion. They are now under one of the very common temptations
which beset active and conscientious Christians. They propose a
measure tending to separate, not the good from the bad, the pure
and the living from the worldly and dead; but brethren of equal
purity and conscientiousness from one another. The measure, in
its present shape, had its origin in the Baptist minority of the
board of managers of the American Bible Society. Some of these
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
491
members of the board seem to have encouraged the Baptist mis-
sionaries abroad to change the Biblical terms relating to baptism,
with the promise that their friends in this country would stand by
them. The translations made thus in advance of the general
action of the American Baptists in relation to them, presented a
strong and insinuating appeal to the denomination for vindication
and patronage: and the leaders in the board, from whom the mis-
sionaries seek counsel and direction, were fully committed in their
favour. Many copies of the New Testament had been printed.
The translations had cost great labour, and the preparations for
printing them great expense. It was not, therefore, in its naked
form that the question of a Baptist translation came up, but in the
insidious garb of a proposition to support translations already in
existence, and to sanction the arduous and self-denying labour
which their devoted missionaries had already performed. A great
work had been done, and the question before the people was, sustain,
or not sustain. The zealous response of the Baptists throughout the
land to this proposition, expressed only the instinctive repugnance
of human nature to anything like retraction. The translations
must go, or the mortified missionaries and their friends must retrace
their steps and return to the old ways. A part of the brethren
saw and contemplated the scheme of translation, apart from its
disguise; and maintained the caution which is the parent of safety.
Another part were strenuous to prosecute and finish what they
had begun. We see, then, the deliberate and vigilant wisdom of
one party pausing before the immovable objections to a sectarian
version of the holy Scriptures in any language; and the pledged,
impassioned zeal of the other, pressing with more success than
consideration towards its mark. The tendency of such a state
of things towards a final division is inevitable. That the whole
power of the denomination will go for the translations we have
notorious reason to doubt; that the brethren should relinquish their
purpose, though by no means impossible, is opposed by the pre-
ference of human nature for its own way; and hence we perceive
causes at work here, more powerful than have sufficed in other
cases, to rend the bonds of brotherhood, and alienate those who
once were, and ought ever to be friends.
The serious bearing of a sound economy upon the project is
worthy of consideration. Whether regarded in their particular
circumstances as a sect, or in their office as stewards of the Lord
in common with all the churches, they have no means to squander.
As a denomination, they have peculiar reason to husband their
resources. The number of their missionaries in the field, and the
expense of sustaining them, bear a larger proportion to their
available means than any other denomination in the land. They
have peculiar need of an educated ministry, but no endowed insti-
tutions to assist in creating one. Their zeal for a new enterprise
is gathering upon their Bible society an amount of patronage
which must diminish their appropriations to other objects; and
492
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
even should they sustain their other institutions with undiminished.
liberality, they owe it to themselves, as a sect, to bestow their
means on objects more appropriately Baptist. The work of Bible
translation and distribution will be an exhausting process; the
same amount of work done must cost them more, and avail them
in the end less, than if done by the American Bible Society.
By a Baptist version of the Scriptures they will create a new
distinction between them and their brethren, which will be greatly
to their own disadvantage. When two sects of professed Chris-
tians cease to acknowledge a common standard of appeal in
religious controversy, they have nothing in common; their fra-
ternal interest in each other loses its foundation, and the last cord
that held them in mutual fellowship is broken. This remark has
full illustration in the case of Catholics and Protestants. Now
after long acquiescence in the received translation of the Bible,
the benefits of which they have shared in a measure which them-
selves acknowledge to be fully equal to that of their brethren, the
Baptists raise complaints against the common version, and put
forth a version of their own. The reproach of this fundamental
disagreement will, in all candid views, attach to the instigators of
it. The rupture will require a stronger apology to justify it before
the world, not to say before God;-stronger than they have yet
presented, or we can invent in their behalf. Either the substituted
version is fully equivalent to the one displaced, or it is not. If it
is, why was the change necessary, if not, how is it justifiable?
With no pertinent and conclusive answer to this natural appeal,
our brethren will stand apart from their fellow believers, in a
spirit and position, which may be more easily accounted for by
the infirmities of our fallen nature, than vindicated by the dictates
of truth and enlightened conscience.
We respectfully appeal to our Baptist brethren, whether the
spirit and the occasion of their rupture with the American Bible
Society be such as, in their own view, ought to command the
approbation of the Christian world. That institution was not
formed on a compromise of religious opinions. No man was
required to renounce his peculiar views of truth as a condition of
membership. There was a fair understanding that the different
denominations composing the society should stand on common
ground in regard to the copies of the Scriptures they would
circulate. Hence they excluded "note and comment," and in the
same spirit, confined themselves either to the common English
version, or to such versions as conform to that in the principles of
their translation, "at least so far as that all the religious denomina-
tions represented in the society can consistently use and circulate
said versions in their several schools and communities." And what
other ground could such an institution assume? We press this ques-
tion upon brethren, and seriously demand an answer. Yet in the
face of this vital principle of the society, our Baptist friends obtrude
the proposal that their sectarian Bible be taken up and circulated
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
493
་།
by the society at the expense, not of the money of the institution
merely, which were a small matter, but of the cherished and known
preferences of their brethren of the other persuasions! Hav-
ing made a version differing, in their own estimation, as widely
from the common version, as the Baptist denomination differs
from the others, they demand for it the patronage of all the other
denominations concerned in the society. And they reproach their
brethren with sectarianism for withholding it! The Baptist
minority in the board of the American Bible Society, in their pro-
test, gravely charge the society's versions with "purposely withhold-
ing the truth by non-translation or ambiguous terms, for the sake
of accommodating Paedobaptists;" and they charge the socie-
ty's measure with "withholding from the heathen the word of life.
and suffering them to hasten to the retributions of eternity, with-
out the knowledge of God and the way of salvation, simply because
the volume it is proposed to give, contains the translation of a
single term to which only Paedobaptists object,"-in other and
proper words, is a Baptist bible. To which only Paedobaptists
object! A trifling objection truly; made by a proportion of three
to one in the board of managers, and of more than twenty to one
of all the patrons of the institution. And then the " withholding:"-
A single Baptist pertinaciously thrusts his dogma into the path of
twenty conscientious and devoted Bible distributors, and charges
them with withholding the word of life from the perishing heathen,
because they prefer not to distribute his "note and comment
the Bible. When an intelligent Christian public shall pass delibe-
rate judgment on such a course our respected brethren will not
think it unreasonable, if they fall under its pointed censure.
on
It may be as unnecessary as ungrateful to our brethren to be
admonished that their zeal in this matter has overshot its mark. If
an enemy of theirs had consulted the surest method of wasting the
denomination throughout the world, he could have chosen no one
more effectual than the step which they, of their own accord, are
now taking. Not content with explaining the received text of the
law and the testimony touching their peculiar practice, they risk
the reproach of shaping the text itself to their views. Such is the
aspect of their proceeding before the Christian world. So it will
be understood and received. They resolve to have no longer any
standard of ultimate appeal in common with the other protestant
sects, and making for themselves a Bible as peculiar as their creed,
propose an appeal to that as an end of all strife. And then what
have they gained? Have they a better weapon for either self-
defence or conquest? They before had the important advantage,
which at times they triumphantly recognise, of a translation made
by Paedobaptists, which, by its accidental and undesigned "faith-
fulness" to truth, has so lively a Baptist tinge, " that any reader
whose mind is not warped by prepossession, discovers nothing but
immersion for baptism in the New Testament;" a translation
"which any person, understanding its language, and ignorant of
494
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
***
its origin, would presume to have been made by Baptists, and
caused to speak favourably to their side.' And what, in the
name of the fiercest sectarianism, would they have more? Must
they be so straight as to bend the other way? Will they forego
the choice advantage of a Baptist Bible made by Paedobaptists,
for the low pleasure of making one of their own? We would
cordially bid them God speed in their enterprise, but for the pain-
ful persuasion that they war against their own life, and the more
they succeed, the more they will fail.
We are aware that most of our remarks on the sectarian policy
of our brethren in their late proceedings appeal to a standard for
which they feel, perhaps, little respect; the standard of the
enlightened sentiment of the Christian public; and we may be met
with the reply, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hear-
ken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. But those of our
brethren who have reached the point where they presume on the
exclusive patronage of the Head of the church, despise the appro-
bation and courtesies of the Christian brotherhood, and feel them-
selves above fraternal counsels, are past recovery; and their
future course is but too faithfully traced in the history of fanati-
cism in other days. We hope better things of them, though we
thus speak. Not very remote from the line of history through
which the Baptists trace their origin, stand the records of instruc-
tive events, bearing strong resemblance to things which seem now
to be coming to pass. The light of the past sometimes reveals
the future. In some awakening enterprise of a large and prosper-
ous sect, the most ardent members go too fast and too far for the
rest, and the bonds of union in the body become tensely drawn.
All parties, being conscientiously committed, must hold their
ground; and after long commotion, there comes forth from the
agitated mass a select and close communion of the reformed.
Upon its straitened faith, its expurgated ceremonies, or perhaps its
"faithful version" the little band concentrates and exhausts its
burning zeal; until, through an exclusive and impassioned bigotry
for its distinctive article, it lets go the essential truth of the gospel
and dies. The whole field of ecclesiastical history is strewed with
the ashes of such dead, and no part more thickly than the quarter
occupied by the Baptist denomination.
Our brethren will doubtless notice that we join the project of an
English version with that of a translation for Birmah. We have
taken them together, because they cannot, either in theory or prac-
tice, be kept apart. If the Baptists can consent to use the common
English version in this country, while they make such conscientious
ado about the foreign versions corresponding to that in the princi-
ples of their translation, we shall be forced to entertain a disrespect
for their consistency which we cannot now think them capable of
deserving. The objections against a Baptist version in English lie
Christian Review, No. 5, pp. 38, 39.
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
495
with all their force against a Baptist version in Birmese. We hold
that the world, to use a homely simile, is a free country. Do the
brethren dream that, of all the powerful denominations of Christen-
dom, none but the Baptists are to engage in giving the Bible
to the "four hundred millions" whom they so modestly call their
proper beneficiaries? And when two or more versions come out
in Birmah or in China, what will hinder their being even far more
mischievous than conflicting translations would be here?
To our own minds, then, the points embraced under this head
seem abundantly clear: The Baptists consider themselves as now
entering upon the work of giving a Baptist Bible to all the world;
and in this work is, of course, embraced the project of an altered
version in English; they are prompted to this step solely by their
zeal for the form of one of the external rites of Christianity; they
beg the whole philological question, and incur irreparable injury to
themselves.
The few remaining thoughts we have to offer are suggested
by the presumption of our brethren on the speedy prevalence of
Baptist principles and practice throughout the world.
We judge this presumption to be general among them from such
demonstrations as these: They speak of their obligation and pur-
pose to give the Holy Scriptures" faithfully translated" to all the
world. They express entire confidence that all Christians will
see eye to eye" on the subject of baptism. Their measures are
professedly prospective of the rapid progress and universal preva-
lence of Baptist influence in both Christian and pagan lands, and
they speak of preparing a Bible for the "four hundred millions,"
as though the whole work rested, under God, on Baptist shoulders.
No one can read the declarations of their zeal and purposes, with-
out perceiving the deep tinge which this presumption gives to all
their expectations of the progress of religion.
This circumstance, above all others, proves the strength and
solemnity of their denominational partialities, and the remarkable
ascendency of sectarian preferences over the Baptist mind. Papists
and Baptists are, so far as we know, the only existing sects who
arrogate for their peculiar dogmas the dignities and destinies of
"the truth;" and who mean, when they speak of the triumph of
the truth, the conversion of all the world to their views. We are
struck with the deep coloured ground work of the following picture
from the report of the board of managers of the American and
Foreign Bible Society, pp. 50, 51. "Your board of managers are
deeply afflicted when they reflect, that although the Bible and parts
of the Bible have been faithfully translated;
and every
facility is possessed to distribute thousands of copies every year
among
the inhabitants of India; . . . . . . and although it is indis-
putable that Baptist missionaries have translated the Bible into the
languages spoken by more than one half the nations of the earth,*
* Do not Paedobaptists dispute the faithfulness of the translations, and do not the
Baptists' own concessions dispute it?
496
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
and the faithfulness of their versions has never been disputed;
yet the Calcutta, the British and Foreign, and the American Bible
Societies have peremptorily refused to aid the Baptists in giving to
those benighted nations the unadulterated revelation of the eternal
God; without which, as every reflecting mind must be aware,
thousands will be annually sacrificed upon the altars of idolatry,
and sink for ever to the abodes of despair."
The unadulterated revelation of the eternal God is the Baptist
Bible. Do the brethren mean to say that versions corresponding
to the received English translation cannot enlighten those benight-
ed nations? Probably not, upon reflection; but we give their words.
Perhaps they mean to convey the idea that theirs are the only
translations existing in the languages spoken by those nations,
and the alternative is, to give them a Baptist translation, or leave
them to perish. But who created this alternative? Suppose the
converse of the case they state. The Paedobaptist majorities
in those societies have conscientious objections against circulating,
by their own agency, the peculiar views of the Baptists; even
though the vehicle for circulating those opinions were to be what
they call literal and faithful versions of the Bible. If now in the
providence of God the Baptists stand in the Thermopylae of those
"four hundred millions" of heathen, with their translations of the
Bible, and refuse to give us access except on the submission of our
consciences to theirs, who are they that deprive the heathen of the
Word of God; that stand in the gate of the vineyard neither
entering in themselves, nor suffering those who were entering to
go in? If then through the delay occasioned by this controversy,
thousands of heathen should perish in darkness, would not all
candour assign, at least, a moiety of the blame to our brethren
who so freely roll the whole upon others?
6
Further: "Upon their (these societies') conduct in this case, we
pause not now to animadvert. To their own master they must
stand or fall, in that day when every man shall be judged
according to his works. Some years since,' say the Baptist
missionaries in Bengal, three of the Paedobaptist brethren,
unknown to us, though on the most friendly terms with us, wrote
to the Bible Society in England, requesting them not to give
assistance to any Indian versions in which the word' baptize' was
translated immerse.' NONE OF THESE MEN LIVED TO SEE THE
REPLY TO THEIR APPLICATION."
Solemn warning! The deed and the curse of Korah! And
not a hair of the head of a Baptist hurt by the visitation!
How evident and awful a judgment, sent on men who sought
to keep back a part of the Word of God from the perishing
heathen! It is only here and there, indeed, that this large vein
of Baptist fanaticism comes so near the surface; but such lan-
guage shows that it belongs to the system. The italics and
capitals above given are all their own.
"The board of managers are satisfied that the providence of
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
497
God has made it the duty of Baptists to give to the whole world a
faithful translation of the whole Bible; and that, as a denomina-
tion, we cannot decline this labour of love, and yet remain guiltless.
In closing their report, the board of the American and Foreign
Bible Society
desire to feel, that if to promote the glory
of God and the salvation of men, be indeed the highest aim and
paramount duty of every Christian, then does no common responsi-
bility devolve on this society."
No responsibility, that is to say, which is common to all denomi-
nations; but a peculiar one devolved, by the providence of God,
upon the Baptists to give the whole world a faithful translation of
the whole Bible. In other words, the Baptists are under a most
awful responsibility to give the whole world the Baptist meaning
οἱ βαπτίζω.
"Let every talent be brought into solemn requisition, and let us
resolve, in the strength of the Lord, never to cease from our work,
until all nations read in their own tongue, the wonderful works of
God." That is, until all nations shall have translations in which
the name of baptism shall not be a foreign word. The world
will never be enlightened until the ordinance of baptism is
This is the
called no longer in the Bible by a Greek name.
evident drift of these quotations. We might quote from numerous
writers and speakers to the same effect; but the specimens given
above will suffice.
Now that our Baptist brethren, as a denomination, are to be the
sole instrument of these beneficent achievements, is not to us a
very clear and direct matter of divine revelation. Their assurance
must rest largely on the probable tendency and progress of reli-
gious events in the world; and we proffer to them a few of the
suggestions of history, as hints of Divine Providence on this sub-
ject.
One point in history on which the Baptists vehemently insist, is
Some
that the apostles and first Christians were Baptists to a man.
assert with strong assurance, that in the days of Paul, the Baptists
were the sect everywhere spoken against, as the steadfast friends of
There
the voluntary principle, in whatever pertains to religion.*
was an early division of Christians into different and contending sects,
the heads of which appear to have been strenuous on some points
connected with baptism.† But we presume our brethren do not
assign to their primitive ancestry a place among those who received
Paul's genuine Paedobaptist rebuke on that occasion, and who
were admonished that circumstantial differences about baptism,
was no good ground of mutual dissension. Nothing is heard of
these Baptist divisions, however, from that time to the reformation.
The line of their history soon after its commencement runs under
ground, as the river Jordan, in whose waters those first Baptists
* See speech of Rev. S. H. Cone, at the opening of business in the American and
Foreign Bible Society, 1837.
1 Cor. i, 11-17.
32
498
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
were made, is said to do near its source. There are hints, indeed,
of immersion during the dark ages, as in one instance, when the
pope led a splendid procession at a baptismal celebration chanting
the words, "As the hart panteth for the water brooks;" on which
occasion several children were immersed three times each.* On
the emersion of their history into public view at the reformation,
behold almost the whole nominal Christian world had imbibed the
Paedobaptist errors; and of those who bore the Baptist name, or
its cognate Anabaptist, there were at least six sorts as different
from each other as can well be imagined. One sort placed the
essence of baptism in the virtue of the person baptized; a second,
in the form of words; a third, in the virtue of the administrator;
a fourth, in the consent of the subject; a fifth, in dipping; and a
sixth, in the profession of faith and dipping united. This last
division of the Anabaptists were the true Baptists, from whom
sprang all the subsequent modifications of the sect. From that
time to the present, while the Baptists have had a respectable
representation in the aggregate piety of the Christian church, the
modifications of the sect have multiplied indefinitely. Indeed the
question of baptism has thrown the Christian world into two divi-
sions, in both which are to be found corresponding diversities of
doctrine and order almost without end. It sounds strangely there-
fore to our ears, to hear Baptists, as such, assume to be the exclu-
sive proprietors of truth. Who are the Baptists? By what
comprehensive term can we describe them? What system of
either doctrine or practice do they hold in common? They seem
to us the least adapted as a community to constitute the one spirit-
ual body, fitly joined together and compacted by that which every
joint supplieth. That they, as Baptists, are the true and only
church whose destinies are celebrated by prophetic inspiration, and
to whose doctrine and practice, as truth advances, all Christendom
is to conform, our brethren themselves in the calm intervals of their
baptistic raptures do not pretend. The history of baptism suggests
to our minds almost any other thing as strongly, as the idea of
pecuilar purity of Christian principle connected with immersion.
And yet this very connexion of immersion with truth and holiness
is the basis of Baptist exultation and confidence. Their sanguine
expectations of the future spread of Baptist principles would lead
any one, who did not know better, to suppose that every candid
and humble inquirer after truth and duty found the binding neces-
sity of immersion too obvious to be mistaken; that every degree
of spiritual improvement in the church was accompanied with a
scrupulous submission to dipping; that in every revival of religion,
each sweep of the gospel net drew its entire contents into the
water; and that all the brightest rays of biblical learning and
sound philology converged towards the Baptist contraction of
Benedict's History of Baptists, i., 69. Robinson's History of Baptism, p. 65.
† Robinson's Hist. Bap., p. 453.
Benedict, i., 94.
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBle.
499
βαπτίζω. But our eyes have not yet discovered such a tendency of
things; and if our brethren deliberately believe it exists, their con-
victions can have little to do with either argument or fact.
•
In connexion with this presumption of our brethren that their
principles are to be the principles of Christendom, we cannot but
notice a similar feature of their state of mind in regard to other
points. It would be matter of amusement, were it not a case of
so painful exposure to the danger of self-deception, to hear our
brethren pronounce so confident judgment on the comparative
merits of their versions of the Scriptures. "Our principle,"
exclaims the president of the American and Foreign Bible Society,
"is the true one. . . That the Bible may be an intelligible guide,
it must be faithfully translated by sound philologists, not by selfish
sectarians." In other words, it must be translated by Baptists;
par eminence, the sound philologists of Christendom, the pure,
unbiassed, unsectarian sect of all the world! Our brethren must
consider that the world will take these expressions in their proper
connexion with the acts of those who make them, and will not
forget that the Baptists, while thus declaiming about the necessity
of a sound philology in translating the Bible, are making transla-
tions professedly for all the world.
L
Since the preceding part of this article was prepared, we have
received a paper containing the resignation of four Baptist mem-
bers of the board of managers of the American Bible Society,
together with a brief exposition of their reasons for resigning their
places. It is a dignified document, and professedly dispassionate,
and will be good authority for the principles it holds and the state-
ments it makes in the name of the denomination. We apprise
those brethren that they fail in presenting a plausible vindication
of their course by complaining, as they do, that they have not stood
on equal ground with the other denominations represented in the
board. They plead for indulgence in regard to their version, on
the ground that the society has patronized Paedobaptist transla-
tions, and without molestation from the Baptists. We have
good authority for asserting that this is not a fact. The secretary
of the American Bible Society has publicly denied that the society
has ever intentionally patronized a single denominational transla-
tion. "A small edition," says the secretary, "of a Seneca gospel
was once published, where Barris was translated to wet or sprinkle.
But this was wholly unknown to the board until years after the
work was issued; and, when known, was disapproved of by every
member. And as to patronage bestowed unintentionally on deno-
minational translations, our brethren must well know that many
thousands of dollars had been appropriated by the board to assist
in publishing a Birmese version of the Scriptures, that this version
had been prepared by Baptists and according to their views, while
the Baptist character of the translation was unknown to the board,
until incidentally revealed to them by a letter from an English mis-
sionary in Calcutta." They have had their share then of uninten-
500
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
tional indulgence ;-the only kind of indulgence granted to any
denomination in the board. This part of their ground of complaint
is, therefore, imaginary.
They next assert that the American Bible Society has directly
violated its constitution, by adopting the English version as a stan-
dard, in any sense, for foreign translations. The only specification
of the constitution which relates at all to their case, is: "The only
copies in the English language to be circulated by this society,
shall be of the version now in common use." The constitution, it
seems, says nothing of the principles of translation, as though the
work of translation was not contemplated by the institution. Nor
does it say anything of the character of foreign translations to be
adopted and circulated by the society. And how can a constitu-
tion be violated in a matter of which it says nothing? If the
Baptists began to co-operate with the society under the impression
that the constitution bound the board to patronize any particular
foreign translations of the Scriptures, it was their unfortunate mis-
take. And it would better become them, now that they have
learned their error, to acknowledge the correction, and go quietly
on in their good work. We wonder at their great ado about the
rejection of their translation. That board have no power to prevent
any man or sect, from making such and so many versions of the
Scriptures as they choose. If our brethren must have a Baptist
version, and must circulate it, they are free to do so. It is at their
option whether to give their money to the Bible Society, for the
distribution of such translations as that institution patronizes, or to
expend a part or the whole of their means upon versions of their
own. It seems to us entirely without cause, and a great inadver-
tence in our brethren, that they have given the board of the
American Bible Society so much embarrassment and pain, for such
reasons. Nothing could more clearly prove their utter misappre-
hension of their claims on the American Bible Society than their
comparing the resolutions in question with a papal decree. What
has the society done, what can it do, what would it do, to hinder
the Baptists from circulating their own Bibles, and in their own
way, provided they did not enforce their measures on their breth-
ren of other persuasions? Does the constitution of the American
Bible Society bind the board to patronize the Baptist Bible? How
then can the constitution be violated by their declining to do so?
But, says the paper before us, "The managers' address, contem-
poraneous with the constitution, contemplates the circulation of the
Scriptures in foreign lands, in the received versions where they
exist, and in the most faithful where they are required." "On these
principles, the Baptists entered most heartily into the labours of the
society." Now first, the managers' address is no part of the consti-
tution of the society. It stated what they deemed themselves com-
petent to do under the constitution, in circumstances then existing.
But a declaration of the board at another time, varying from that, as
circumstances might require, would be equally constitutional. If,
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
501
??
therefore, the board had departed from the professions of that
address, it could not easily be shown to be a direct violation of
the constitution." But, in the second place, have they departed
in this case from even those professions? "Received versions
there were none. Translations were to be prepared, and then
"received;" and the condition which would hold the board to use
them is, that they be "most faithful." But who is to judge of their
faithfulness? Do our brethren deem themselves competent to
judge in this momentous matter for all the Church? and have they
the face to demand submission to their judgment from all the
denominations concerned in the American Bible Society? We
were never before prepared to suspect it. Do they "see them-
selves as others see them" in this case? To parry the force of
this rebuke, they say, the faithfulness of their version has never
been questioned. It is questioned. The known and unchanged
principles of the Paedobaptist world are a standing denial of the
faithfulness of the Baptist version. The Baptists' assertion is not
correct, that Paedobaptists defend their views on the ground
of convenience merely, regarding the mode of an external rite as
a matter of indifference." We do not defend our views on that
ground merely, nor mainly. We found our opinions on what we
consider just biblical exegesis. The reasonings pursued under the
philological head of this article, are substantially the basis of the
Paedobaptist views of the form of baptism, while the arguments
from convenience, and the insignificance of the form of an external
rite, are used only as the finish of the superstructure. The con-
cessions, as our Baptist brethren call them, of our greatest scholars,
are no concessions of the point in dispute. They only grant that
the leading primary signification of the word is what the Baptists
have it. The whole question still remains, whether the word has
any other signification; and, if it has, whether it admits that other
sense as the name of the Christian ordinance. And, pending this
whole dispute, can they assert that the faithfulness of their version
is unquestioned? And how can they insist on deciding so delicate
a matter for the world, in the name of brethren whose opinions
they are not permitted and do not pretend to represent?
They say, that the Bible Society does not deny the faithfulness
of the Baptist versions, in vindication of their proceedings. It is
true. Like wise men, they forbear pronouncing judgment directly
on the opinions of other men, and content themselves with the
ample vindication afforded them by other principles. In this for-
bearance, we cordially commend them to our brethren as examples.
The paper above referred to, by its grave and positive air, has
convinced us more deeply than ever of the solemnity of the
trouble into which our Baptist brethren have fallen. We feel
painfully confident, that this step is not in advance of the previous
state of the Church towards the spiritual union and glory of the
latter days. It brings the Baptists to a position to which the
increase of sacred learning and zeal in the different denominations
502
BAPTIST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
of Christendom, produces no legitimate approximation, and in
which the union and fellowship of that sect with others is, by the
nature of things, impracticable.
We offer these plain thoughts to such of our brethren as may
read them, in the earnest hope that their effect, if they have any,
may be only good. The Baptist views of baptism we do not
hesitate to disapprove, and, on all proper occasions, to oppose. We
believe those views to be formed on principles which, if carried
fully out into all the departments of religious belief, would lead
to fanatical and ruinous error. At the same time we have little
fear of the increase of this spice of fanaticism in the midst of so
much good sense, intelligence, and piety, as this branch of the
denomination at present embraces. We heartily wish them suc-
cess. Our prayers and good wishes follow them, while, even as
Baptists, they preach Christ crucified to the heathen. Let them
give full but judicious scope to their principles. Let them immerse
all Birmah and Hindostan, and make the Meinam and the Ganges,
to their converts, what they believe the Jordan was to the primi-
tive Christians. We shall enjoy their success. As for what we
deem their error, it will, we hope, for the present, cost no heathen
his salvation; and if ever the time shall come when the spirit of
Paedobaptist missions finds nothing better to do, than to urge its
operations among the effects of Baptist labours, we anticipate no
grievous obstacle from the pre-occupation of the heathen mind
with the necessity of immersion. Our brethren admit a natural
and general apostasy from their practices, in the early churches;
and so rational and scriptural an apostasy can, in due time, be
effected again. For such reasons as these, if for no others, our
brethren will acquit us of the charge of jealousy, and believe ust
sincere in good wishes for their success in converting and immers-
ing the heathen. We would if we could, dissuade them from their
translating enterprise, for what we humbly consider their own
good, as well as for the cause of truth. We do fear that they
persist at their cost. The lessons of history, their own conces-
sions, the reason and good sense of mankind, and, as we think, the
dictates of truth are against them. They are disguising and
obscuring the truth. They are fixing a sectarian spot on the disk
of the sun of righteousness, which will destroy a part of his heal-
ing beams, and give vexatious employment to the inquisitive and
searching telescopes of pagan infidelity for generations to come.
ESSAY XVII.
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.*
It is now three centuries since Miles Coverdale completed his
great plan of translating and publishing the entire Bible in the
English language. The sermons before us are in commemoration
of this interesting event. They are sensible, well written dis-
courses, on an important topic, and richly merit the pains that have
been taken to give them an extensive circulation. From the cele-
bration of the first English version, the authors have taken occasion
to direct the attention of the public to the history and merits of the
one now in use. Though very unlike in their style, they are
equally admirers of this noble monument of the learning and piety
of our fathers, and have done a valuable service to the cause of
truth by presenting in such a forcible manner its claims to the con-
fidence of the community. The ripe scholarship evinced by one
of these sermons, the earnestness of the other, and the good sense
and piety of both, will cause them, we trust, to be very generally
read, and thus to be the means of correcting the erroneous opinions
that are prevalent to some extent on the subject of which they
treat.
These sermons are the more acceptable at this time, because a
disposition has been manifested of late to disparage the received
translation of the Scriptures. From a contemporary journalt we
learn that the Rev. Dr. Jonathan Homer, of Newton, Massachu-
setts, has been some forty years "seeking to improve the text of
the common version." We are not entirely certain that we under-
stand what is meant by this improved text. In the ordinary
*
Originally published in 1836, in review of the following work: 1. "The English
Bible. A sermon by the Rev. John W. Nevin, of the Western Theological Semi-
nary.
2. "The History, Character, and Importance of the received English version of the
Bible. A sermon by the Rev. William Adams, New York."
† In the Biblical Repository for 1835, is an article on the subject of English ver-
sions of the Scriptures generally, to which is appended an extract of five or six
pages with the following notice by the editor: "At the close of this article, we are
happy to present the following communication from the Rev. Dr. Jonathan Homer,
of Newton, Massachusetts, a gentleman who has given long and indefatigable atten-
tion to this subject, and who is more intimately acquainted with it than any other
individual in the country."
504
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
•
:
acceptation of that term, a perfect text of any author is one which
gives the ipsissima verba of the original autograph. In no depart-
ment of letters have more acuteness and industry been displayed
than in the collation, for this purpose, of different editions of ancient
authors sacred and profane. Labours of this kind are of the utmost
importance, especially in sacred literature; and their necessity has
by no means ceased since the introduction of the art of printing.
The utmost vigilance cannot prevent some misprints from creep-
ing into a work that has gone through so many hundred editions
as our common version of the Bible and each mistake of this
kind is not confined, as in transmission by manuscript, to a single
copy or to the few which may be transcribed from it, but is per-
petuated through many thousands of copies. To remedy this evil,
Dr. Blaney undertook, near the close of the last century, to
publish a text which should be perfectly accurate, and might be
safely followed, in all future editions, as a standard. This was
issued in 1769, under the direction of the Vice-Chancellor, and
delegates of the Clarendon press, at Oxford. But, notwithstanding
the extreme care and labour bestowed upon this edition, there
have since been discovered in it no less than one hundred and
sixteen errors, some of them of importance. The most perfect
edition of our translation is said to be that given in 1806, by Eyre
and Strahan, printers to His Majesty. But one erratum has as
yet been discovered in it. It is, therefore, probably the nearest
approximation that will ever be made to an immaculate text.
If, however, Dr. Homer has authenticated copies of all the princi-
pal editions, and has in other respects the means and the abilities.
for giving a more thorough revision than that of Dr. Blaney, or a
more accurate print than that of Eyre and Strahan, we would be
the last in the world to discourage him from his long cherished
purpose of "improving the text of our common version.'
""
But if we may judge from the materials which he has collected
for his work, this is not precisely what he contemplates. His
attention has been directed not to the collecting of different edi-
tions of the common version, but of copies of the different versions.
Those to which he has had access, as detailed by him through
several not very intelligible pages, are Matthew's Bible of 1537,
Cranmer's of 1539, the Great Bible of 1541, a New Testament
dated 1552, a Coverdale's Tindal of 1551 or 1561, the Bishops'
Bible of 1568, and the common version made in 1611. Each of
these versions, he says, renders particular passages correctly, and
in accordance with the views of the great modern critics. His
plan, therefore, appears to be, to select from each version those
passages which have been rightly translated, and to combine them
in one perfect whole which shall throughout express the exact
meaning of the original, and be in good English idiom. That this
is what he means by "seeking to improve the text of the common
version" will be manifest from the concluding paragraph of this
remarkable communication.
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
505
“Each translation has its special good renderings, corresponding with the best
modern critics. The Bible of 1537 best agrees with Gesenius, Stuart, and the
richest portions [those taken from other authors?] of Rosenmüller. It was exe-
cuted by the three first Hebrew, Greek, and English scholars, and thorough Ger-
mans, ever known among the several translators. The New Testament of
Rogers's Bible, 1537, and Coverdale's Tindal, 1551, and Tindale's first Testament
of 1526, are in English idiom, and they are executed most in conformity to the
latest and best biblical critics. From the whole, with the consulted aid of more
than two hundred critical works, including the sources of each translation, I have
long been seeking to improve the text of the common version."
What Dr. Homer proposes, then, is not by a collation of the
different editions of our translation to give an improved text of
the same, but by comparing different translations and by various
other "consulted aids," to give a new improved translation. The
ground for this bold attempt, as well as the manner in which it has
been conducted, will be evident from the following passages.
"I have employed myself, for a portion of eleven years, in collating and com-
paring each of these Bibles and Testaments with each other, with the originals,
with the principal versions and comments and lexicographers of the three last
centuries, to the present date. I have compared them also with the notes which
I began to collect, at the age of seventeen, from the books of Harvard College
library, and which have been accumulating for fifty-eight years, following my
collegiate course. Prompted by the conscientious religious motive of the vene-
rated, learned and indefatigable German, Bengel (obiit, 1752), for about forty years,
I have paid critical attention to various readings in both Testaments, of Hebrew
and Greek text, and of ancient respected versions, and have examined the author-
ities for and against them individually. I have endeavoured, particularly, to
mark those in which the old English versions and the orthodox, or those of James's
creed among the learned, are agreed, with few or no exceptions. I have found as
the result, that the Cranmer Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James' Bible
were not independently rendered.
King James's Bible was under the
control of the very arbitrary King James and his Primate, men of strong preju-
dice and of no Hebrew, if any Greek learning-mere Latin scholars. It is,
throughout, a version drawn from other versions and comments, not exceeding
twenty. It was carried on with the felt early loss of their two greatest scholars,
These two
•
Hebrew Professor Lively, and the President Dr. Reynolds little from each other,
Bibles [the Cranmer Bible, and the Great Bible] differing little from each other,
I have also collated in all their parts, and traced them successively to their
sources other than the original. So I affirm of King James's Bible, this is in no
part a new translation taken directly from the originals. Those parts of King
James's Bible which were drawn from Luther, were not taken by them from the
German Bible, but by the early translators, from whom they borrowed the English
version. This I have everywhere traced to the English, French, Latin or Ger-
man versions, which preceded it. This circumstance I found proved by a full
exploring of the New Testament in 1828. It has since been confirmed in every
book of the Old Testament."
When such statements as these are sent forth to the world as
the oracles of wisdom, when Dr. Webster's expurgated edition is
recommended to the public by the high authority of the Faculty
of Yale College, when even the Temperance Society cannot be
advocated or the gospel preached without such constant parade of
modern criticism and such frequent corrections of the received
translation as to shake the confidence of the people in its accuracy,
506
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
we hail with pleasure the publication of these sermons by Mr.
Nevin and Mr. Adams, and hope they will go far to counteract
what we cannot but consider erroneous and dangerous opinions.
We had supposed the masterly discussions consequent upon the
publication of the extravagant assertions of Mr. John Bellamy
in 1818,* and the overwhelming array of evidence internal and
historical then brought forward by Whittaker, Todd, Lee, Hur-
witz, and Townley, and by repeated articles in the London Quar-
terly, Antijacobin, and Eclectic Reviews, had put the question of
the competency and fidelity of King James's translators for ever
at rest. We are not a little surprised then at such an unqua-
lified impeachment of both by one who is introduced to the public
as better qualified to speak on the subject than any other individual
in the country, and who from his tone and manner evidently
would not think the eulogy misplaced. Our translators them-
selves say of their version that it is "translated out of the
original tongues." But Dr. Homer has discovered that this is a
falsehood-that our version was drawn from " sources other than
the original" that it " is in no part a new translation taken directly
from the original." He is so certain of this that he has even given
the precise date of the discovery, "in a full exploring of the
New Testament in 1828." And he not only affirms that their
work was not as they say, "translated out of the original
tongues," but argues that it is impossible it should be so, they
being "under the control of the very arbitrary James and his
Primate, men of strong prejudice, and of no Hebrew, if any Greek
learning-mere Latin scholars." That is to say, the translators
have published a deliberate falsehood on the very title-page of
their great work: and either falsehood, or less information concern-
ing them than we now possess, must be charged upon those of
their contemporaries who have represented them as the most
learned, pious, and venerable company that were ever united in
any one great literary undertaking. The more we consider these
assertions, the greater is our amazement. There is no fact in
history better ascertained than that the men called upon in 1607
•
* The sources of information on this subject, and on the subject of English trans-
lations generally, are Fuller's Church History of Great Britain; Lewis's History of
English Biblical Translations, prefixed to his folio edition of Wickliffe's New Testa-
ment, 1731; Johnson's historical account of the several English translations of the
Bible, originally published in 8vo. 1730, and reprinted in the 3d vol. of Watson's
Theological Tracts; Newcombe's View of the English Biblical Translations, 1792;
Horne's Introduction, vol. 3d; Mr. John Bellamy's new Translation and notes,
1818-21; London Quarterly Review, vols. xix and xxiii; Eclectic Review, vol. 10,
N. S.; Antijacobin Review, vol. liv.; Todd's Vindication of our authorized Trans-
lation, and Translators, 1819; Whittaker's Historical and Critical Inquiry into the
Interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, 1819, and supplement, 1820; Prof. Lee's
Letter to Mr. Bellamy, 1821; Hymen Hurwitz' Vindiciae Hebraicae, 1821. All
these between 1818 and 1821 were called forth by the misrepresentations in the In-
troduction and notes of Mr. Bellamy's translation. For information respecting the
particular lives of the different translators, the reader is referred to Townley's Illus-
trations of Biblical Literature, and Chalmers's Biographical Dictionary, unless he is
disposed to glean for himself from Fuller, Camden, Antony Wood, &c.
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
507
to translate the Holy Scriptures were men eminently qualified for
their task, and that they did translate directly from the original
Greek and Hebrew. Where they found any passages already
correctly translated in any of the existing versions, conveying the
exact idea of the original, and in good English, they did not of
course wantonly change the phrase, and thus give unnecessary
offence to the people, all whose prejudices would be in favour of
that to which their ears had been accustomed, We have always
admired the wisdom of that part of the King's instructions
relating to this subject. The translation then most commonly in
use was to be followed with as little alteration as was con-
sistent with fidelity to the original. When it was found to vary
from the original, and the true meaning had been expressed by
any one of the earlier translations which were still in use, they
were then to adopt its phraseology, Their compliance with this
part of their regulations contributed we doubt not in no small
degree to that unparalleled popularity which this translation
almost immediately received, and has to this day retained; a
popularity so great that all the preceding translations, though
of acknowledged excellence, have gradually passed into disuse,
and are now so rare that the possessor of some four or five of
them, trumpets it over the land as a literary curiosity. In
adopting this course, those men did what any man of sense would
now do who should attempt to give a new translation of the Bible.
They did precisely what Dr. Homer himself proposes to do. They
adopted the "special good renderings" of each existing transla-
tion, and where they found none such they made one.
was, in full justness of speech, giving a new translation; and so
is what Dr. Homer calls "seeking to improve the text of the
common version." The thing aimed at in both cases is precisely
the same. The only difference is, that in the present case, it is one
irresponsible, unknown individual, who takes upon himself the
important office, without any urgent necessity, unsolicited by any
public body, and untrammelled by any established rules. In the
other case, it was a numerous body of the most illustrious scholars,
maintained at the public expense, enjoying the public confidence,
and summoned to the work by the Head of a mighty nation hun-
gering for the pure Word of God.
This
The translation of the Scriptures is not a work to be intrusted,
except from imperative necessity, to any one man, however gigan-
tic may be his attainments or his genius. Dormitat aliquando
Homerus. Though he may give a " special good rendering" in one
place, he may give a special bad one in another. Hence the number
of translators employed by King James adds greatly to the authority
of their work. What is overlooked or omitted by one, may be ob-
served or supplied by another. Although fifty-four men who knew
nothing of Greek or Hebrew might not have the authority of one
who did: yet when, as in the case of our translators, all of them
were men of learning and ability, and some of them pre-eminently
503
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
and proverbially so, the largeness of the number does give a secu-
rity from mistake which nothing else can. Every one has his
peculiarities of character and opinion which fit him for some par-
ticular duty, and disqualify him to a certain extent for every other.
The man best suited to translate the Psalms of David would not
be the one we should select to translate Paul's Epistles, nor either
of these to translate those parts relating to the details of Solomon's
temple, or of the Levitical ritual. Great attention was paid to this
in allotting to the several translators their respective portions, each
receiving that for which he was best qualified. By this means all
the advantages, arising from division of labour in the execution of
the details, were secured; while by another admirable regulation,
by which each man's work when finished had to be submitted to
the inspection and judgment of all the rest, individual peculiarities.
were prevented from running into extravagance, and harmony pre-
served throughout the whole.
The time in which our translation was made was peculiarly
fitted to secure one which would become, as it has, a common
standard. At the first outbreak of the reformation, the errors of
the church of Rome were not all immediately dissipated. Like
the mists of the morning, one error after another gradually disap-
peared before the steadily increasing light of day. It was a cen-
tury at least before the Reformed Churches were fully purified
from that polluting superstition which had equally defiled the doc-
trines, the rites, and the language of religion. The exasperation,
likewise, consequent upon the first separation from the Church of
Rome was exceedingly great on both sides, and did not soon sub-
side. Had our version, then, been made at an earlier period, it
could not so admirably have escaped the opposite dangers of being
in some parts unintentionally tinctured with anti-Papal prejudice,
and of savouring in others of the still existing leaven of Mother
Church. The agitated waters of the Reformation had subsided,
and the pure fountain of truth was left undefiled by the pollutions
both of its turbid and its stagnant state.
It was, too, that precise time when the zeal of Protestants had
ceased to be zeal against the Pope, and had not begun to be zeal
against each other. Protestantism was still to a great extent one
and homogeneous. The different sects into which it was divided
were sufficiently jealous of each other to prevent the improper
favouring of any one set of opinions, and yet not so widely apart
as to forbid all co-operation or concurrence. The lines of demar-
cation were not so strong and well defined, nor the barriers so
impassable as they have since become. The work, therefore, is
not sectarian in its origin or its character. It is in the strictest
sense a national translation. It is the acknowledged and estab-
lished standard of every denomination except the Roman Catholics
and some few Unitarians. No translation now made could ever
become this. The Presbyterians, the Associate Reformed, the
Dutch Reformed, the Lutherans, the Congregationalists, the Metho-
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
509
dist Episcopalians, the Protestant Episcopalians, the Baptists, and
the Quakers, of this country; the Church of England, the Church
of Scotland, and the various bodies of dissenters in Great Britain
and elsewhere, speaking the English language, will assuredly
never unite for this purpose; and a new translation put forth by
any one denomination will never be adopted by the rest. If Dr.
Homer thinks that all these will lay aside their sectarian jealousies,
and that more than thirty millions of people will free themselves
of their deep rooted prejudices in favour of Bible phrases to which
their ears have been accustomed, out of respect to his select "spe-
cial good renderings," his opinion differs greatly from ours, as to
the attractiveness of an "improved text of the common version.'
We cannot persuade ourselves that any such improvement would
gain the public confidence, even though made from the accumu-
lated " notes" of fifty-eight years "with the consulted aid of more
than two hundred critical works," and agreeing "with Gesenius,
Stuart, and the richest parts of Rosenmüller."
99
The age in which our translation was made was pre-eminently
a learned age. In science and the arts, that in which we live is,
we admit, greatly beyond its predecessors. But so far as learning
and scholarship is concerned, we do affirm there never has been
an age equal to it. There never was an age distinguished by so
many illustrious scholars in every department of classical and bibli-
cal learning. Where do we go for profound original information on
Latin, Greek, or Oriental Literature? Where are the great store-
houses from which our modern bookmakers draw their Lexicons,
their Grammars, their Commentaries? Was Melancthon "a mere
Latin scholar?" Did Roger Ascham know nothing of Greek? Were
Erpenius, and Golius, and Pococke, unacquainted with Arabic?
Was Hebrew a dead letter to such men as Buxtorf, Morinus, Pag-
ninus, Arias Montanus, Tremellius, Junius, Beza, Castell, Walton,
and Pool? Where is the public Library three-fourths of whose
volumes on sacred philology are not dated in the 16th and 17th
centuries? We find in this period among the magnates of Orien-
tal and Classical learning, besides those already mentioned, such
names as Budaeus, Erasmus, Turnebus, the Scaligers, P. Manutius,
Aldus Manutius, the younger Casaubon, Fagius, the Moreles,
Gesner, Fabricius, Morus, Glass, Capellus, Grotius, Usher, Light-
foot, Montfaucon, Vossius, Heinsius (father and son), Bochart,
Meursius, Robert and Henry Stephens, all of them scholars of the
very highest order; to say nothing of the incomparable divines,
and illustrious authors of every sort and in every nation who
flourished during the same period. Now though all these were
not living at the time our translation was made, yet a majority of
them were contemporary with the translators; and they show the
general character of the age, that it was the age of great men,
especially of great scholars. The eighteenth century excelled it
in science and works of taste. But for men of profound erudition,
beyond all contradiction there never was such a period since the
510
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
foundation of the world. The turn which the Reformation took,
and the great controversies between the Papacy and its opposers,
appealing at every step to the original languages of Scripture,
made Greek and Hebrew what politics is now, the great absorb-
ing topic of the world. Critical editions of the Bible and of Clas-
sical authors were published on a scale and in a style utterly
unparalleled. The immense Thesaurus of the Greek language by
Henry Stephens, the Rabbinical Lexicon of Buxtorf, the Arabic
Lexicon of Golius, the Hierozoicon of Bochart, the twelve folio
volumes of Meursius on Grecian Antiquities, are but specimens of
the thorough-going manner in which the scholars of that day
handled every subject which they attempted. It is impossible
even to glance at their productions without a profound admiration
of their scholarship, only equalled by our amazement at the effron-
tery which would call it in question. Their very printers were
learned men. Even their books of devotion are so crowded with
Greek and Hebrew that many a sciolist of these days could not
read a page in them without his Lexicon and Grammar, who yet
would not blush to call himself a scholar, or to attempt with some
"consulted aids" to make a new translation of the Bible.
In England, especially, the learned languages became so much
a matter of universal concern, that acquaintance with them was
considered one of the accomplishments of the drawing-room.
Fuller tells us it was one of the elegant pastimes of fashionable
ladies, and of the daughters of the principal nobility, to translate
select passages from the original Scriptures for the inspection of
their friends. Queen Elizabeth, we know, spoke familiarly Greek
and Latin. And it is said, though we know not on what authority,
that some of the old Puritan divines were accustomed to use their
Hebrew Bibles and Greek Testaments at their family devotion
morning and evening.* Indeed, so proverbial were the leading
Reformers in Great Britain, whether conformists or non-conform-
*This was originally the custom in Harvard College. "The President inspected
the manners of the students thus entertained in the College, and unto his morning
and evening prayers in the hall, joined an exposition upon the chapters which they
[the students] read out of Hebrew into Greek from the Old Testament in the morn-
ing, and out of English into Greek from the New Testament in the evening."
"The Fellows resident on the place became Tutors to the several classes, and after
they had instructed them in the Hebrew language, led them through all the liberal
arts."
"When he [Mr. Nathaniel Mather] was but twelve years old, he was admit-
ted into the College by strict examiners: and many months after this passed not,
before he had accurately gone over all the Old Testament in Hebrew, as well as the
New in Greek.
He commenced bachelor at the age of sixteen, and in the
act entertained the auditory with an Hebrew oration, which gave a good account of
the academical affairs among the ancient Jews. Indeed the Hebrew language was
become so familiar with him, as if (to use the expression which one had in an inge-
nious elegy upon his death) he had apprehended it should quickly become the only
language."
When he took his second degree three years afterwards, besides more
than ordinary attainments in other branches of learning, "he had likewise made no
small Proficiency in Rabbinick learning; and the questions referring unto the Scrip-
tures, which philology is conversant about, came under a very critical notice with
him.'
He died shortly after, aged but nineteen years and some months. See Cotton
Mather's Magnalia, Vol. II., pages 9 and 133 of the Hartford Edition.
""
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
511
ists, for their learning, that the Romanists, when no longer able
to compete with them, endeavoured to ridicule them as mere
scholars. Dr. George Hakewell, a contemporary, in a work first
published in 1627, says, " This latter age hath herein so far excelled,
that all the great learned scholars, who have of late risen, espe-
cially if they adhered to the Reformed Churches, have been by
friars and such like people, in a kind of scorn termed grammarians.
But these grammarians are they who presented us with so many
exact translations out of Hebrew and Greek into Latin, and
again out of Latin into other languages. To which may be added
the exquisite help of dictionaries, lexicons, and grammars, in this
latter age, beyond the precedent, not only for the easier learning
of the western languages, Latin, Italian, Spanish, and French; but
especially the eastern, the Hebrew, the Chaldee, the Syriac, the
Arabic. Of all the ancient fathers, but only two (among the
Latins, St. Jerome, and Origen among the Grecians) are found to
have excelled in the Oriental languages; this last century having
afforded more skilful men in that way than the other fifteen since
Christ." Now is it probable that, only twenty years before this
testimony was written, the monarch of an enlightened nation,
himself proud of being thought a learned man, and ambitious to
effect a version of the Scriptures that might be quoted as the great
glory of his reign, should not be able, out of fifty-four of the prin-
cipal scholars in the kingdom, including the Hebrew and Greek
Professors of the Universities, and the most distinguished heads
and fellows of the several Colleges, to obtain any learned and
honest enough to "translate directly from the originals?" But
laying aside all probabilities, what are the known facts of the case
as recorded by unquestioned contemporary historians? Who
were the venerable men called by King James to this celebrated
undertaking? Many of them, it is true, with the unobtrusiveness
of genuine scholars, never pushed themselves much into public
notice; and the most we know of their individual history is a mere
catalogue of their works, and their preferments, gathered from
public records, and from the incidental notices scattered through the
authors of that period. But of others we have full and detailed
information. And of all, we know enough to be fully borne out
in the assertion before made, that a more learned and pious
assembly the world never saw united in any one literary under-
taking.
Some of the names about to be introduced are so familiar to
scholars that it would seem necessary to apologize for dwelling
upon them at all. The extracts, however, which we have given
from one "who is more intimately acquainted with the subject than
any other individual in the country," show that a somewhat
detailed account of these men is not, as we had supposed, entirely
a work of supererogation.
William Bedwell was one of the most eminent orientalists of
his time. His fame for Arabic learning was so great that he was
512
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
resorted to by Erpenius, during his residence in England in 1606,
for directions in his oriental studies. He was Arabic tutor also to
the great Dr. Pococke. He commenced the preparation of a
general Arabic Lexicon in 3 vols. folio, and having proceeded in
the work for several years, he went to Holland for the greater
perfection of it by a collation of the papers of Joseph Scaliger,
who had made a collection of twenty thousand words in that lan-
guage. In consequence of the vastness of the design, and the
slowness with which he proceeded in it, he was anticipated in the
publication by the Lexicon of Golius, the completeness of which
made his labours abortive. Eight or nine volumes of the manu-
scripts of this great work were employed by Castell in the com-
pilation of his unrivalled Polyglot Lexicon. Bedwell also com-
menced a Persian Dictionary, which he did not live to complete.
He published an edition of all the Epistles of John in Arabic with
a Latin translation, which was printed in 4to, in 1612 at the press
of Raphelenigus. In 1615 he published another work entitled "
discovery of the importance of Mahomet and the Koran;" to
which is appended a very curious illustration of oriental etymology
and history called "the Arabian Trudgman." He left at his
death many Arabic manuscripts to the University of Cambridge
with numerous notes upon them, and a fount of types for printing
them.
" a
Miles Smith is remarkable as having been the penman of the
"Translators' Preface." Such was his profound knowledge, espe-
cially of the languages, that he was called "a very walking
library." He applied himself from early youth with great assiduity
to the reading of the classics, and was very extensively read in
the Greek and Latin Fathers. He was accurately versed also in
Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic; and was well acquainted
with Rabbinical literature generally. Having taken successively
the several Academic degrees at the University of Oxford, he was
finally promoted, as a reward for his eminent services in the trans-
lation of the Bible, to the see of Gloucester, which he continued
to adorn till his death.
Richard Brett "was," says Anthony Wood, "a person famous
in his time for learning as well as piety, skilled and versed to a
criticism in the Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldaic, Arabic, and Ethi-
opic tongues. He was a most vigilant pastor, a diligent preacher
of God's word, a liberal benefactor to the poor, a faithful friend,
and a good neighbour."
John Boyse was the son of a clergyman by whom he was taught
the first rudiments of learning, particulary of Hebrew. His mother,
whose memory he greatly venerated, appears to have been a
woman of piety and information. At the beginning of a Common
Prayer Book he wrote: "This was my mother's book; my good
mother's book. She had read the Bible over twelve times, and the
Book of Martyrs twice, besides other books not a few"
With an
excellent capacity, and under such parents, his progress in know-
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
513
ledge was considerable, and before he was five years old he had
read the whole of the Bible; and before he was six could write
Hebrew in an elegant hand. At fourteen he was admitted of St.
John's College, Cambridge, where he distinguished himself by his
knowledge of Greek; and applied so diligently to his studies, that
we are told he would go to the University Library in summer, at
four o'clock in the morning, and remain till eight in the evening
without intermission. Happening to have the small-pox when he
was elected Fellow, to preserve his seniority he caused himself to
be carried, wrapped up in blankets, to be admitted. He was ten
years chief Greek lecturer in his college, and read every day. He
voluntarily read a Greek lecture for some years at four in the
morning in his own chamber, which was frequented by many of
the Fellows. Having received several ecclesiastical perferments,
he died in 1643 in the 84th year of his age, leaving behind him
a great many manuscripts, some of which were afterwards
printed.
Sir Henry Saville was a learned man and a great benefactor of
learning. Born to an ample fortune, he spent it all (upon the loss
of his only son) in the advancement of knowledge. He founded
two Professorships at Oxford, which are still called by his name.
He published at vast expense many valuable works, among others.
the splendid edition of Chrysostom's Works of 1613, in 8 vols.
folio, which alone cost him no less than eight thousand pounds.
His various contributions of money, of rare books and manuscripts,
of founts of type to public presses and Libraries, caused him to be
considered as the great Maecenas of the age. He was at one
time Greek Tutor to Queen Elizabeth: and James had such a
regard for him, that he would have given him almost any prefer-
ment. Saville, however, declined, accepting only the honour of
knighthood. He was Fellow, and for thirty years Warden of
Merton College, in which station he acquired great reputation.
He was afterwards chosen Provost of Eton College, and greatly
increased its fame by the learned men with which he filled it.
kind of scholarship which he aimed at and patronized may be
judged of from this: "Give me," he used to say, "the plodding
student. If I would look for wits, I would go to Newgate. There
be wits."
The
Andrew Downes was one of the learned men whose notes ac-
company Sir Henry Saville's famous edition of Chrysostom's works.
He was Regius Professor of Greek in Cambridge University, and
was accounted one of the best scholars of his time.
Launcelot Andrews made such early proficiency in knowledge
as secured for him promotion almost immediately after his entrance
as a student at Cambridge. When thirty-four years of age he
was chosen Master of Pembroke Hall, in which station he continued
for sixteen years. After that he was made successively Bishop of
Chichester, Ely, and Winchester. He took a conspicuous part in
the conference at Hampton Court; and was remarkable for the
33
514
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
seriousness of his manner," his gravity awing King James, who
refrained from that mirth and liberty, in the presence of this Prelate,
which otherwise he assumed to himself." He was a most indefa-
tigable student. The annual visit which he paid, while at the Uni-
versity, to his parents at Easter, was always spent in the acquisition
of some new language or art with which he was previously unac-
quainted. By his unremitting attention to study he rose to be one
of the most distinguished scholars of his age. Fuller says of him:
"The world wanted learning to know how learned this man was;
so skilled in all (especially the Oriental) languages, that some con-
ceive he might, if then living, almost have served as interpreter
general at the confusion of tongues."
66
John Laifield. 'Being skilled in architecture, his judgment was
much relied on for the fabric of the Tabernacle and Temple."*
Richard Kilbye was educated in Lincoln College, where he was
successively Fellow and Rector, and after some ecclesiastical prefer-
ments was appointed Hebrew Professor in the University of Oxford.
He was at one time Tutor to the celebrated Bishop Sanderson; and
Izaak Walton, in his life of that distinguished Prelate, relates an inte-
resting anecdote of him. "Dr. Kilbye, an excellent critic in the
Hebrew tongue and Professor of it in the University, a perfect Gre-
cian and one of the translators, going into the country, took Mr. San-
derson to bear him company. Being at church on Sunday, they
found the young preacher to have no more discretion than to waste
a great part of the time allotted for his sermon in exceptions against
the late translation of several words (not expecting such a hearer
as Dr. Kilbye), and showed three reasons why a particular word
should have been otherwise translated. The preacher in the even-
ing was invited to the Doctor's friend's house, where after some
other conference the Doctor told him he might have preached more
useful doctrine, and not have filled his auditors' ears with needless
exceptions against the late translation: and, for that word for
which he offered that poor congregation three reasons why it ought
to have been translated as he said, he and others had considered
all of them and found thirteen more considerable reasons why it
was translated as now printed."+ To how many of this day might
it be said, mutatis mutandis, de te fabula narratur.
William Spencer, Greek Lecturer in Trinity College, and after-
wards chosen to be Professor of Divinity in Gresham College,
London, on the recommendation of the Vice Chancellor and several
heads of Colleges at Cambridge, several of the nobility, and of
King James himself, who thought it a suitable recommendation for
one of the translators of the Bible.
John Harmar was Regius Professor of Greek in the University
of Oxford, for nine years Chief Master of Winchester School, and
seventeen Warden of the College there. He translated Beza's
Sermons into English, and several of Chrysostom's works into
* Fuller's Church History.
↑ Johnson's Historical Account.
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
515
Latin. He was well read in the Fathers and Schoolmen, so that
he held public disputations with some of the celebrated Catholic
Doctors during his travels on the continent.
Thomas Holland took his degrees in Exeter College, Oxford,
with great applause; at the age of fifty was appointed Regius
Professor of Divinity in the same, and three years after elected
Master, "being accounted a prodigy in almost all kinds of litera-
ture." He appears to have been a man as eminent for his piety as
his learning. Towards the close of life he spent a great part of
his time in meditation and prayer. "Come, O come, Lord Jesus,
thou bright morning Star! Come, Lord Jesus: I desire to be dis-
solved and to be with thee," was the dying exclamation of this
aged servant of God.
い
​John Reynolds. "His memory was little less than miraculous,
he himself being the truest table to the multitude of voluminous
books he had read over, whereby he could readily turn to all mate-
rial passages in every leaf, page, volume, paragraph, not to descend
lower to lines and letters." He was originally a Papist, and his
brother William a Protestant; but engaging in disputation they
mutually converted each other, which gave rise to the following
distich.
Quod genus hoc pugnae est? ubi victus gaudet uterque,
Et simul alteruter se superasse dolet.
He was selected for his great abilities as the Protestant Cham-
pion in the famous dispute with the Popish controvertist Hart,
whom he obliged to quit the field. In 1603 he was nominated one
of the Puritan divines to attend the Conference at Hampton Court;
and afterwards, because of his uncommon skill in Greek and
Hebrew, one of the translators of the Bible. Before the comple-
tion of this laborious undertaking he was seized with the disease
of which he died. He continued his assistance, however, even to
the last. During his sickness, his learned coadjutors in Oxford met
at his lodgings regularly once a week to compare notes. As he
approached his end his whole time was spent in prayer to God, in
hearing persons read, or in conferring with the translators. He
died at length in the 68th year of his age, a man greatly venerated
for his learning, piety, humility, and disinterestedness.
Mr. Edward Lively, Regius Professor of Hebrew in the Uni-
versity, and said to be profoundly learned in the Oriental languages,
also died before the completion of the great work.
Laurence Chaderton was of a Popish family, and by turning
Protestant so enraged his father, that he not only disinherited
him, but "sent him a poke with a groat in it to go a begging."
Dr. Chaderton declining, from his great modesty, the mastership of
Emanuel College then about to be founded, Sir Walter Mildmay,
the donor, from his great esteem of the man, said, "If you will
* Fuller.
516
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
not be master of the College, I will not be its founder." He
resigned the mastership after having held it with credit thirty-
eight years. He was strongly opposed to Arminianism, and was
one of the Puritan divines nominated by King James to attend the
Hampton Court Conference. Chaderton was noted for his strict-
ness in the observance of the Sabbath. He would never allow his
servant to be detained from public worship to cook victuals. "I
desire as much," said he, "to have my servants know the Lord, as
myself." Being once on a visit to his friends in Lancashire, he
was invited to preach; and having proceeded in his discourse full
two hours he paused and said, "I will no longer trespass on your
patience," upon which all the congregation cried out, " for God's
sake go on, go on." He died at the extraordinary age of 103 years,
and could read without spectacles to the last.
Those who wish to follow out this subject will be abundantly
gratified by a reference to the works mentioned in a previous note.
We had intended to give a similar brief sketch of each of the
translators, but are obliged to desist. Suffice it to say, that of the
twenty-five employed in translating the Old Testament, it is matter
of record that thirteen were men eminently skilled in the Hebrew
and Oriental languages, including six who were or had been regu-
lar Hebrew Professors in the Universities. Of the translators
nearly all had received Fellowships in early life because of their
great proficiency in learning. There were among them fifteen
who were or had been Heads of Colleges, five Vice Chancellors of
the Universities, three regular Greek Professors in the Universities,
seven Divinity Professors, one Archbishop, and seven Bishops.
They were remarkably aged men. One venerable father was
eighty; others were upwards of seventy; and indeed the average
age of all of them, so far as ascertained, was considerably more
than sixty. This fact is worthy of observation as leading us to
understand more fully the peculiarly venerable impress which is
stamped upon every lineament of their work. This would be still
further explained, could we enter into more full details illustrating
their eminent piety and heavenly mindedness. But our limited
space will not permit us to dwell longer on this subject. Enough
has been said surely to show the egregious mistake of those who
call in question the qualifications of those great men, and represent
our version as the antiquated relic of an unenlightened age.
The internal evidence that this translation was made directly
from the originals, that, namely, resulting from a careful examina-
tion of the work itself, is a part of the subject upon which it does
not seem necessary now to enter. The fact is so clearly established,
and the misrepresentations of those who have denied it have been
so frequently exposed, that it seems hardly worth while to revive
objections merely to answer them. Dr. Homer does indeed pro-
fess to have made some recent discoveries, having proved the con-
trary" by a full exploring of the New Testament in 1828." But
as he has given no intimation of the proofs which led him to
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
517
66
this conclusion, we must decline adopting or even discussing it,
although supported by the authority of one more intimately
acquainted with the subject than any other individual in the
country."
The history of our version is soon told. The idea was first
suggested at the Hampton-Court Conference in 1603. Dr. Rey-
nolds, being of the number opposed to conformity, who were sum-
moned to attend, among other things giving us a high opinion of
his piety, said: "May it please your Majesty that the Bible be
new translated, such as are extant not answering to the original,"
and he instanced three particulars. Bancroft, Bishop of London,
objected. "If every man's humour," said he, "might be followed,
there would be no end of translating." The King, however,
seemed pleased with the suggestion of Dr. Reynolds, and said,
"I profess I could never yet see a Bible well translated in English,
but I think, that of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish
some special pains were taken for an uniform translation; which
should be done by the best learned in both Universities, then
reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly
ratified by royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and no
other."*
James seems to have formed very just notions of the greatness
of such an undertaking, and the deliberation and care with which
it should be conducted. The first step after the conference was
to designate fifty-four learned men upon whom the execution
of it should devolve. By whom the selection was made does not
clearly appear. The persons thus chosen were divided into six
companies, two of which were to meet at Cambridge, two at
Oxford, and two at Westminster. The work did not actually
commence till 1607, the intervening four years being spent in
settling preliminaries and making all the necessary preparations.
That they might give themselves wholly to the business, it
was necessary that they should be released as far as possible from
all other engagements, and that ample means for their support
should be provided in places affording the greatest facilities for the
consultation of men and books. To this end the King wrote to
the Archbishop of Canterbury early in 1604, urging him to make
every suitable provision for the translators; and requiring that the
Prelates should inform themselves of such learned men in their
several dioceses as had knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek
tongues, and had made the scriptures a special study, and signify
to them the King's pleasure that they should send their observa-
tions to one of three persons appointed for that purpose.†
He
gave similar instructions to the Vice Chancellors and heads of the
colleges in the Universities, that if they knew of any other fit
translators they should add them to the number; and that the
translators should be admitted and entertained without expense,
* Fuller.
† Lewis.
518
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
should receive kind usage, and while engaged in the work should
be exempt from all academical exercises. On the 31st of July*
of the same year the Bishop of London was directed to write
to that part of the translators who were to assemble at Cam-
bridge, expressing the King's acquiescence in the selection that
had been made, and his desire that they should meet and begin
their work with all possible speed; that his majesty was not satis-
fied till it was entered on; and that his royal mind rejoiced more
in the good hope which he had for its happy success, than for the
peace concluded with Spain. A letter was addressed the same
day to the Governors of the University, pressing them in the
strongest manner to assemble the translators, and to further the
work. Also the Prelates, Deans, and Chapters, were recommended
in the King's name to raise money among themselves to defray the
expenses of the translators.
As an additional safeguard against mistake, discrepancy or fail-
ure, and to secure to this work every advantage which the king-
dom afforded, certain rules were prescribed by the King, which
were to be very carefully observed.
1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the
Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original
will permit.
2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the
other names in the text, to be retained as near as may be accord-
ing as they are vulgarly used.
3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word Church
not to be translated congregation, &c.
4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept
which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent
Fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the
analogy of faith.
5. The divisions of the chapters to be altered either not at all,
or as little as may be, if necessity so require.
6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the expla-
nation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot without
some circumlocution so briefly and fitly be expressed in the
text.
7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall
serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.
8. Every particular man of each company to take the same
chapter or chapters; and having translated or amended them
severally by himself where he thinketh good, all to meet together,
confer what they have done, and agree for their part what shall
stand.
9. As any one company hath despatched any one book in this
manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of, seriously
and judiciously; for his majesty is careful on this point.
* Lewis.
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
519
10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall
doubt or differ upon any plans, to send them word thereof, note
the plans, and therewithal send their reasons; to which, if they
consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meet-
ing, which is to be of the chief persons of each company at the
end of the work.
11. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters
to be directed by authority, to send to any learned (man) in the
land, for his judgment in such a place.
12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his
clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move
and charge as many as, being skilful in the tongues, have taken
pains in that kind, to send his particular observations to the com-
pany, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.
13. The Directors in each company to be, the Deans of West-
minster and Chester, for that place; and the King's Professors in
the Hebrew and Greek, in each University.
14. These translations to be used when they agree better with
the text than the Bishops'Bible; viz. 1. Tindal's; 2. Matthewe's;
3. Coverdale's; 4. Whitchurche's; 5. Geneva.
"Besides the said directions, three or four of the most ancient
and grave divines in either of the Universities, not employed in
translating, to be assigned by the Vice Chancellor, upon confer-
ence with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the translations,
as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observance of the fourth
rule above specified."*
The portions allotted to the different translators were as follows:
Pentateuch to the end of 2 Kings, to Andrews, Overall, Saravia,
Clarke, Layfield, Tighe, Burleigh, King, Thompson, Bedwell; to
meet at Westminster.
The rest of the historical books, and the Hagiographa, viz. :
Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, to Lively, Richard-
son, Chaderton, Dillingham, Harrison, Andrews, Spalding, Bing;
to meet at Cambridge.
The four Greater Prophets, with the Lamentations, and the
Twelve Lesser Prophets, to Harding, Reynolds, Holland, Kilby,
Smith, Brett, Fairclowe; to meet at Oxford.
The prayer of Manasses, and the rest of the Apocrypha, to
Duport, Branthwaite, Radcliffe, S. Ward, Downes, Boyse, Ward
(of King's College); to meet at Cambridge.
The four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Apocalypse, to
Ravis, Abbot, Eedes, Thompson, Saville, Peryn, Ravens, Harmar;
to meet at Oxford.
The Epistles of Paul, and the Catholic Epistles, to Barlow,
Hutchinson, Spencer, Fenton, Rabbett, Sanderson, Dakins; to
meet at Westminster.
The number originally designated was fifty-four. But these
* Fuller.
520
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
forty-seven are those actually engaged in the translation. The
other seven either were prevented from some cause not recorded;
or, as is likely, included the four overseers before-mentioned, and
three other persons who assisted in the work, viz., Bishop Bilson,
who aided in the final revision, and Doctors Aglionby and Hutton
who were employed in the latter stage of the business, though in
what capacity is not entirely certain.
one
66
All things being now ready, in the spring of 1607, the translat-
ors set themselves to the work with the zeal and industry of men
knowing the importance of the labours in which they were
engaged. The premature death of Mr. Lively somewhat retarded
their undertaking. Nevertheless," says Fuller, "the rest vigour-
ously though slowly proceeded in this hard, heavy, and holy task,
nothing offended with the censures of impatient people, condemn-
ing their delays, though indeed but due consideration, for laziness."
They were engaged in the translation nearly three years. Of the
manner in which they proceeded they have given the following
account in their preface. "Truly, good Christian reader, we
never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make
an [entirely] new translation; nor yet to make of a bad one a good
but to make a good one better, or out of many good
ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against:
that hath been our endeavour, that our mark. To that purpose
there were many [translators] chosen, that were greater in other
men's eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth, not their
own praise. Again, they came or were thought to come to the
work, not exercendi causa (as one saith) but exercitati, that is
learned, not to learn.
Therefore, such were thought
upon as could say modestly with St. Jerome: Et Hebraeum
Sermonem ex parte didicimus, et in Latino pene ab ipsis incunabilis
detriti sumus. Both we have learned the Hebrew tongue in part,
and in the Latin we have been exercised almost from our very
cradle.
And in what sort did these assemble? In the
trust of their own knowledge, or of their sharpness of wit, or
deepness of judgment, as it were in an arm of flesh? At no hand.
They trusted in Him that hath the key of David, opening and no
man shutting; they prayed to the Lord, the Father of our Lord,
to the effect that St. Augustine did: 'O let thy Scriptures be my
pure delight, let me not be deceived in them, neither let me deceive
by them.' In this confidence, and with this devotion, did they
assemble together: not too many, lest one should trouble another;
and yet many, lest many things haply might escape them. If you
ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of
the Old Testament, the Greek of the New. These are the two
golden pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the olive
branches emptied themselves into the gold. Saint Augustine
called them precedent, or original tongues; Saint Jerome, foun-
tains. The same Saint Jerome affirmeth,
that as the
6
credit of the old Books (he meaneth of the Old Testament) is
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
521
to be tried by the Hebrew Volumes, so of the New by the
Greek tongue, he meaneth by the original Greek. If Truth be to
be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be
made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, the Scriptures
we say in these tongues, we set before us to translate, being the
tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his church by his
Prophets and Apostles. Neither did we run over the work with
that posting haste that the Septuagint did, if that be true which is
reported of them, that they finished it in seventy-two days: nei-
ther were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having
once done it, like St. Jerome, if that be true which himself report-
eth, that he could no sooner write anything, but presently it was
caught from him and published, and he could not have leave to
mend it: neither, to be short, were we the first that fell in hand
with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently des-
titute of former helps, as it is written of Origen, that he was the
first, in a manner, that put his hand to write Commentaries upon
the Scriptures, and therefore no marvel that he overshot himself
many times. None of these things: the work hath not been hud-
dled up in seventy-two days, but hath cost the workmen, as light
as it seemeth, the pains of twice seven times seventy-two days and
more: matters of such weight and consequence are to be speeded
with maturity; for in a business of moment a man feareth not the
blame of convenient slackness. Neither did we think much to
consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew,
Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no, nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or
Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise what we had done, and
to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered; but
having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no
reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have
at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the
work to that pass that you see.”* When the whole was finished,
three copies of it were sent to London from the three places of
rendezvous, Cambridge, Oxford, and Westminster. Two persons
also were chosen from the translators assembled in each of those
places, to review and polish it. These six met daily in Stationers'
Hall, London; where, in nine months, they completed their task,
receiving each of them thirty pounds by the week while thus
engaged. "Last of all, Bilson, Bishop of Winchester, and Dr.
Miles Smith, who, from the beginning, had been very active in
this affair, again reviewed the whole, and prefixed arguments to
the several books; and Dr. Smith, who for his indefatigable pains
taken in this work, was soon after the printing of it made Bishop
of Gloucester, was ordered to write the preface."+
"And now [1611] after long expectation and great desire, came
forth the new translation of the Bible (most beautifully printed) by
a select and competent number of divines appointed for that pur-
* Translator's Preface.
† Lewis.
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
522
pose, not being too many lest one should trouble another, and yet
many lest in any, things might haply escape them. Who neither
coveting praise for expedition, nor fearing reproach for slackness
(seeing in a business of moment none deserve blame for convenient
slowness) had expended almost three years in the work, not only
examining channels by the fountain, translations with the original
(which was absolutely necessary); but also comparing channels with
channels (which was abundantly useful), in the Spanish, Italian,
French, and Dutch languages. So that their industry, skilfulness,
piety, and discretion, hath therein bound the church unto them in
a debt of special remembrance and thankfulness. Leave we then
these worthy men, now [1655] all of them gathered to their
fathers and gone to God, however requited on earth, well reward-
ed in Heaven for their worthy work. Of whom, as also of that
worthy King that employed them, we may say, 'wheresoever the
Bible shall be preached or read in the whole world, there shall
also this that they have done be told in memorial of them.' ”*
Considering the attainments of these men, their high standing,
their learning, piety, and indefatigable zeal, and the peculiarly
favourable circumstances in which they were called to the work,
it is not surprising that they should have been enabled to produce
a translation which has received the decided approbation of almost
all men of learning and taste from that day to this.
"The last English translation made by divers learned men at
the command of King James, though it may justly contend with
any now extant in any other language in Europe, was yet carped
and cavilled at by divers among ourselves; especially by one,†
who being passed by and not employed in the work, as one,
though skilled in the Hebrew, yet of little or no judgment in that
or any other kind of learning, was so highly offended that he
would needs undertake to show how many thousand places they
had falsely rendered, when as he could hardly make good his
undertaking in any one." Walton.
"The vulgar translation of the Bible is the best standard of our
language." Lowth.
"When the translators in King James the First's time began
their work, they prescribed to themselves some rules, which it may
not be amiss for all translators to follow. Their reverence for the
sacred Scriptures induced them to be as literal as they could, to
avoid obscurity; and it must be acknowledged that they were
* Fuller.
"that
This was Hugh Broughton, "a learned man, especially in the Eastern lan-
guages, but very opinionative," says Fuller, with his usual comprehensive brevity.
Lightfoot, so pre-eminent for his Hebrew and Rabbinical learning, used to say
Broughton has more Hebrew in his little finger than I have in my whole loins." He
was greatly chagrined at not being chosen one of the translators. In consequence
of his dissatisfaction, and having in vain attempted to shake the credit of the new
translation, he went abroad, when it was wittily said of him that "he had gone to
teach the Jews Hebrew." If they could afford to spare such a man, merely because
he lacked judgment, learning could not have been such a scarce commodity among
them as some people seem to imagine.
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
523
extremely happy in the simplicity and dignity of their expressions.
This adherence to the Hebrew idiom is supposed at once to have
enriched and adorned our language; and as they laboured for the
general benefit of the learned and the unlearned, they avoided all
words of Latin original, when they could find words in their own
language; even with the aid of adverbs and prepositions, which
would express their meaning." Horsley.
"The style of our present version is incomparably superior to
anything which might be expected from the finical and perverted
taste of our own age. It is simple, it is harmonious, it is energetic;
and, which is of no small importance, use has made it familiar, and
time has rendered it sacred." Middleton.
"The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of
James the First, both by our own writers and by foreigners. And
indeed if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter
of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent
version, this of all versions must in general be accounted the most.
excellent. Every sentence, every word, every syllable, every
letter and point, seemed to have been weighed with the nicest
exactitude, and expressed either in the text or margin with the
greatest precision. Pagninus himself is hardly more literal; and
it was well remarked by Robertson, above a hundred years ago,
that it might serve for a Lexicon of the Hebrew language, as well
as for a translation." Dr. Geddes.
"The highest value has always been attached to our translation
of the Bible. Sciolists, it is true, have often attempted to raise
their own reputation on the ruin of that of others; and the authors
of the English Bible have frequently been calumniated by charla-
tans of every description: but it may safely be asserted, without
fear of contradiction, that the nation at large has always paid our
translators the tribute of veneration and gratitude which they so
justly merit. Their reputation for learning and piety has not des-
cended with them to the grave, though they are alike heedless of
the voice of calumny, and deaf to the praise which admiring pos-
terity awards to the great and the good. Let us not, therefore, too
hastily conclude that they have fallen on evil days and evil tongues,
because it has occasionally happened that *an individual as inferior
to them in erudition as in talents and integrity, is found question-
ing their motives, or denying their qualifications for the task which
they so well performed. Their version has been used, ever since its
first appearance, not only by the church, but by all the sects which
have forsaken her; and has been justly esteemed by all for its
general faithfulness, and the severe beauty of its language. It
may be compared with any translation in the world, without fear
of inferiority; it has not shrunk from the most vigorous examina-
tion; it challenges investigation; and in spite of numerous attempts
* The italics are not ours.
524
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
to supersede it, has hitherto remained unrivalled in the affections
of the country." Whitaker.
John Taylor of Norwich, an Arian in sentiment, but a very
learned man, and author of an excellent Hebrew and English Con-
cordance, bears a still more striking testimony. "In the space of
one [two] hundred years, learning may have received considerable
improvements; and by that means some inaccuracies may be
found in a translation more than a [two] hundred years old. But
you may rest fully satisfied, that as our translation is in itself by
far the most excellent book in our language, so it is a pure and
plentiful fountain of divine knowledge, giving a true, clear, and
full account of the divine dispensations, and of the gospel of our
salvation, insomuch that whoever studies the Bible, the English
Bible, is sure of gaining that knowledge and faith, which, if duly
applied to the heart and conversation, will infallibly guide him to
eternal life."
"That these [Lowth, Blayney, Horsley, and Newcome] and
other sound scholars have materially assisted the cause, and pro-
duced many valuable elucidations of particular passages, is grate-
fully acknowledged by all who are acquainted with their works.
Yet with all the respect which we feel for their labours, we ven-
ture to express a doubt whether any new translation of even a
single book of Scripture has appeared since the publication of the
authorized version, which taken as a whole has come up to its
standard, either for the general fidelity and correctness with which
it conveys the sense of the original, or the dignity, simplicity, and
propriety of language in which that sense is conveyed." London
Quarterly.
"Those who have compared most of the European translations
with the original, have not scrupled to say that the English trans-
lation of the Bible, made under the direction of James I., is the
most accurate and faithful of the whole. Nor is this its only
praise the translators have seized the very spirit and soul of the
original, and expressed this almost everywhere with pathos and
energy. Besides, our translators have not only made a standard
translation, but they have made their translation the standard of
the language. The English tongue in their day was not equal to
such a work; but God enabled them to stand as upon Mount
Sinai, and crane up their country's language to the dignity of the
originals, so that after the lapse of two hundred years the English
Bible is, with very few exceptions, the standard of the purity and
excellence of the English tongue. The original, from which it
was taken, is alone superior to the Bible translated by the author-
ity of King James." Adam Clarke.
•
"It is a striking beauty in our English Bible, that though the
language is always elegant and nervous, and for the most part
very harmonious, the words are all plain and common; no affecta-
tion of learned terms, or of words of Greek and Latin etymology.'
Dr. James Beattie.
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
525
66
Equally remarkable for the general fidelity of its construc-
tion, and the magnificent simplicity of its language." Dr. Gray.
"We are yet disposed to object to that part [of this classifica-
tion] which represents the first introduction of soft, graceful, and
idiomatic English as not earlier than the period of the restoration.
It is as old at least as Chaucer. The English Bible is full of it;
and it is the most common, as well as the most beautiful, of the
many languages spoken by Shakspeare." Edinburgh Review, no
partial witness surely.*
"General fidelity to its original is hardly more its characteristic
than sublimity itself. . . . it is still considered the standard of our
tongue The English language acquired new dignity by it."
Dr. I. White, Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University of
Oxford.
"The language of our present version has the full tide of popular
opinion strongly in its favour; it exhibits a style appropriately
biblical, and is distinguished by a general simplicity of expression,
which the most uncultivated mind may comprehend, and the most
cultivated admire."+
To these numerous, but we trust not uninteresting testimonies,
we will merely add one of cis-Atlantic growth. It is that of
Fisher Ames; than whom a better writer of English has never
appeared in this country. In an essay of his, urging the impor-
tance of using the Bible as a school book, he says, "In no book is
there so good English, so pure and so elegant; and by teaching all
the same book, they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly
remain the standard of language as well as of faith. A barbarous
provincial jargon will be banished, and taste, corrupted by pom-
pous Johnsonian affectation, will be restored."
The want of pure English idiom, then, is still less apparent than
the want of fidelity to the original. The Koran has not been a
more acknowledged classic among the Arabs, nor Luther's Bible
among the Germans, than has the English Bible been in English
literature. It has done more for the English language than the
whole French Academy, with their incomparable Dictionary, can
ever do for the French. "It is impossible," says a sensible writer
in Blackwood's Magazine, "to reflect upon the incalculable influ-
ence which the free use of this noble version by a great nation in
an affectionate and thankful spirit for centuries must have had
upon the character of both people and literature; and further, upon
what would have been the diminished value of the boon, even for
those who might have enjoyed it, had it been delayed to a much
later period; without acknowledging a providence in the choice of
the time when, and the instruments by whose means, this benefit
was conferred. As yet the language was in a gradual process of
* October, 1835, page 121, American edition.
† From an exceedingly able Tract in the first volume of the former series of the
Princeton Review, on the subject of a new translation of the Bible.
‡ November, 1835, page 676.
526
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
formation. Ductile, various, and manly, confined within no
acknowledged rules, and checked by no fear of criticism, it was in
a state admirably fitted to become the faithful mirror of the
national character, which the publication of that great work was
calculated so deeply to effect." Indeed, when we reflect that it has
been regarded as a model of correct expression by the ablest critics,
that it has been more read than any other English book, that the
nature of its subjects and the character of the people have given
it more than any other book a hold upon the imagination and the
feelings, we do not wonder at the extent to which its language has
become the basis both of prose and verse, and even to some extent
of common conversation. The Bible is not subject to the fluctua-
tions of taste. Shakspeare may become unfashionable, as Milton
is now, except in theory. But the Bible will always be read, and
read by the multitude who are the great corrupters of language.
Its words will always be those most upon the popular lip. Not
only therefore will it remain "a well of English undefiled," but
there is a certainty that its pure waters will be resorted to by all
the hundreds of millions who shall be born within the reach of
British and American influence till the end of time.
ESSAY XVIII.
OXFORD ARCHITECTURE.*
THESE works are among the fruits of the increased interest which
has been felt, within a few years, in the Architecture of the Mid-
dle Ages. The singular fate which the Gothic Architecture has
undergone would warrant the inference that it gives expression to
no general and permanent truth, were we not in a condition to
account satisfactorily for the mutations to which it has been subject.
Appearing in the early part of the twelfth century, it gave such a
distinct and full utterance to some general sentiment of the age,
that it spread at once over the whole of Christian Europe. So
rapid was its transmission through Germany, France, Italy, Spain,
and England, that it remains to this day a matter of doubt where
it originated, the most laborious and minute researches having
failed to establish clearly a priority of date for the structures of
any one of these countries.
Prior to the introduction of this style, there was no prevalent
style of church architecture. The Roman Architecture, in the
course of its protracted dissolution, had assumed, in the East, the
form of what has been termed the Byzantine style; in Italy and
Germany it had degenerated into the Lombard, and in England
into the Norman style. The churches erected in these several
countries prior to the twelfth century, involved no common princi-
ple. Indeed, that which chiefly marks them all is the entire want
of any principle. There was no other general likeness among
them than what arose from a certain resemblance in the details,
and from the entire absence of any general idea by which these
details might be blended into unity. The church of St. Sophia at
Constantinople, the duomo of Pisa, and the Durham Cathedral,
may be taken as the representatives of the Byzantine, the Lom-
Originally published in 1844 in review of the following works:
1. "Remarks on English Churches, and on the expediency of rendering Sepul-
chral Memorials subservient to pious and Christian uses. By J. H. Markland, F.R.S.
and S.A."
A Glossary of Terms used in Grecian, Roman, Italian, and Gothic Architec-
ture."
2.
3. "Anglican Church Architecture, with some remarks on Ecclesiastical Furni-
ture. By James Burr, Architect.
528
OXFORD ARCHITECTURE.
bard, and the Norman styles; and if these buildings be compared
together it will be found that, although they resemble each other
in the use of the semicircular arch as the principle of support and
some other Roman elements, and hence may be classed together
under the general term Romanesque, they are nevertheless exceed-
ingly unlike in their general effect. Though they all employed
substantially the same elements of construction, the round arch
supported by columns fashioned in their proportions and ornaments
after the classical architecture, pilasters, cornices, and entablatures
borrowed from the remains of Roman art, openings in the wall
whether for doors or windows that were small, comparatively few
in number and subordinate to the wall, vaulted ceilings, and domes;
yet as these constructive elements were subject to no law, bound
together by no one principle which assigned to each its place and
function, and formed them into one organic whole, it was inevita-
ble that they should be mingled together in different combinations
and proportions according to the capricious fancy of each builder.
Hence each country had, with some general resemblance to others,
its own peculiar style of building; and no one style was capable
of transcending provincial limits, and giving law to the world,
because no one rested upon any general principle of beauty or truth.
No sooner, however, did the Gothic Architecture appear than it
diffused itself through all lands where Christian churches were built.
This rapid and universal diffusion, however it may be historically
accounted for, must find its ultimate explanation in the palpable
truth of this style of architecture. Instead of being like the styles.
which preceded it, an aggregation of materials and forms of con-
struction, associated and arranged upon no higher principle than
that of building a commodious, shapely and convenient edifice, the
Gothic style was a connected and organic whole, possessed of a
vital principle which rejected everything that was heterogeneous,
and assimilated all that it embraced. Hence its power and its
popularity.
After prevailing for a period of about three centuries, this
style was displaced by the revived classical architecture of the
Italian school. Then came the days in which such men as Sir
Henry Wotton stigmatized the glorious fanes which had been
erected in this style as Gothic or barbarous, and Evelyn con-
demned it as a "certain fantastical and licentious mode of build-
ing," and the son and biographer of Sir Christopher Wren sneered
at the inimitable ceiling of Henry VII.th's Chapel, as "lace and
other cut work, and crinkle crankle." The architecture nick-
named the Gothic and ever since designated by that term, was
then despised and cast out as whimsical, lawless, and absurd, and
men began to build after a fashion that was deemed the method of
the ancients. This classical Architecture had its consummation as
in the cathedrals of St. Paul's at London and St. Peter's at Rome.
It is distinguished, even beyond the Romanesque architecture, by
the want of any general principle of unity. The Greek pediment
OXFORD ARCHITECTURE.
529
or something which was intended to imitate that chief and crown-
ing feature of the Greek temple, together with columnar ordinances
fitted to receive and sustain vertical thrusts, is found in connexion
with round arches, domes, vaulted ceilings, cupolas and spires.
That this style was capable, in the hands of such men as Sir Chris-
topher Wren and Michael Angelo, of producing an imposing inte-
rior effect by the expansive dome hung high over head, and by the
picturesque combination of the other interior elements of an
immense structure, we have sufficient evidence in St. Paul's and
St. Peter's; but that it was utterly incapable of producing the
higher effects of architectural excellence will be equally evident
to any one who will take the several parts of either of those struc-
tures, and attempt to establish the relation of unity between them.
This attempt will inevitably lead to the conclusion that the differ-
ent parts of the building have no mutual bond of coherence.
They are held together by the law of gravitation, they are
cemented by mortar, but there are no mutual relations which make
them coalesce. The effects which they produce are due, in chief
part, to the purely sensuous phenomena of immense magnitude,
and picturesqueness of combination and arrangement. The
moment that we attempt to discover that unity without which no
work of art can fill and satisfy the mind, we find only discrepan-
cies and contradictions.
The age that rejected the Gothic architecture showed thus its
incompetency either to condemn or to approve. Had their censure of
the Gothic been founded upon any principles truly applicable as a
criterion of excellence, we should have been compelled to admit.
that this style of architecture expressed something that was pecu-
liar to the three centuries within which it originated and died.
The fact of its death, if it could not be shown that it was inflicted
in one of those freaks of fancy which whole communities and
generations of men sometimes exhibit, would of course show
that however fitted it may have been to give outward expression
to the mind of Europe during the three centuries of its prevalence,
it embodied no universal principles. But when we examine the
reasons assigned for its condemnation, we find that they rest upon
conventional and affected stands of judgment; and when we look
at the buildings which were thought worthy to supplant the Gothic,
we see that they are in every respect, whether of constructive art
or ideal perfection, immeasurably inferior to their predecessors.
We feel warranted, therefore, in drawing the conclusion that the
displacement of the Gothic architecture was perfectly analogous
to those changes which literature has sometimes undergone, when
partial and contracted hypotheses have for a season supplanted
with their technical canons of criticism, a true and universal method.
It is a remarkable fact that the revival of the Gothic was con-
temporaneous with the restoration of the true principles of the
Greek architecture; and that they both date from the period in
which the re-action in the public mind from the mechanical philo-
34
530
OXFORD ARCHITECTURE.
sophy and sceptical spirit of the last century begins to be distinctly
marked. No sooner was the true spirit of the wonderful remains
of Athenian art comprehended, than men began to turn to the
cathedrals and other structures of the Middle Ages, and find in
them a transcendent beauty and power. It is now universally
admitted by those who have taken the pains to acquaint them-
selves with the matter, that
"In those rich cathedral fanes
(Gothic ill-named) a harmony results
From disunited parts; and shapes minute,
At once distinct and blended, boldly form
One vast majestic whole."
As each plant in the vegetable world has its principle of
unity, and this principle has its signature in the root, the
stem, the leaf, the flower, and the fruit, so has the Gothic architec-
ture its vital principle infused into every part of the structure from
the foundation stone to the summit of its towers and spires. The
foliations of the arches, the tracery of the windows, and the scooped
cells of the branched roof, are efflorescences of the same germinating
principle which casts out the massive buttress, and throws up the
towering pinnacle.
But it is one thing to see and feel that the Gothic architecture
possesses vitality, and a very different thing to define its principle of
life. It is not our purpose, on the present occasion, to attempt any
exposition of this matter. All that we desire, for the end we have
in view, is that it should be admitted, on the grounds that we have
assigned, or through faith in those who have studied the subject,
that there is a true art developed in the Gothic architecture. This
being admitted, we wish to show that Puseyism displays some
of its most marked characteristics in its attempts to comprehend
and practise this art.
A great impulse has been given from Oxford to the study of Gothic
architecture. A society has been established there for promoting
its study, and a number of works on the subject have emanated from
the Oxford press. Some of these are curiosities in their way. But
without dwelling on the peculiarities of any, we wish to point
attention to that which is common to them all.
They exhibit, as might have been anticipated, an exclusive,
narrow-minded bigotry, in favour of one particular style of archi-
tecture, in connexion with utter ignorance of every other. The
author of the Glossary, which is an elaborate, and in many respects,
a valuable work, professes to explain the terms used in Grecian and
Roman as well as Gothic architecture; but he seldom ventures
beyond his beloved Gothic without betraying the most surprising
and often ludicrous ignorance. We refer, for illustration, to his
definition of the term cymatium, in which no less than seven appli-
cations of this term are given, every one of which is not only
wrong, but so absurdly wrong that it is impossible to read them
OXFORD ARCHITECTURE.
531
with a grave face. What is still more unpardonable than this, he
confounds the echinus, the only curved moulding that entered into
the structure of the Parthenon, with the tasteless ovolo of the
Romans, and then confounds both of these with the egg and dart
sculpture with which they were sometimes ornamented. Nor
have we been able to find a single article in the book upon any
subject connected with Grecian architecture, which is not either
grossly erroneous, or so defective as to be worthless, while upon
all the details of the Gothic, it is full, clear, and for the most part,
correct. The same character runs through the other works which
we have placed at the head of our article. They are all one-sided.
We have no right to expect that treatises on English Church
Architecture, like that of Mr. Barr, should contain an exposition of
the principles of Greek architecture, but we have a right to expect
that in their allusions to it they would not betray such ignorance
as to satisfy us that their devotion to the Gothic is a blind and
unintelligent preference. He who commends to the world any
particular style of architecture, and while in the act of doing so,
shows that he has never appreciated the spirit of beauty that dwells
in the temples of the Athenians, can scarcely hope to win the
public confidenee as an arbiter of taste. The exclusiveness which
confines the attention of the architectural bigot to one style, musi
of course prevent him from fully comprehending even that one.
Art is jealous of her secrets, and they can be won from her only by
a fearless and catholic confidence. The man whose mind is nar-
rowed down to the interests of a party or a sect must be content
to remain ignorant of them. He who despises the Parthenon, or
looks upon it with cold indifference, can be nothing but a worship-
per of stones in York Minster.
Hence we should expect to find, as is the actual fact, that these
works betray an inadequate comprehension of the true meaning and
spirit of Gothic Architecture. In describing the separate parts of a
Gothic edifice and the actual construction of English cathedrals and
churches they are sufficiently accurate, but it is evident that they
have failed to seize fully the law which makes the parts members of a
whole. The traditional authority of the fathers of English archi-
tecture is their source of information and their ultimate bar of
appeal. Thus Mr. Barr says, "when designing a church, it is by
no means sufficient that we borrow the details of an old building,
unless we likewise preserve its general proportions and canonical
distribution." He does not here nor elsewhere venture to raise
the inquiry whether the "old building" may not itself be faulty
in some of its proportions; he nowhere hints at the possibility
of our obtaining such an idea of the interior law of the
Gothic architecture in which its essence is comprised, as may
enable us to discriminate between different old buildings, and,
without copying servilely any one, combine the excellences of
several, or even originate a design in independence of them all.
He who begs thus pusillanimously from the mighty masters of old,
532
OXFORD ARCHITECTURE.
no matter how magnificent may be the gifts he receives, will
show his beggarly nature through them all. It is not by copying
the proportions of old buildings that we can hope to rival them,
but by drinking in the spirit of those proportions until a well-
spring of living beauty is opened within us.
The faithfulness with which the appeal to traditional authority
is carried out in these works, is truly remarkable. They talk in
good set terms often of the Gothic style, and yet always return
with undeviating uniformity to the authority of the fathers. Whe-
ther they recommend any particular disposition of the chief
architectural members of the structure, or the use, among its
minor adornments, of " the Cross, the Holy Name, the emblems of
the Blessed Trinity, and other mystical devices," the reason given.
is not that these things flow out naturally from the great idea
which governs the structure, but they "adorned our old ecclesias-
tical edifices."
In describing the appropriate doorway of a Gothic church, Mr.
Barr says, "In England the doorways of the cathedrals and other
great churches are seldom features of that magnitude and import-
ance which they are in the same class of ecclesiastical structures
on the continent, and it is always advisable to preserve as much
as possible the distinctive peculiarities of Anglican church archi-
tecture." This is a fair sample of the whole. The end aimed at
is not to cultivate a true and vital architecture, but to preserve
the peculiarities of English architecture. The true question at
issue, in the case stated, was not, what was the practice of English
architects, but what would best harmonize with, and assist in carry-
ing out the general idea of the Gothic style. In France and Ger-
many the doorways are of such an imposing height and magni-
tude, that they constitute a very important feature of the west
front; in England, on the contrary, they are comparatively
diminutive and insignificant. Which of these two different cha-
racters ought to be given to the doorway of a modern Gothic
church in England or elsewhere? If the question is to be decided
by the obvious impression on the feelings, let any man compare
the west front of York Minster, or Salisbury Cathedral, with
that of the Amiens or Rheims Cathedral, and he will not hesi-
tate a moment to decide in favour of the latter. But the only
adequate method of deciding such a question, is to ascertain what
there is common to a'l these structures that differ from each other
in some of their details; what is it which, notwithstanding their
circumstantial disagreements, gives to them all a sameness of ex-
pression; what is there in them that may be taken away, and what
that may not be taken away without destroying their character.
When these questions have been satisfactorily answered we shall
be possessed not of English, French, or German architecture, but
of the essence of them all, and we shall then be at no loss to
decide between the comparative merits of those features in which
OXFORD ARCHITECture.
533
they differ. To decide, as Mr. Barr does, is to substitute authority
for reason.
In like manner Mr. Markland, in urging the pious and benevo-
lent to bestow their gifts in the erection or improvement of
some particular part of church edifices, cites with approbation,
in illustration of his views, the Minstrel's column in the church
of St. Mary's, Beverly. This column is a pier with clustered
shafts, furnished with a double set of capitals placed at a suffi-
cient distance, the one above the other, to contain a group of
figures, with musical instruments, representing the minstrels who
erected it. If the Gothic architecture be nothing more than a
compendium of traditional teachings, then it is only a waste of time
to discuss any question connected with it; but if it have any
fixed and certain principles, then surely it ought to have been
shown that this "Minstrel column" was in keeping with those.
principles, before it was presented as an example to be imitated in
the present age. We believe that the Gothic architecture has a
real significancy quite other than that which is derived from any
associations connected with it, and we are sure that for the
expression of whatever may be its purpose, it is dependent
chiefly upon its predominating vertical line. In the interior,
which is of necessity the most important part of a Gothic edifice,
almost its only means of manifesting this vertical tendency is
through the pier shafts of the arches, and the vaulting shafts
of the ceiling. To break the continuousness of these shafts
for the purpose of receiving a set of statues is to destroy
the only significancy of the shaft. Whatever may be its
goodliness in other respects, as a part of a Gothic interior, it
becomes, when thus broken, an unmeaning appendage. Such
admiration as this, of the Gothic architecture, is very much akin to
that of the good old lady who was so much moved by the peculiar
eloquence of the word Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia was a good
old word, it belonged to the time of the patriarchs, and being
delivered moreover in a truly unctuous tone, it imparted a savour
to the whole sermon into which it entered.
As the Tractarians rest much in outward forms, which are no
necessary or rational part of a spiritual system of religion, and
which, being perfectly arbitrary and conventional, cannot but
hinder the mind in its progress towards the perception of any
great central truth; so, in art, the same disposition is manifested
to divorce the form from the substance, the body from the spirit
which animates it; and then, when the whole has been disinte-
grated, to assign a superstitious value to each separate part.
Each doorway must be made to hint darkly at some mystery, the
storied windows must deliver up their venerable traditions, and
the shafts and arches, the pulpit, the altar and the font, the quaint
carvings and mystical devices, must all be arranged in accordance
with some dream or vision. As the religion of such men must be,
in a good degree, made up of outward institutions and rites, which,
534
OXFORD ARCHITECTURE.
having lost their only rational meaning through their disconnexion
from the inner truth of the system to which they belong, have a
superstitious efficacy attributed to them, so their architecture is an
assemblage of parts that, having no inward principle of unity, can
only exist through some mystical meaning attached to them. Their
art is no living reality, but an assemblage of holy relics.
*
For the same reason that we should be unwilling that any man
should judge of religion by the form which it assumes in the teach-
ings and practice of the Oxford Tractarians, we would desire also,
to see the noble art of architecture rescued from their hands.
Architecture, properly understood, is undoubtedly, as Coleridge
pronounced it, the most difficult of the fine arts," it involves all the
powers of design, and is sculpture and painting inclusively; it
shows the greatness of man, and should at the same time teach
him humility." It exhibits the greatest difference from nature, that
can exist in works of art, and requires, therefore, thoughtful and
earnest study for the discovery and appreciation of its principles.
To build a convenient and ornate edifice, whether for domestic or
religious purposes, is an easy matter; but to dispose building mate-
rials in such forms as shall be expressive of intellectual purposes
and sentiments, this is a task that demands, for its adequate dis-
charge, other attainments than technical rules, old traditions, and
the narrow dogmas of a sect. The living and life-producing ideas
of this art are to be acquired only through "the perception of
those relations which alone are beautiful and eternal, whose prime
concords can be proved, but whose deeper mysteries can only be
felt."*
The Gothic architecture is one of the most wonderful creations
of the human mind. The more we study it, the more are we lost
in admiration at the skill which has succeeded in employing such
an endless multiplicity of details as enter into a Gothic structure,
without sacrificing the essential unity of the whole. The idea
which evolved it, seems to luxuriate in the greatest abundance of
forms, all of which are animated, and all in the same spirit. It is
of course symbolical, as all true art must be. Any object which
does not irresistibly lead the mind beyond itself, and inspire a
feeling due not to the qualities of the object but to something far
greater and better than is suggested by it, is no work of art. But
the symbolism of Gothic architecture, as of all characteristic art, is
dependent upon no accidental associations, or conventional ap-
pointments. It is not the work of a man, who, having agreed with
his fellows, that certain signs shall represent certain objects or
qualities, proceeds to use the power with which they have endowed
him; but of one who having worshipped beside the fountain of
primal beauty, has drunk in those essential principles of harmony
which must speak to the hearts of all men. The forms that enter
* Goethe's Works, vol. xxxix., p.
339.
OXFORD ARCHITECTURE.
535
into a Gothic cathedral are a figured language, but it is a univer-
sal language.
How preposterous, then, to mix up with this natural symbolism,
deriving its efficacy from that which is true as the human mind,
and permanent as the race, the purely technical symbolism of any
particular creed or age! How absurd to break in upon the har-
mony that, assimilating to itself the voice of each of its manifold
parts, pours forth its choral symphonies from the whole, with the
crotchets of a school or sect. The "mystic devices," for which
Mr. Barr pleads, the sacred monogram, the vesica piscis, and
other technical inventions, what have these to do in conjunction
with those harmonious forms and relations, that, partaking of the
very essence of beauty, are endowed with natural and indefeasi-
ble power to awe, to subdue, to exalt, to refine the human mind?
It may easily be gathered from what we have already said, that
we dissent utterly from the sentiment often expressed, that the
Gothic architecture is a development of Papal Christianity. It is
indeed a religious architecture, as every other true style has been;
it is, in some sense, a Christian architecture, but further to limit its
generality is to despoil it of its glory and power. Doubtless an
architecture might be devised which would be an appropriate
symbol of Romanism. So also we might construct a style which
would fitly represent the Protestant Episcopal Church, as its doc-
trines and practices are expounded by the Oxford Tractarians;
but it would be widely different from the Gothic. It would be a
style which, acknowledging no infallible standards, except as they
are interpreted by tradition, would copy "old buildings" without
daring to aspire even so high as imitation. It would of course fix
attention upon external forms, rather than upon the thought within.
Hence also it would limit its views of mental expression to the
ideas of power and grandeur through which the mind might be
overawed and reduced to an unreasoning submission. It would
discourage the robust and manly exercise of the human intellect,
and would care little therefore for strict unity and severe harmony,
if it might so manage the details as to produce an extemporane-
ous impression upon the beholder, sufficiently powerful to compel
him to yield a slavish obedience to authority. The deeper myste-
ries of art which are to be felt only by those who have understood
its" prime concords," would be altogether beyond its reach. But
we feel little interest in tracing out minutely the idea of an Epis-
copal art. It will be exhibited in its concrete form whenever the
teachings of such architects as Mr. Barr shall have been carried
thoroughly into practice.
ESSAY XIX.
A TREATISE ON EXPOSITORY PREACHING.
PUBLISHED IN 1838.
THE pulpit discourses of Roman Catholics as well as Protest-
ants, during several centuries, have been for the most part founded
on short passages of Scripture; commonly single verses, and oftener
less than more. This has become so prevalent, that in most trea-
tises upon the composition of sermons all the canons of homile-
tics presuppose the treatment of an isolated text.
We are not
prepared to denounce this practice, especially when we consider
the treasury of sound doctrine, cogent reasoning, and mighty
eloquence, which is embodied in productions formed on this model,
and call to mind the instances in which such discourses have been
signally owned of God in the edification of his church. But there
is still another method, which, though less familiar to ourselves, was
once widely prevalent, and is recognised and approved in our
Directory for Worship, in the following words: "It is proper also
that large portions of Scripture be sometimes expounded, and par-
ticularly improved for the instruction of the people in the meaning
and use of the sacred oracles."* And it may not be out of place
to mention here, that in the debates of the Westminster Assembly,
there were more than a few members, and among these the cele-
brated Calamy, who maintained with earnestness, that it was no
part of the minister's duty to read the Scriptures in public without
exposition.†
It is not a little remarkable that in an age in which so much is
heard against creeds and systems as contradistinguished from the
pure text of Scripture, and in which sacred hermeneutics hold so
high a place in Theological education, we should have allowed the
methodical and continued exposition of the Bible to go almost into
Directory for Worship, chap. vi., § 2.
† Lightfoot's Works, vol. xiii., p. 36.
A TREATISE ON EXPOSITORY PREACHING.
537
disuse.* What our predecessors practised under the name of lectures
is almost banished from the pulpit. It is against this exclusion that
we now propose to direct our argument. And in what may be
offered in the sequel we ask attention to this statement of the ques-
tion as limiting our purpose. Far be it from us to decry the mode
of discoursing which prevails in our churches. We freely acknow-
ledge its many excellences and rejoice in its gracious fruits; but
we plead in behalf of another and an older method, which we
lament to see neglected and forsaken. With this preface, we shall
proceed to give some reasons why a judicious return to the exposi-
tory method of preaching seems to us to be desirable.
:
1. The expository method of preaching is the most obvious and
natural way of conveying to the hearers the import of the sacred
volume. It is the very work for which a ministry was instituted,
to interpret the Scriptures. In the case of any other book, we
should be at no loss in what manner to proceed. Suppose a volume
of human science to be placed in our hands as the sole manual, text-
book, and standard, which we were expected to elucidate to a public
assembly in what way would it be most natural to go to work?
Certainly not, we think, to take a sentence here, and a sentence
there, and upon these separate portions to frame one or two dis-
courses every week. No interpreter of Aristotle, of Littleton, of
Puffendorf, or of Paley, ever dreamed of such a method. Nor was
it adopted in the Christian church, until the sermon ceased to be
regarded in its true notion, as an explanation of the Scripture, and
began to be viewed as a rhetorical entertainment, which might
afford occasion for the display of subtilty, research, and eloquence.
2. The expository method has the sanction of primitive and
ancient usage. In the Israelitish, as well as the Christian church,
preaching was an ordinary mode of religious instruction. In both
it was justly regarded as a means of conducting the hearers to the
knowledge of revealed truth. As early as the time of Ezra, we find
that the reading of the law was accompanied with some kind of inter-
pretation. In the synagogues, after the reading of the law and the
prophets, it was usual for the presiding officer to invite such as were
learned to address the people. Our Lord Jesus Christ availed himself
of this opportunity to deliver one of his most remarkable discourses;
and this was an exposition of a prophetic passage. The apostle
Paul seems also to have made portions of Scripture the basis of
his addresses in the synagogues. But it is not to be expected that
the preaching of the apostolic age, when the speakers were divinely
inspired, should be in all respects a model for our own times. It
was their province to communicate truth under inspiration; it is
ours to interpret what has thus been communicated. The early
Christian assemblies naturally adopted the simple and rational
* Although the subject of this essay may, in certain particulars, run very naturally
into that of critical interpretation, the writer begs leave to disclaim any special right
to dwell upon this topic, as his pursuits have not led him into the field of hermeneu-
tics, any further than the performance of ordinary ministerial duty required.
538
A TREATISE ON EXPOSITORY PREACHING.
methods of the Jewish synagogues; in conformity with which it
was an essential part of the service to read the Scriptures. Manu-
scripts were rare, and the majority of believers were poor; and
hence the church assemblies must have long continued to be the
chief, if not the only, sources of biblical knowledge. Justin Mar-
tyr, who is one of the earliest authorities on this subject, informs
us that the public reading of the text was followed by addresses,
adapted to impress the subject on the minds of the hearers.*
According to Neander, who may be considered as an impartial
judge on this topic, it was at first left to the option of the bishop
what portions of Scripture should be read; though it was subse-
quently made necessary to adhere to certain lessons, which were
judged appropriate to times and seasons. Bingham also concedes
that the lessons were sometimes arbitrarily appointed by the bish-
ops at discretion. Augustine declares that he sometimes ordered a
lesson to be read which harmonized with the psalm which he had
been expounding.†
As this is a point of history concerning which there is little
room for question, we shall content ourselves with the diligent,
and, as we believe, impartial deductions of Bingham and Neander.
It is not to be denied, that there were, even in the early ages, seve-
ral different modes of preaching, and that some of these approached
very nearly to that which now prevails; yet there was no period
during which the expository method was not highly prized and
extensively practised. These discourses were very frequent, and
often flowed from the intense feeling of the moment. Pamphilus,
in his Apology for Origen, represents this great teacher as dis-
coursing extempore almost every day. The same frequency of
public address is recorded of Chrysostom, Augustine, and other
fathers. Their sermons were taken down by stenographers, and
in such of them as are extant we have repeated evidences of their
familiar and unpremeditated character. Chrysostom, for instance,
thus breaks forth, in one of his homilies on Genesis: "I am
expounding the Scriptures; yet you are all turning your eyes from
me to the person who is lighting the lamps. What negligence! to
forsake me, and fix your minds on him! For I am lighting a fire
from the holy Scriptures, and in my tongue is a burning lamp for
instruction." Augustine also tells us, in one of his homilies, that he
had not thought of the subject on which he actually preached,
until the reader chanced to read it of his own accord in the
church.‡
The two greatest preachers of the Greek and Latin churches,
respectively, afford striking examples of the value set upon expo-
sition. Augustine has left homilies upon the Psalms, the Gospel of
John, and other whole books of Scripture. Chrysostom, in like
manner, expounded at length the book of Genesis, the Psalms, the
Apolog 2. † Aug. in Psalm xc., Ser. ii.-Bingham, Antiq. B. xiv., c. iii., § 3.
Bingham, Book xiv., chap. iv., § 4.
A TREATISE ON EXPOSITORY PREACHING.
539
Gospels of Matthew and John, and all the Epistles of Paul. His
homilies consist usually of a close interpretation, or running com-
mentary, followed by an Ethicon, or practical application. That
biblical exposition was recognised as the end of preaching seems
clear from such declarations as the following: "If any one assi-
duously attend public worship, even without reading the Bible at
home, but carefully hearkening here, he will find a single year suf-
ficient to give him an intimate acquaintance with the Scrip-
tures." And indeed this is so natural a result of the catholic
belief that the Scriptures are the great storehouse of saving truth,
as to leave us in some surprise at the neglect into which this direct
exposition of the authentic records has fallen.
When we look into the history of England during the thirteenth
century, we find that two modes of preaching were in use, neither
of these being that which we now employ. In the first place, that
of Postillating, which was identical with the expository method;
secondly, that of Declaring, in which the discourse was preceded
by a declaration of the subject, without the citation of any pas-
sage of Scripture. When, about the beginning of the thirteenth
century, the method of preaching from insulated texts, with subtile
divisions of the sermon, was introduced, it was zealously adopted
by the younger clergy, and became extensively popular; while it
was as warmly opposed by some of the best theologians of the
age, as "a childish playing upon words-destructive of true elo-
quence-tedious and unaffecting to the hearers-and cramping the
imagination of the preacher." Among others, it found an able
opponent in the great Roger Bacon; a man whom we can never
mention without amazement at his philosophical attainments, and
veneration for his character. "The greatest part of our prelates,"
says he, "having but little knowledge in divinity, and having been
little used to preaching in their youth, when they become bishops,
and are sometimes obliged to preach, are under the necessity of
begging and borrowing the sermons of certain novices, who have
invented a new way of preaching, by endless divisions and quib-
blings, in which there is neither sublimity of style nor depth of
wisdom, but much childish trifling and folly, unsuitable to the
dignity of the pulpit. May God banish this conceited and artificial
way of preaching out of his church; for it will never do any good,
nor elevate the hearts of his hearers to anything that is great or
excellent."†
"The opposition to this new method of preaching," says Dr.
Henry in his History of England," continued through the whole
of the fourteenth and part of the fifteenth century. Dr. Thomas
Gascoigne, Chancellor of the University of Oxford, tells us that he
preached a sermon in St. Martin's Church, A. D. 1450, without a
text, and without divisions, declaring such things as he thought
* Hom. 28, in Job.-Neander, Der heilige Chrysostomus.
† R. Bacon, apud Henry's Hist., iv., 366.
540
A TREATISE ON EXPOSITORY PREACHING.
would be useful to the people. Amongst other things he told them,
in vindication of this ancient mode of preaching,.-"that Dr.
Augustine had preached four hundred sermons to the clergy and
people, without reading a text at the beginning of his discourse;
and that the way of preaching by a text, and by divisions, was
invented only about A. D. 1200, as appeared from the authors of
the first sermons of that kind.'"
It is no part of our business to enter further into this investiga-
tion, or to determine critically at what point of time the method of
preaching from insulated verses became exclusively prevalent in
the church. Whatever excellences it possesses, and there are
many, can derive no additional dignity from the origin of the
method, which is referable to a period by no means the most
glorious of Christian history. When the light of divine truth
began to emerge from its long eclipse, at the Reformation, there
were few things more remarkable, than the universal return of
evangelical preachers to the expository method. Book after book
of the Scriptures was publicly expounded by Luther, and the
almost daily sermons of Calvin were, with scarcely any exceptions,
founded on passages taken in regular course as he proceeded
through the sacred canon. The same is true of the other Reformers,
particularly in England and Scotland.
To come down to the times of the Nonconformists; while it is
undoubtedly true that they sometimes pursued the textual method
even to an extreme; preaching many discourses on a single verse;
it is no less true, that exposition in regular course was considered
a necessary part of ministerial labour. Hence the voluminous
commentaries on single books with which the press groaned during
that period. Let us take a single instance, as late as the latter
half of the sixteenth century, in the person of Matthew Henry,
whom it is difficult to refer exclusively to the era of the elder or
the later Nonconformists. We may suppose his practice in this
particular to be no extreme case. Mr. Henry was an able and
laborious preacher from single texts, but it was by no means
to the exclusion of the expository plan. On every Lord's day
morning, he read and expounded a part of the Old Testament;
on every Lord's day afternoon a part of the New; in both instances
proceeding in regular order. During his residence in Chester he
went over the whole Bible in this exercise, more than once.
Such was the custom of our forefathers; and in the prosecution
of such a plan, we need not wonder that they found the body of
their hearers constantly advancing in scriptural attainments. The
sense of change, and change without improvement, is unavoidable
when we come down to our own times; in which, within our
immediate knowledge, there are not a dozen ministers who make the
expounding of Scripture any part of their stated pulpit exercises.
Nay, although our Directory for Worship declares expressly
* Williams, Life of Henry, c. x.
*
A TREATISE ON EXPOSITORY PREACHING.
541
that "the reading of the Holy Scriptures in the congregation, is
a part of the public worship of God, and ought to be performed by
the ministers and teachers ;"--that the preacher, "in each service,
ought to read, at least one chapter, and more, when the chapters
are short, or the connexion requires it ;" yet it is undeniably the
common practice to confine this service, which is treated as some-
thing almost supererogatory, to the Lord's day morning. Now
while we are zealous in maintaining, that the Christian minister
should not be bound down by any imperative rubric or calendar
as to the portion which he shall read, we cannot but blush when
we compare our actual performances in this kind with those of
many sister churches, who have chosen to be guided by more strict
liturgical arrangements.
3. The expository method is adapted to secure the greatest
amount of scriptural knowledge, to both preacher and hearers. It
needs no argument, we trust, to sustain the position that every
minister of the gospel should be mighty in the Scriptures; familiar
with the whole text; versed in the best commentaries; at home
in every portion of both Testaments; and accustomed to grapple
with the most perplexing difficulties. This is the appropriate and
peculiar field of clerical study. It is obvious that the pulpit exer-
cises of every diligent minister will give direction and colour to
his private lucubrations. In order to success and usefulness in any
species of discourse, the preacher must love his work and must
have it constantly before his mind. He must be possessed of an
enthusiasm which shall never suffer him to forget the impending
task. His reading, his meditation, and even his casual trains of
thought, must perpetually revert to the performances of the Sab-
bath. And we take pleasure in believing that such is actually the
case with a large proportion of clergymen.
Now it must not be concealed that the popular and prevalent
mode of sermonizing, however favourable it may be to professional
zeal of this kind, and to the cultivation of mental habits, does by no
means lead in any equal measure to the laborious study of the
Scriptures. The text, it is true, must be a fragment of the word
of God; and it may be confirmed and illustrated by parallel or
analogous passages. But where no extended exposition is attempt-
ed, the preacher is naturally induced to draw upon systematic
treatises, philosophical theories, works of mere literature, or his
own ingenuity of invention, and fertility of imagination, for such
a train of thought as, under the given topic, may claim the praise
of novelty. We are aware that with many it is far otherwise,
and that there are preachers who are wont to select such texts as
necessarily draw after them a full interpretation of all the forego-
ing and following context; and such sermons are, to all intents and
purposes, expositions. But we also know, that to compose a ser-
mon upon a text of Scripture, with very little reference to its posi-
tion in the word of God. and a very little inquiry as to the intent
of the Spirit in the words, is a thing not only possible but common.
542
A TREATISE ON EXPOSITORY PREACHING.
The evil grows apace, wherever the rhetorical aspect of preaching
attracts undue attention; and the desire to be original, striking,
ingenious, and elegant, supersedes the earnest endeavour to be
scriptural.
This abuse is in a good degree precluded by the method of
exposition. The minister who from week to week is labouring to
elucidate some important book of Scripture, has this kept forcibly
before his mind. It will necessarily be the chief subject of hist
studies. Whatever else he may neglect, he will, if he is a con-
scientious man, sedulously peruse and ponder those portions which
he is to explain; using every auxiliary, and especially comparing
Scripture with Scripture. Suppose him to pursue this regular
investigation of any one book, for several successive months, and
we perceive that he must be acquiring a knowledge of the very
word of truth, vastly more extensive, distinct, and profound, than
can fall to the lot of one who perhaps for no two discourses
together finds himself in the same part of the canon.
Two men
practising upon the two methods, each in an exclusive manner,
may severally gain an equal measure of intellectual discipline and
real knowledge, but their attainments will differ in kind. The one
is driven from the variety of his topics to a fitful and fragmentary
study of the Bible; the other is bound down to a systematic and
unbroken investigation of consecutive truths. Consider, also, how
much more of the pure teachings of the Spirit, accompanied with
suitable explanation, necessarily occupies the mind of the preacher
in one method than in the other.
If such is the influence, with respect to the preacher himself,
who, under any system, is still free to devote his mind to scriptural
study; how much greater is it not likely to be with respect to the
hearers, whose habits of investigation almost always receive their
character from the sermons to which they listen? Perhaps none will
deny that every hearer should be made as fully acquainted with the
whole word of God, as is practicable. But where, by the mass of
Christian people, is this knowledge to be obtained, except at church?
The truth is, the scriptural knowledge possessed by our ordinary
congregations, amidst all our boasted light and improvement,
bears no comparison with that of the Scottish peasantry of the
last generation, who, from very infancy, were taught to follow the
preacher, in their little Bibles, as he expounded in regular course.
If long habit had not prepossessed us, we should doubtless agree
at once to the proposition, that all the more cardinal books of
Scripture should be fully expounded in every church, if not once
during the life of a single preacher, certainly once during each
generation; in order that no man should grow up without the
opportunity of hearing the great body of scriptural truth laid open.
And considering the Bible as our only authentic document, this
method seems so natural, that the burden of proof may fairly be
thrown on such as have well nigh succeeded in excluding it. There
is something beautiful in the very idea of training up a whole con-
A TREATISE ON EXPOSITORY PREACHING.
543
gregation in the regular study of the holy Scriptures. And if we
were called upon to devise a plan for inducing people to read the
Bible more diligently, we could think of none as likely to attain
the end. When hearers know that a certain portion of Scripture
is to be explained on the ensuing Lord's day, they will naturally
be led to examine it during the week, and will thus be prepared to
listen with greatly increased advantage to what may be offered.
This is precisely the exercise which Chrysostom recommends to
his hearers in his first homily on Matthew.* The same Father
seems also to have sometimes thrown out to his hearers difficult
questions, in order that they might be stimulated to inquiry.
"Wherefore," he says, "have I presented the difficulty and not
appended its solution? Because it is my purpose to accustom you,
not always to receive food already prepared; but often to search
for the explanation yourselves. Just as it is with the doves, which
as long as their young remain in the nest, feed them from their
own bills; but as soon as they are large enough to be fledged and
leave the nest, cease to do thus. For while they bring them corn
in their bills, they only show it to them; and when the young ones
expect nourishment, and draw nigh, the mother lets it fall upon the
earth, and the little ones pick it up." If Scripture difficulties are
in our day often started in the pulpit, and often left unresolved, we
are not prepared to say whether it is exactly with the motive
avowed by this great preacher. Certain it is, that the able elucida-
tion of dark places, and the reconciling of seeming contradictions,
occupy far less room in the sermons which we nowadays preach,
than they did in those which have come down to us from a former
age. Not many clergymen adopt the method of Bishop Horsely,
who was accustomed to select difficult texts, in order that his
preaching might be, in the highest possible degree, an aid to the
inquiries of his hearers. And unless scriptural doubts are resolved
from the sacred desk, it is plain that the great body of our con-
gregations are likely to remain in darkness as long as they live.
But he who proposes to analyse and interpret any considerable
portion of the Bible, in regular order, cannot evade this labour,
but must repeatedly confront the most difficult passages, and pre-
pare himself to make them intelligible. It would be easy to expa-
tiate on this topic, but enough has been said to awaken some doubt
as to the expediency of banishing formal exposition from the church
assembly.
4. The expository method of preaching is best fitted to commu-
nicate the knowledge of scriptural truth in its connexion. The
knowledge of the Bible is something more than the knowledge of
its isolated sentences. It includes a full acquaintance with the rela-
* Ὥστε δὲ εὐμαθέστερον γενέσθαι τὸν λόγον, δεόμεθα καὶ παρακαλουμεν, ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων
γραφῶν πεποιήκαμεν, προσλαμβάνειν τὴν περικοπὴν τῆς γραφῆς, ἣν ἂν μελλῶμεν ἐξηγείσθαι, ἵνα
τῇ γνώσει ἡ ἀνάγνωσις προσοδοποιοῦσα (δ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν εὐνουχου γέγονε), πολλὴν παράσχοι τὴν
εὐκολίαν ἡμῖν.
† Vol. iii., p. 103.
544
A TREATISE ON EXPOSITORY PREACHING.
tion which every proposition sustains to the narrative or argument
of which it is a part. This is particularly true of trains of reasoning
where everything depends on a cognisance of the links which con-
nect the several truths, and the order in which those truths are pre-
sented. Large portions of holy writ are closely argumentative,
and can be understood in their true intention only when the whole
scope and sequence of the terms are considered. This logical
connexion is no less the result of inspiration than is any individual
statement. In some books of Scripture the argument runs from
beginning to end, and the clew to the whole is to be sought in the
analysis of the reasoning. As instances of this we may cite the
epistles to the Romans and to the Hebrews; of which no man
can have any adequate conception who has not been familiar
with all their parts as constituting a logical whole. This, however,
is so universally conceded as a first principle of hermeneutics,
that it is needless to press it further. But it is not so generally
perceived, that in the other methods of preaching this great advan-
tage is sacrificed. It is true that a man may announce as his text
a single verse or clause of a verse, and then offer a full and satis-
factory elucidation of the whole context, but so far as this is done,
the sermon is expository, and falls under the kind which we
recommend. But this species of discourse is becoming more and
In the sermons of the Nonconformists this was usually
the plan of proceeding. In modern sermons, there is, for the most
part, nothing which resembles it. A text is taken, usually with a
view to some preconceived subject; a proposition is deduced from
the text; and this is confirmed or illustrated by a series of state-
ments which would have been precisely the same if any similar
verse, in any other part of the record, had been chosen. Here there
is no interpretation, for there is no pretence of it.
There may be
able theological discussion, and we by no means would exclude this;
but where a method merely textual or topical prevails, there is an
absolute forsaking of that which we have maintained to be the true
notion of preaching. We can conceive of a hearer listening during
a course of years to every verse of the epistle to the Hebrews, laid
open in connexion with as many sermons of the popular sort,
without obtaining thereby an insight into the grand scope and
intricate contexture of that wonderful production. Now we say
that the method which makes such an omission possible is unfit to
be the exclusive method.
more rare.
As a remarkable instance of what is meant, we may adduce the
sermons of the Rev. William Jay, who is justly celebrated as one
of the most fascinating and instructive preachers of Great Britain.
In these sermons we find many valuable scriptural truths, many
original and touching illustrations, much sound argument, pungent
exhortation, and great unction. In themselves considered, and
viewed as pulpit orations, they seem open to scarcely a single
objection; yet as expositions of the Scripture, they are literally
nothing. They clear up no difficulties in the argument of the
A TREATISE ON EXPOSITORY PREACHING.
545
inspired writers; they give no wide prospects of the field in which
their matter lies; they might be repeated for a lifetime without
tending in the slightest degree to educate a congregation in habits
of sound interpretation. The same remark applies to the majority
of American discourses, and most of all to those which conform
to the prevailing taste of New England. In occasional sermons,
and monthly collections, where we have access to a number of
printed discourses, we are often forcibly struck with the absence
of all logical concatenation. The text is a sign or motto, after
announcing which the preacher glides into a gentle train of com-
mon-places, or a series of thoughts which, however ingenious and
interesting and true, have no necessary connexion, “continuous in
their discontinuity, like the sand-thread of the hour-glass."
The mental habits of any Christian community are mainly
derived from the preaching which they hear. It is fair to ask,
therefore, from what source can the Christians of our day be
expected to gain a taste and ability for interpreting the Scripture
in its connexion? Certainly not from the pulpit. Among the
ancient Scottish Presbyterians the case was different. Every man
and every woman, nay almost every child, carried his pocket-Bible
to church, and not only looked out the text, but verified each cita-
tion; and as the preach.ng was in great part of the expository
kind, the necessary consequence was, that the whole population
became intimately acquainted with the structure of every book in
the Bible, and were able to recall every passage with its appropriate
accompanying truths. The genius of Protestantism demands that
something of this kind should be attempted. Where the laity are
not expected to search the Scriptures, or in any degree to exercise
private judgment, it may answer every purpose to give them from
the pulpit the mere results of exp sition; but more is needed
where we claim for all the privilege of trying every doctrine by
the word of God; and sermons should therefore be auxiliaries to
the hearers in their investigation of the record. And we earnestly
desire a general return on the part of our preachers to a method
which will necessarily tend, from week to week, to open the Scrip-
tures, and display, what is by no means their least excellency, the
harmonious relation of their several portions.
5. The expository method affords inducement and occasion to
the preacher to declare the whole counsel of God. No man who
selects his insulated texts at random has any good reason to be
satisfied that he is not neglecting the inculcation of many impor-
tant doctrines or duties. This deficiency is prevented in some
good measure, it must be owned, by those who pursue a syste-
matic course of doctrines in their ordinary ministrations.
usually, the indolence or caprice which renders any one averse to
the expository method, will I.kew.se withhold him from methodical
series of any kind in his discourses. There is perhaps no man
who has not an undue fondness for some one circle of subjects:
and this does not always comprise the whole of what he is bound
But
35
546
A TREATISE ON EXPOSITORY PREACHING.
to declare. But the regular exposition of a few entire books, well
selected, would go far to supply every defect of this nature.
It is the province of the minister to render plain the difficulties
of the Bible, and this is not likely to be done extensively, as we
have elsewhere hinted, in an exclusive adherence to single texts.
There are some important and precious doctrines of revelation
which are exceedingly unwelcome to the minds of many hearers;
such, for instance, are the doctrines of predestination, and uncon-
ditional election. These, the preacher is tempted to avoid, and
by some they are never unfolded during a whole lifetime. It
is obvious that no one could expound the Epistle to the Romans,
without being under the necessity of handling these points.
Moreover, it is unquestionable that many doctrines are abhor-
rent to the uninstructed mind, when they are set forth in their
naked theological form, which are by no means so when presented
in their scriptural connexion. Here, again, is a marked superi-
ority on the side of exposition.
There is, we suppose, no pastor, who has not, in the course of
his ministerial life, found himself called upon to press certain
duties, or inveigh against certain sins, which it was exceedingly
difficult to dwell upon, either from the delicacy of the theme itself,
or from its relation to particular classes or individuals in his con-
gregation. Now when such topics naturally arise in the regular
progress of exposition, all hesitation on this score is removed at
once. The most unpopular doctrines may be stated and enforced,
the most prevalent vices denounced, and the most daring offenders.
chastised, while not even the censorious or the sensitive can find
room for complaint. For these, and similar reasons, we conceive
the expository way of preaching to supply a grand deficiency in
our common pulpit ministrations.
6. The expository method admits of being made generally intc-
resting to Christian assemblies. We are aware that the vulgar
opinion is just the reverse of this, and that there are those who
refrain from this way of preaching, under the belief that it must
necessarily prove dry and repulsive to the hearer. To this our
reply is, that the int rpretation of the Scriptures ought to be inte-
resting to every member of a Christian community: if it is not so,
in fact, the cause of this disrelish is an evil which the church
should not willingly endure, and which can be remedied in no
other way than by bringing the public back to the assiduous study
of the Bible. It is not every sort of exposition, any more than
every sort of sermon, which is interesting. He who hastily seizes
upon a large portion of the text, in order to furnish himself with
ample material for an undigested. desultory, and extemporaneous
address, cannot expect to awaken and maintain attention. With
all their blindness, in certain matters. the public are very sagacious
in discovering when the minister gives them that which costs him
nothing. But let any man devote equal labour to his lectures as
A TREATISE ON EXPOSITORY PREACHING.
547
to his sermons, and unless he be the subject of some idiosyncrasy,
the former will be equally interesting.
The observation is very common that expository preaching is
exceedingly difficult. Yet the writers on homiletics, as if it were
the easiest thing in the world, and taught by nature, almost without
exception dismiss the whole subject with a few passing remarks,
and lay down no rules for the conduct of a regular exposition.
We are persuaded that if equal pains were taken to prepare for
one as for the other, and if the one were as often practised as the
other, this complaint would have no place.
Teller
As a matter of fact, we have observed no lack of interest in
such exercises, on the part of intelligent hearers. The truth is,
the Bible is made for the common mind, and as it is the most inte-
resting book in the world, so its interpretation, well conducted, is
always found to be highly and increasingly agreeable to the major-
ity of hearers. On the other hand, there are few instances of
any man's interesting large congregations, for any length of time,
by discourses which were void of scriptural statements, however
elegant they might be in a rhetorical point of view. The effect
of mere ethical preaching has been sorely felt in Germany, where,
in the greater number of places, the ancient services of the Sunday
afternoon, and during the week, have gone into desuetude, and
there are whole classes of persons whom one never expects to see
in church, such as merchants, military officers, and savans.
once preached a sermon to a congregation of just sixteen persons,
the intent of which was to warn them against setting too high a
value on going to church. "Let any man," says Tholuck, "imagine a
modern preacher-as was common in former days-to direct his
congregation to bring their Bibles with them, and that they might be
assured that he declared, not man's word, but the word of God, at
every important point, to look out the passage cited: the remark of
all elegant gentlemen and ladies would be, 'Oh ! this is too simple!'
Dies ist doch allzu naiv!" But in the days when this simple prac-
tice was in vogue, every one was interested in exposition; and it
will be so again, whenever the public taste shall have been reformed
by a return to what was good in the ancient methods. We
rejoice to know of at least one instance, even in Germany, serving
to show that ordinary Christians may, with proper care, be led
back into the old paths, and that highly to their satisfaction. "I
know but one preacher," says a writer in the Evangelical Church
Journal, “in my native country, where there are more than four
hundred churches, who practises biblical exposition with success.
In his country parish, which comprises several hamlets, he is
accustomed to visit each of these in turn once a month (perhaps
oftener in winter), and to lecture in the school-house. The hear-
ers bring their B.bles, and even aged and infirm persons, who can-
not go to church, repair hither with eagerness and delight. They
receive, neither mere fragmentary and superficial remarks on
single words or clauses, nor a merely edifying address on a scrip-
548
A TREATISE ON EXPOSITORY PREACHING.
ture passage, but the connected exposition of some whole book,
developing as well the specialties of language and matter, as the
entire scope according to its contents. The lecturer_begins, at
every meeting, where he left off at the previous one.
In the next
hamlet he interprets another book, as large numbers come in from
the neighbouring villages, to enjoy the additional privilege."
Would that we could witness the same thing in every congrega-
tion in America!
There is one advantage of expository lectures, in respect to
interest, which must not be omitted. Nothing is more evident,
than that the attention and sympathy of an audience are best
ensured by a rapid transition from topic to topic. This cannot
always be secured in the common method. The preacher,
from a sort of necessity, hammers with wearisome perseverance
upon some one malleable thought, in order to keep within his pre-
conceived task. But where he has before him a number of con-
nected scriptural propositions, he is not only allowed, but con-
strained, to make precisely such quick transitions from each point
to the next, as gives great variety to his discourse, and keeps up
the unwearied attention of the hearer. With faithful preparation
and assiduous practice, there is probably no minister who might
not find this happy effect from weekly lecturing.
7. The expository method has a direct tendency to correct, if
not to preclude, the evils incident to the common textual mode of
preaching. It is an ordinary complaint that the sermons of the
present day, as compared with those of the seventeenth century,
are meager, and often empty of matter; we think the charge is
founded in truth. No one can go from the perusal of Barrow,
Leighton, Charnock, or Owen, to the popular writers of our time,
without feeling that he has come into an atmosphere of less den-
sity. In the mere form of the pulpit discourse, in an æsthetical
point of view, we have unquestionably improved upon our model.
The performances of that day were too scholastic and complicated.
"The sermons of the last century," says Cecil, "were like their
large, unwieldy chairs. Men have now a far more true idea of a
chair. They consider it as a piece of furniture to sit upon, and
they cut away from it everything that embarrasses and encumbers
it." But we have gone on to cut away until we have, in too many
cases, removed what was important and substantial. The evil is
acknowledged, but it is worthy of inquiry, how far the superficial
character of modern sermons is derived from the exclusive use of
short texts. We certainly do not assert that the Puritans them-
selves did not carry this very method to an extreme, by preaching
many sermons on the same text; but it is well known that they
almost universally pursued some variety of regular exposition in
conjunction with this. Still less do we contend that all the evils
of sermonizing are to be imputed to the exclusive use of brief
texts; the source of the evil is more remote, and must be
sought in the spirit of the age. But still, there is good ground for
A TREATISE ON EXPOSITORY PREACHING.
549
the position, that the prevailing method gives easy occasion to
certain abuses, to which direct exposition is not liable; and hence
we argue that the exclusion of the latter mode is greatly to be
deprecated. This is the extent of our demand. Some of the
abuses to which we refer may be indicated.
It is by no means uncommon to hear sermons which are abso-
lutely devoid of any scriptural contents. The text indeed is from
the Bible, and there may be interspersed, more for decoration than
proof, a number of inspired declarations; but the warp and the woof
of the texture are a mere web of human reasoning or illustration.
Sometimes the subject is purely secular; and often, where it is
some topic of divine truth, it is maintained and urged upon natural
grounds, independent of the positive declarations of the Word. It is
not merely among the Unitarians of Boston that this style prevails.
There are various degrees of approach to it in many orthodox
pulpits of New England. The expository method renders this
exceedingly difficult: being professedly an explanation of the
Bible as the ideas are there set forth. In point of fact, this evil
seldom occurs in exposition; as it is both natural and easy for the
preacher to open clause after clause in its true sense and its
revealed order. Expository discourse can scarcely fail to be
largely made up of the pure biblical material.
A still greater abuse is that of wresting texts from their genuine
meaning by what is called accommodation. This is the extreme
refinement of the modern method. As if there was a lamentable
paucity of direct scriptural declarations, to be used as the subjects
of discourse, we have proceeded to employ sacred words in a
sense which never entered into the minds of their inspired writers.
This is the favourite trick of many a pulpit haranguer, and
deserves to be classed with the sesquipedalian capitals of play-bills,
and the clap-traps of the theatre: in both cases the object is to
attract attention or awaken astonishment. There can scarcely be
found, on the other hand, a single man, however unbridled his
imagination, who could fall into such a fault in the process of
formal and professed exposition. Common reverence for the
Word of God must needs forbid any one while in the very act of
interpreting its successive statements, to exhibit as the true intent
of any passage, sentiments which no fair exegesis can extract
from it.
But even where the text is understood in its literal and primary
sense, the avidity for something new, and a regard for the "itch-
ing ear" of modern auditories, seduce the preacher into such a
mode of treating his subject, as renders the sermon too often a mere
exercise of logical or rhetorical adroitness. Where the aesthetics of
sermonizing have been cultivated with overweening regard, and
the exquisite partition of the topics has been exalted to the
first place, we see everything sacrificed to ingenuity. The
proper basis of every discourse is some pregnant declaration of
the Scripture. But in the elegant sermons which are occasionally
550
A TREATISE ON EXPOSITORY PREACHING.
heard, the real basis is an artificial division, or "skeleton," com-
monly tripartite, and frequently of such structure as to offer a
pretty antithetic jingle of terms, and at the same time to remove
out of sight the true connexion and scope of the text. When this
is the case, far too much stress is laid upon the division, however
ingenious. This abuse has grown from age to age. It was the
natural consequence of exclusive textual preaching. Among the
French divines it may be said to have prevailed, but it has reached
its acme among the Germans; who have almost defeated our
object in these remarks by playing the same tricks of fancy with
long passages. Thus the excellent Tholuck, in the ninth of his
second series of University Sermons, has contrived from Acts i.,
1-14, to produce a division not merely in forced antithesis, but
actually in rhyme! The partition being as follows:
1. Die Stätte seines Scheidens, die Stätte seines Leidens ;
2. Verhüllet ist sein Anfang, verhüllet ist sein Ausgang;
3. Der Schluss von Seinem Wegen ist für die Seinen Segen;
4. Er ist von uns geschieden, und ist uns doch Geblieben;
5. Er bleibt verhullet den Seinen, bis er wird klär erscheinen.
But as a discourse is not made expository by having prefixed to
it a connected passage of Scripture, we still maintain, that genuine
exposition removes in great measure the temptation to these
refinements. It deserves consideration that we treat no other
subjects but those of religion in this way. In all grave discussions
of human science, all juridical arguments, and all popular addresses,
the logical or natural partition of the subject commends itself to
the common sense of mankind. Such is the judgment of unbiassed
men on this point. It may not be improper here to cite the
opinion of Voltaire himself, because through his sneer we discern
something like the aspect of reason. "It were to be wished," says
he," that in banishing from the pulpit the bad taste which degraded
it, he (Bourdaloue) had likewise banished the custom of preaching
upon a text. Indeed, the toil of speaking for a long time on a
quotation of a line or two, of labouring to connect a whole
discourse with this line, seems a play unbecoming the gravity of
the sacred function. The text becomes a species of motto, or
rather an enigma, which is unfolded by the sermon. The Greeks
and Romans had no knowledge of this practice. It arose in the
decline of letters, and has been consecrated by time. The habit
of always dividing into two or three heads subjects which, like
morals, demand no partition whatever, or which, like controversy,
demand a partition still more extensive, is a forced method, which
P. Bourdaloue found prevalent, and to which he conformed."
But there is another evil incident to the modern method of
preaching which is still more to be deprecated; namely, emptiness.
Next to the want of truth, the greatest fault in a sermon is want
of matter. It is not the province of any mere method, as such, to
furnish the material, but the ordinary mode of handling Scripture
A TREATISE ON EXPOSITORY PREACHING.
551
in the pulpit affords great occasion for diffuseness, and has brought
leanness into many a discourse. A man of little thought, it is true,
whether he preach from a verse or a chapter, will necessarily
impress the character of his mind upon his performance; yet the
temptation to fill up space with inflated weakness is far greater
under the modern method; and where this method is universal,
will overtake such as are undisciplined in mind. We conceive it
to be no disparagement of the word of God to say that it is not
every verse even of sacred writ upon which a long discourse can
be written without the admixture of foreign matter. In too many
instances, when a striking text has been selected, and an ingenious
division fabricated, the preacher's mind has exhausted itself.
Perhaps we mistake, but our conviction is, that far too much stress
has been laid upon the analyses of sermons. Essential as they are,
they are the bare plotting out of the ground. The skeleton, as it
is aptly called, is an unsatisfactory object, where there is not
superinduced a succession of living tissues; it is all-important to
support the frame, but by no means all-sufficient, and they who
labour on this, in the vain hope of filling up what remains by
extemporaneous speaking or writing, "quite mistake the scaffold for
the pile."
We regard the diffuseness of many ministers, however perspi-
cuous, as even worse than obscurity. The labour of the preacher's
thought is too often intermitted upon the conception of a good
analysis. Our fathers of the last century used to throw out
masses, sometimes rude, and sometimes fantastically carved and
chased, but always solid and always golden; we, their sons, are
content to beat the bar into gold leaf, and too frequently to fritter
this into minute fragments. Defect of thought is a sad incentive
to laboured expansion, when a man is resolved to produce matter
for a whole hour. In such cases, the effort is to fill up the allotted
number of minutes. Too many moments of sacred time are thus
occupied in adding water to the pure milk of the word. The
dilute result is not only wanting in nutritive virtue, but often
nauseous. Under an admirable partition, we find sermonizers
offending grossly, and this in a two-fold way. One preacher will
state his topic, and then, however plain it may be, pertinaciously
insist upon rendering it plainer. In this instance the heads of dis-
course may be likened to milestones on a straight and level high-
way, from each of which the traveller is able to look forward over
a seemingly interminable tract. Another will, in like manner,
announce his topic, and then revolve around it, always in sight, but
never in proximity, until the time of rambling being spent, he
chooses to return and repeat his gyrations about a new centre.
There is little progress made by the haranguer, though his language
or his embellishment be unexceptionable, qui variare cupit rem
prodigialiter unam. This paucity of such matter as is germane
to the subject in hand is sometimes betrayed in the attempt to
indemnify for the meagerness of the argumentative part, by an
552
A TREATISE ON EXPOSITORY PREACHING.
inordinate addendum in the shape of improvement, inference, or
application.
The expository method, if judiciously intermixed with the other,
offers a happy corrective to this fault. Here the preacher is fur-
nished with abundance of matter, all-important, and fertile of
varied thought. He is placed under compression, and compelled
to exchange his rarity of matter for what is close and in the same
proportion weighty. We could give no better recipe for the
cure of this tympany of sermonizers, than a course of expository
lectures.
One word must be added, before we leave this copious topic, upon
the avidity with which both preachers and hearers seek for novel
and striking texts. The most common and familiar texts have
become such, for the very reason that they are the most important.
It is unworthy of the minister of Jesus Christ to be always in
search of fragments which have never before been handled. The
practice militates against the systematic and thorough development
of the whole counsel of God. We need not pause a moment to
show that this is an evil that cannot exist under the method which
we are solicitous to recommend.
It forms no part of our plan, in these remarks, to lay down rules
for the conduct of an expository discourse, though the subject is
quite as deserving of being treated in detail as any other connected
with homiletics. No mistake could be more injurious to the cha-
racter of such exercises, than to suppose that they demand less
method or less assiduity than the most finished sermons of the ordi-
nary kind. They are not to be used as a means of retreat from the
labours of the closet, and he who thus employs them will soon find
his pulpit services empty and unsuccessful. In the present state
of society, when the public mind, especially in our own country,
is trained by the discipline of reading and hearing the highest spe-
cimens of forensic and deliberative eloquence, it is vain to expect
that any congregation can long be interested in unpremeditated
addresses. We may apply to this whole subject the words of our
Directory for Worship: "The method of preaching requires much
study, meditation, and prayer. Ministers ought, in general, to
prepare their sermons with care; and not to indulge themselves
in loose, extemporary harangues; nor to serve God with that
which cost them naught."* We have met with no instance in
which permanent usefulness has followed the practice of delivering
unstudied sermons. The preacher who attempts this is sure to
fall into empty declamation, objurgatory invective, or tedious repe-
tition. Undigested discourses are commonly of tiresome length,
and proportionate dulness. Wherever we hear frequent com-
plaints of a preacher's prolixity, we are sure ourselves that he leaves
much of the filling up of his outline to the hour of actual delivery.
Without being himself aware of it, such a preacher falls into a
Chap. vi., § 3.
↓
A TREATISE ON EXPOSITORY PREACHING.
553
routine of topics and expressions, and is perpetually repeating him-
self, and becoming more and more uninteresting to his charge;
while, at the same time, he is perhaps wondering at the diminu-
tion of his hearers, and attributing his want of success to any cause
but one within himself. The assiduous study of the Bible, with
direct reference to the services of the pulpit, is indispensably
necessary, whatever species of preaching may be adopted.
We plead, at present, for no more than a discreet admixture of
biblical exposition with the other methods of discourse. In enter-
ing upon such a course, it is not necessary that the minister should
introduce his first experiments into the principal service of the
Lord's day he might make trial of his gifts in less frequented
meetings, or in some more familiar circle called together for this
special purpose. And even where the expository method is exclu-
sively adopted, as some may see cause to do, the pastor is to
beware of that extreme which would always present very long
passages. The expository plan, wisely conducted, may be said to
include the other. Where, in due course, a verse, or even a part
of a verse occurs, so important in its relations and so rich in matter
as to claim a more extended elucidation, it should be taken singly,
and be made the basis of a whole sermon, or even more.
As a model of familiar exposition we would cite the Lectures of
Archbishop Leighton on the First Epistle of Peter. The great
excellency of these is their heavenly unction, which led Dr. Dod-
dridge to say that he never read a page of Leighton without expe-
riencing an elevation of his religious feelings. "More faith and
more grace," says Cecil," would make us better preachers, for out
of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Chrysostom's
was the right method. Leighton's Lectures on Peter approach
very near to this method."-" Our method of preaching," says the
same writer," is not that by which Christianity was propagated:
yet the genius of Christianity is not changed. There was nothing
in the primitive method set or formal. The primitive bishop stood
up, and read the gospel, or some other portion of Scripture, and
pressed on the hearers with great earnestness and affection, a few
plain and forcible truths, evidently resulting from that portion of
the divine word: we take a text, and make an oration. Edifica-
tion was then the object of both speaker and hearers; and while
this continues to be the object, no better method can be found."*
Such a mode of preaching is less adapted than its opposite to
make the speaker a separate object of regard, and might be selected
by many on this very account. It is now some years since we
enjoyed the privilege of listening to the late pious and eloquent
Summerfield, the charm of whose brilliant and pathetic discourses
will never be forgotten by those who heard them. After having,
on a certain occasion, delivered a deeply impressive sermon on
Isaiah vi., 1-6, he remarked to the writer of these pages, that, in
Cecil's Works, vol. iii., p. 312.
554
A TREATISE ON EXPOSITORY PREACHING.
consequence of having been pursued by multitudes of applauding
hearers, he hd been lead to exercise himself more in the way of
simple exposition, as that which most threw the preacher himself
into the shade, and most illustriously displayed the pure truth of
the Word.
The same idea was expressed by the late Dr. Mason, in cir-
cumstances which no doubt drew from him his sincerest convic-
tions and most affectionate counsels. The words are found in a
sermon preached in Murray Street Church, December 2, 1821, on
the occasion of resigning the charge of his congregation; and we
earnestly recommend to every reader this testimony of one who,
it is well known, was eminently gifted in the very exercise which
he applauds.
In suggesting to his late charge the principles upon which they
should select a pastor, he says: "Do not choose a man who
always preaches upon insulated texts. I care not how powerful
or eloquent he may be in handling them. The effect of his power
and eloquence will be, to banish a taste for the word of God, and
to substitute the preacher in its place. You have been accustomed
to hear that word preached to you in its connexion. Never permit
that practice to drop. Foreign churches call it lecturing; and
when done with discretion, I can assure you that, while it is of all
exercises the most difficult for the preacher, it is, in the same pro-
portion, the most profitable for you. It has this peculiar advan-
tage, that in going through a book of Scripture, it spreads out
before you all sorts of character, and all forms of opinion; and
gives the preacher an opportunity of striking every kind of evil
and of error, without subjecting himself to the invidious suspicion
of aiming his discourses at individuals."*
With these remarks we may safely leave the subject, commend-
ing it to the careful and impartial investigations of all who are
interested in the propagation of divine truth, and particularly to
ministers of the gospel, who, of all men living, should be most
solicitous to direct their powers in such channels as to produce
the highest effect.
* Mason's Works, vol. i., p. 366.
ESSAY XX.
FÜRST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE*
THE appearance of great literary undertakings, whether deserving
of the name from the novelty or importance of their subjects, or
from the amount of patient labour or of original thought expended
on their execution, may appropriately be compared to that of emi-
nent individuals in the political world. For as these latter exert a
powerful influence upon the character and conduct not only of the
men among whom they live and move, but also of their posterity
to distant times; so important literary achievements, while thou-
sands of ordinary publications are suffered to sink into oblivion,
remain as monuments of the intellectual prowess of the age in
which they are produced, and serve as guides and helpers to future
advances in knowledge, virtue, and happiness. Hence it is highly
proper that their appearance and character be recorded in literary
history for the benefit of posterity as well as of contemporaries,
in like manner as those of celebrated men are preserved in the
history of political events. These two histories unitedly compose
that of mankind in general, considered both as acting and as
reflecting beings.
The two principles of action and reflection, although inseparably
combined in every individual of the human race, have each arrived
in various nations and epochs at various degrees of development.
The predominance of the former tendency displays itself in the
performance of deeds of heroism, while that of the latter is exhi-
bited in aspirations after literary distinction. This truth will be
found strikingly exemplified on comparing the history of the middle
ages with that of our own times.
The former of these two tendencies may be termed the objective,
or that in which the united faculties of mind and body scek to
manifest themselves in outward action; while to the latter we
may give the name of subjective, or that in which the mental
powers, having attained a high degree of development, are more
Originally published in 1839, in review of “Concordantiae Librorum Veteris Tes-
tamenti Sacrorum Hebraicae atque Chaldaicae, &c., &c." Auctore Julio Fürstio,
Doct. Phil. Lipsiae. 1837-8.
Lipsiae. 1837-8. Sect. I.-VIII,
556
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
especially directed to abstract reasoning. Two opposite tenden-
cies analogous to these may likewise be observed in the operations
of the mind alone, which either restricts itself almost exclusively
to a consideration of the objects presented to it by the world with-
out, or, soon leaving these, proceeds to digest, to combine, and to
work out new results of its own, independent of any further exter-
nal influence. The former tendency is exhibited in the produc-
tion of learned compilations, the latter in that of speculative and
theoretical works.
As all ideas, including even the most abstract, are in the first
place excited although not created by perceptions, and those
chiefly of external objects, it follows that the objective develop-
ment of the mind must necessarily be first in the order of time;
and that only after the completion of such development can its
subjective powers manifest themselves in any pre-eminent degree:
or as Schiller beautifully expresses it,
Nur durch das Morgenthor des Schönen
Dringst du in der Erkenntniss Land;
An höhrem Glanz sich zu gewöhnen,
Uebt sich am Reize der Verstand.
If we desire to know the degree in which these opposite tenden-
cies of the mind are developed in any nation or epoch, we have
only to ascertain the character of its principal literary productions;
and on this account, if no other, their appearance must attract the
attention of those who desire to become acquainted with the his-
tory of the progress of the human mind. The work whose title
is placed at the head of this article is one which we regard as pre-
senting strong claims to consideration, on account of the extraor-
dinary amount of mental labour both subjective and objective
which its execution manifests as well as its important bearings on
the advancement of biblical studies.
As this work comprises a Hebrew Lexicon as well as a Con-
cordance to the Hebrew Bible, we will consider its claims in each
of these respects separately, commencing with the former. The
lexicography of Dr. Fürst does not consist in the mere introduc-
tion of improvements of greater or less consequence into the sys-
tems of his predecessors; but is founded on an original plan of
his own, the result of new and most enlarged views of the phi-
losophy of language. These views, by making higher claims on
the philologist than have been heretofore preferred, give rise to
such deep investigations and happy discoveries, that, although
occasionally warned by a too great boldness of conjecture to be
cautious in their application, we feel continually more and more
inclined to adopt them in all their breadth and fulness.
On examining into the leading features of the new system of
Hebrew lexicography as compared with those which have pre-
ceded it, and tracing the course pursued by this department of
philological science, we obtain a full confirmation of the truth of
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
557
the axiom above laid down, that the chief tendency of the mind in
its first operations is decidedly objective.
Lexicography, or that science which has for its object the ele-
ments of language, viz. words separately considered, was first
applied to the Hebrew about a thousand years after it had ceased to
be a living tongue. Up to that period it had been learned much
in the same manner as that in which a child acquires its maternal
idiom, namely, by obtaining a knowledge of a succession of phrases
and entire sentences rather than of detached words. Now this
synthetical mode of acquiring a language closely resembles the
operations of nature in the formation of speech; for it should be
remembered that the words which constitute the body of a lan-
guage are created not singly and in succession, but simultaneously
in the form of propositions. The same method of study is still in
use among the Oriental and Polish Jews, who obtain a practical
acquaintance with the entire contents of the Old Testament and
even of the Talmud, without ever knowing that such a work as a
lexicon exists, its place being supplied to them by living teachers,
who, as it were, resuscitate the inanimate form of the language by
again clothing it in living articulate sounds.
This mode of learning a dead language can be successfully
pursued only when we enjoy the constant aid of a living instructor,
who, by first explaining the meaning of the strange sounds through
the medium of others which we have been accustomed to employ
as the exponents of ideas, and by afterwards accustom.ng us
through a long course of practice to associate our i eas with the
new sounds and the signs representing them, may in time succeed
in making the dead language bear to us the relation of a living
one. Without such assistance the signs in which the spirit of the
dead language lies embalmed must for ever remain to us a mystery,
unless we can learn their signification by means of others with
which we are familiar; or, in other words, unless we are furnished
with books which, by explaining the etymological history and
meaning of every word, in a language already known to us, may
in some measure supply the place of viva voce instruction.
As regards the Hebrew, when we consider that the reverence
in which the sacred records it contains have ever been held by the
Jewish nation has caused the language to be preserved among
them by tradition from generation to generation, and provision to be
made for a constant succession of teachers who spend their lives in
the study and explanation of the holy volume, we are less inclined
to feel surprised at the fact that the attention of their learned men
was not sooner directed to the investigation of single words, even
when copies of the Scriptures, glosses and various readings of the
text, and copious commentaries written for the elucidation of par-
ticular books existed in abundance, and were continually receiving
fresh accessions to their number. And in fact it was only when,
in consequence of multiplied oppressions and dispersions, the band
of teachers became diminished, their schools shut up or destroyed,
558
FURST'S HEBREW CONCOrdance.
nay the study of the Law itself at times prohibited under penalty
of death, that some of the most intelligent men of the nation, per-
ceiving the danger to which the holy language lay exposed of
becoming at length irrretrievably lost, undertook the compilation
of lexicographical works, in order to prevent the occurrence of
so deplorable a misfortune.
The earliest attempt in this department of literature of which
we have any certain knowledge, is a collection of seventy difficult
words made by R. Saadia Haggaon in the tenth century, accom-
panied by brief explanations in Arabic.* But the first work deserv-
ing the name of a Hebrew lexicon, was that composed by R. Menah-
hem ben S'ruk, about the commencement of the eleventh century,
and which, although never submitted to the press,t was evidently,
from the accounts we have of it, far in advance of the philological sci-
ence of the day; since its author, by considering roots whose second
letter is doubled or which contain a weak letter as derived from
primitive biliteral themes, anticipated improvements in Hebrew
lexicography which have been brought forward and developed by
a distinguished scholar of our day, and are made by Dr. Fürst the
stepping-stones to new and splendid discoveries. Considered how-
ever as a whole, the lexicon of Ben S'ruk was greatly surpassed
by that of a Spanish physician named Rabbi Jonah. This author,
while he did not neglect the traditional authority, on which, with
the aid of the context, the work of his predecessor entirely rests,
made an admirable use of the numerous analogies existing between
the Hebrew and his mother-tongue, the Arabic. Many of the
illustrations contained in his work, as well as those in the similar
one of R. Jehuda ben Karish, were afterwards adopted by R.
David Kimhhi, whose lexicon, the Sepher Hashshorashim, has
remained the standard Jewish authority to the present time. It
far excels those that preceded it both in fulness and accuracy, as
well as in the number of valuable exegetical remarks with which
it abounds. The roots, under which the words belonging to them.
are promiscuously ranged, succeed each other alphabetically, with
the exception that the pluriliterals and those of the biblical Chaldee
are respectively placed after all the triliterals which commence
with the same letter. The grammatical order of the species and
modes of verbs is usually though not invariably observed, and each
word is in general supported by numerous quotations.
In the productions of these native lexicographers a prominent
objective tendency is manifest throughout. They all show the
acquaintance of their authors with the Hebrew to have been
exceedingly familiar and minute; so that the imperfections they
exhibit are properly to be ascribed to their want of insight into the
philosophy of language. The earliest among these writers were
* It has been printed with annotations by Leopold Dukes in the Zeitschrift. f. d.
Morgenland. Vol. V.-Ed.
†The grammatical Introduction, with extracts from the body of the work, is given
by Dukes in his Literaturhistorische Mittheilungen. Stuttgart, 1844. P. 125, seqq.
-Ed.
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANce.
559
firmly of opinion, with the commentators who preceded them,
that as the Law of the Lord is perfect, the language in which it is
contained must also be perfect, and therefore could stand in no
reed of aid from foreign sources for its elucidation. In conse-
quence of this belief and of the general objective tendency of
their minds, whenever they undertook the illustration of an indivi-
dual word, they regarded it as it presented itself in the Bible, with-
out referring to any other language than the Hebrew, and without
attempting to discover those natural laws of speech which caused
it to assume such and such a form rather than another. They
supposed their task completed, when they had collected the several
meanings in which, according to traditional interpretation, the word
was employed in the various passages where it appeared; and
when, as was not unfrequently the case, these meanings appeared
entirely unconnected and even diametrically opposite, their purely
objective mode of viewing the subject prevented them from seek-
ing to trace out the primary signification of the root, a knowledge
of which alone could remove these apparent discrepancies.
In a few instances, indeed, where the customary aid of tradition
appears to have been wanting, we find them having recourse to a
living sister dialect. Thus it is related in the Talmud (Rosh Hash-
shána, fʊl. 26), that the rabbis were ignorant of the meaning of the
words Is. xiv. 23, until one of them heard his foreign serv-
66
take the broom and * שקילי טאטיתא וטאטי ביתא ant say to a woman
sweep the house." So also they did not know what
Ps. Iv.
23, signified, until an Arab was heard to use the expression po
".take thy burden and cast it upon the camel * יהבך ושדי אגמלאי
(Meg. fol. 18.)
To the general rule however of closely adhering to tradition,
and of endeavouring by means of it and of the context to make
the Hebrew elucidate itself, we meet with no considerable excep-
tion until the time of R. Jonah, who first laid under contribution
for this purpose the rich treasures of the copious and nearly related
Arabic; an example which has been followed up with the most
signal success by learned European Orientalists of the two last
centuries. These scholars observed that words of the same form
and bearing precisely the same meaning as the Hebrew, were of
constant occurrence in the Arabic; frequently too they found the
primary signification of a root still in use in the latter language
which no longer appeared in the former, and were enabled by
means of it to exhibit all the secondary acceptations in a beauti-
fully logical connexion. In many instances the root itself of a
numerous stock of derivatives was discovered, and thus a number
of words united under a single stem which before had been sup-
posed to belong to several. Much information was also gained on
the subject of the interchange of letters, the study of which in the
Arabic is facilitated by an orthography at once euphonic and
etymological.
Still these investigations were not regulated by a comprehensive
560
FURST'S HEBREW CONCOrdance.
philosophical view of the laws regulating the creation and develop-
ment of languages, or of the essentially organic nature of the con-
nexion existing between those of the same stock; and hen the
rage for directly referring everything in the Hebrew to the stan-
dard of the Arabic, was suffered to increase to an extent the inju-
rious effects of which are still but too apparent in our best lexicons.
A full consideration of this interesting subject if undertaken here.
would lead us too far from our main purpose; it must therefore be
reserved for a future occasion: but before leaving it we would
remark, that we are far from desiring either to depreciate the value
of modern labours and discoveries, or to deny the closeness of the
connexion that exists between the Hebrew and the other branches of
the Shemitish stock. What we do mean to say is, that when the
investigation of the Hebrew shall have been conducted with a clear
conception of the true sources and nature of language, and accom-
panied by an accurate analysis of articulate sounds and of the laws
on which their mutations depend, not only will the true relations
which the Hebrew bears to its sister dialects be perceived, but
the language will likewise be seen extending its points of affinity
far beyond these narrow bounds, and uniting with all other primi-
tive tongues in the indissoluble bond of a community of origin.
Notwithstanding what may seem the boldness of this assertion,
and the magnitude of the obstacles which the philologist must
encounter who undertakes a practical demonstration of its truth,
still we think that its probability at least will become evident to all
who attentively consider the numerous examples given by Gese-
nius of strong resemblance and even identity between Shemitish
and Indo-European primitives. If any fail of being fully convinced
by these facts, although unable positively to deny the truth of the
theory they tend to support, they should reflect that the discovery
of them has proceeded rather from a partly unconscious anticipa-
tion, the result of long continued and laborious researches, than
from any very profound or original views of the organic nature of
language. That such is really the case, and that much more
remains to be accomplished in this respect than has hitherto been
performed, is incontestably proved by the multitude of striking com-
parisons contained in the Concordance of Dr. Fürst.
In the lexicographical department of this work its author shows a
constant endeavour, excited by the distinguished success which has
attended the application of the science of comparative philology to
the Indo-European languages, to burst asunder the bands that for
a thousand years have held the Shemitish tongues in an isolated
condition apart from every other. And in truth his deeply pene-
trating mind and extensive knowledge of the Indo-European as
well as Shemitish languages, have enabled him to bring forward a
host of cogent proofs in support of his theory of the original
intimate relation if not identity of those primitive languages of the
ancient world to which he gives the name of Sanscrito-Semitic,
and which comprise the Sanscrit family including the numerous
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
561
dialects of India, the Medo-Persic, the Shemitish, the Græco-Latin,
the Teutonic, and the Slavonic.
Such being the opinion of this eminent philologist, it becomes
requisite for our own satisfaction to inquire into the reason of its
adoption. This is not to be sought in the mere external form of
these languages, since their striking dissimilarity in this respect is
that which presents the greatest obstacles to their re-union under
one head, and has hitherto caused those belonging to the Shemitish
family to be considered as completely sui generis. In fact it was
something lying far deeper in the philosophy of language than this: it
was the perception and acknowledgment of a constant relation
between the objective sound of a word and the subjective idea
which called it into existence, an idea which must be radically and
essentially the same in every human mind. In consequence of this
relation between a word and the idea from which it originated,
and of the fundamentally uniform nature of a given idea by
whomsoever entertained, it follows that even the words employed
by different tribes of men must bear the stamp of a common
crigin; notwithstanding that discrepancies may appear, owing to
the variety of ways in which the same idea may be perceived by
different individuals, and still more to the many influences acting
upon the sound that represents it both in its creation and during
its whole existence.
This relation of a word to its originating idea is not to be look-
ed for in all its parts as we now meet with it, or even as it was
first produced; since nothing purely ideal can be endowed with a
physical existence, without at the same time receiving some alloy :
Dem Herrlichsten was auch der Geist empfangen
Drängt immer fremd und fremder Stoff sich an.*
So that a word even in its purest and most genuine form will
usually be found to contain some foreign admixture in addition to
the sounds immediately related to the idea it expresses; a fact
which Prof. Bopp, in following out and improving upon the views
of the Indian grammarians, has developed with singular ingenuity
and depth of research in his Sanscrit Grammar, when treating of
the formation of words by the addition of Krit and Unâdi suffixes
to primitive themes. A full and clear perception of this truth is
of the greatest importance to the successful investigation of the
etymological history of the Hebrew; since it affords the means
both of uniting under single heads the greater part of its synonyms
and of ascertaining the relations of its roots to those of other
primitive tongues.
Formerly Hebrew roots were considered as indivisible totalities,
each constituent part of which had an equal share in conveying the
idea. Consequently each root preserved a distinct exclusiveness
with regard to the rest, and was supposed to share in a peculiarity
Göthe's Faust.
36
562
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDance.
pervading all the Shemitish languages, viz. that of being compos-
ed of three original consonants. It being, however, perceived, that
many verbs of the same or a similar meaning had two radicals in
common, while the third was an imperfect letter, lexicographers at
length came to the conclusion that they must have been construct-
ed from biliteral themes by the addition of a prefixed, affixed, or
inserted imperfect letter to complete the usual triliteral form.
These views were further extended by observing, on a comparison
of the Hebrew roots with their cognates in Aramaic and Arabic,
that certain classes of letters were frequently interchanged, espe-
cially those of the same or of adjacent organs, the liquids, and
the quiescents. But although the roots of the several Shemitish
languages were thus brought nearer together, the great majority
of Hebrew synonyms continued to be regarded as destitute of any
other etymological connexion.
This supposition is successfully combated by Dr. Fürst, who
has ascertained beyond doubt that the accession to a primitive
biliteral may and often does consist of a perfect letter. The inves
tigations to which he was led by this discovery, have not only
brought the great mass of Hebrew roots into close comparison
with those of numerous other languages, but have also shown an
interconnexion both in form and meaning between many of the
former which had been regarded as entirely independent of each
other. This he accomplishes by a skilful analysis of words and
their elements, in order to distinguish between those sounds which
are of importance as being strictly related to the ideas they con-
vey, and those which are adscititious and therefore of no moment,
Being, however, well aware that the further the province of a
word is extended and the greater the allowances made for the
changes to which sounds are liable, the more imminent is the dan-
ger of running into vague speculation and conjecture, he, before
pronouncing as to the essentiality or non-essentiality of any of the
elements of a word, carefully compares it with its cognates in the
other Shemitish dialects and with all its derivatives and synonyms.
He then concludes that the elements which are common to them
all, constitute the real theme, and that the remainder, being merc
admixtures, may be safely disregarded in further etymological
comparisons.
Having thus ascertained the root, he next traces it through the
principal languages of the Indo-European stock, thus giving it a
greater historical development, and as it were setting the seal to
his former discoveries. By this means he often succeeds in reduc-
ing a number of existing roots to a single primitive theme; while
those which are no longer to be found in the language, and which
lexicographers formerly attempted to supply directly from Aramaic,
Arabic, and Ethiopic sources, often in a very far-fetched and
unsatisfactory manner, he clearly and naturally deduces from lan-
guages which, although less related to the Hebrew, belong indubi-
tably to the same great class of tongues.
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
563
This analytical process he employs also in finding out the primary
significations of roots, whence all their own acceptations as well as
those of their derivatives naturally spring. Here too the danger
of being confounded and misled by the numerous particulars which
must be considered in order to arrive at correct conclusions, pointed
out the necessity of establishing some guiding principle by which to
regulate the investigation. Our author chose for this purpose the
traditional history of the significations of each word; having
detailed these at length, he adopts them as the data on which to
ground subsequent inquiries, and then proceeds to develope, unite,
and complete them by means of his researches in comparative
philology.
The success attending the constant and faithful application of
this analytico-historical method of induction, caused him to lay
down, in a previous work,* the following propositions as incon-
testable: "1. That there is no verbal or pronominal root in
Hebrew or Aramaic which is not completely identical in its pri-
mary form and meaning with those of the other Sanscrito-Semitic
languages; and that consequently the frame-work and plan of all
the languages included under this designation must be in effect the
same. This is not a mere lifeless unity of language, but an orga-
nic one, inspired by an animating principle throughout, with deve-
lopment and progress, growth and decay, natural simplicity and
unnatural artificiality, like man himself. 2. That the opinion
maintained by the rational school, of the fossilizing (Erstarrung) of
the Shemitish roots in a certain number of consonants and sylla-
bles, is without foundation; seeing that they are identical bothin form
and meaning with the Sanscrit. And that the alleged incapacity
for composition in the Shemitish roots is disproved by the histori-
cal comparison with those of the Sanscrit; from which it appears
that a great part of them are composed of an original theme and
a prepositional prefix. 3. That these prepositional prefixes which
enter into the composition of the roots, and which are readily dis-
cernible by analysis in the initial non-radical syllable, have, as in
the other families of tongues, strictly defined and permanent signi-
fications, which, as well as those of the themes themselves, are to
be ascertained by historical comparison. 4. That this unity
extends not only through the roots, but also through the primary
and most predominant grammatical formations; in short, every
afformative has its history.
""
That the dazzling results of these bold and in general happy
speculations have occasionally led this indefatigable scholar to too
great a length, in slighting the labours of his predecessors, we cannot
altogether deny; yet it would be doing his merits signal injustice
were we not to acknowledge, that the success which for the most
part has crowned his exertions, clearly evinces the correctness of
his views and also of the plan which they have induced him to
• Perlenschnure aramäischer Gnomen und Lieder, Vorrede, pp. 15, 16.
564
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
adopt. Indeed we regard his work as the exposition of a new
system in Hebrew lexicography, and one which we cannot doubt.
will in a short time carry it by the judicious application of the
principles he has laid down to a degree of perfection of which no
other language in the world can boast. To support these remarks
by copious and appropriate examples would be an easy task, as
such are furnished by almost every page; but, as we have already
reached the limits assigned by us to this part of our subject, we
will merely state in addition the outlines of the plan on which the
lexicographical portion of the work is conducted, before proceed-
ing to a consideration of its claims as a concordance properly so
called.
Immediately under the word to be explained, and preceding the
citation of the passages of Scripture containing it, is placed its
etymological history and elucidation in rabbinic Hebrew and in
Latin. The Hebrew part of the exposition, which is written in a
pure and elegantly idiomatic style, comprises the traditional his-
tory of the word and its significations as given by ancient
Jewish authorities. In the Latin part which follows, this his-
tory is further carried out by means of an extensive and most
ingenious comparison with its cognates in sound and meaning
among the principal languages of the Sanscrito-Semitic stock, as
the Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, Sanscrit, Greek, Latin, German, &c.,
together with the expressions by which it is rendered in the Chal-
dee Targums, the ancient Greek Versions, and the_Latin Vulgate.
Before making our remarks on the work of Dr. Fürst in its
quality of concordance, we shall offer some observations on the
objects, plan, use, and history of concordances to the Hebrew Bible.
I. The objects of a complete Hebrew concordance require that
it should embrace the following particulars:
1. All the principal words both notional and relational contained
in the Hebrew Scriptures.
2. All the forms in which they appear.
3. All the connexions in which these forms are severally to be
found, with the places where they occur.
1. Every language possesses, as its material, a greater or less
number of words. These consist of notional words, or such as
convey the idea either of a material or immaterial existence, or of
an action or state of being; and relational words, or those which
serve to point out the relations which such existences and actions
bear to each other. The words of the first class are divided into
nouns, pronouns, and verbs; those of the second are collectively
termed particles.
These words are either created immediately upon the conception
of the ideas they convey, through the agency of the organs of
speech, and hence receive the name of primitives; or they are
constructed in various ways from the elements of other words
already in existence and representing some analogous idea, whence
they are called derivatives. Now as the formation of neither of
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
565
these species of words can precede the conception of the ideas
which they represent, and can at most only be contemporary with
such conceptions, the number of words composing a nation's lan-
guage must depend entirely on that of its ideas; or, in other words,
on the nature of the external world by which it is surrounded,
and the amount and quality of the intellectual cultivation it may
receive.
But the circumstances of a people's existence are subject to con-
tinual changes, which exert a powerful influence on the national
idiosyncrasy; consequently its stock of ideas, and together with
them the words which serve as their exponents, will be liable to
corresponding fluctuations, such as the introduction of new terms,
the attributing of new significations to the old ones, and finally
the rejection of them altogether. The changes superinduced in the
language of a nation by its external circumstances are not more
numerous than those which result from the improvement or dete-
rioration of the general state of its intellectual culture; for the
mental faculties of a nation, like those of an individual, may either
remain through neglect in an undeveloped state, or be brought by
assiduous cultivation to the highest perfection. And hence, as long
as a people retain the same language for the communication of their
wants, feelings, and ideas, its richness or poverty will serve as an
exact index to the degree of development to which the national
mind has attained.
As all living languages are in this constant state of mutation, it
is impossible to construct lexicons for them which shall remain
even tolerably complete for more than a limited space of time.
This, however, is not the case with the Hebrew, which has ceased
to be a living tongue for more than two thousand years, and whose
whole authentic remains are contained in the small number of
books composing the Old Testament. This fact, together with the
important character of the sacred writings, on the knowledge of
which our temporal and eternal happiness depends, long ago sug-
gested the idea of making a systematic collection of all the words
contained in the Bible, with all their forms and connexions and the
places in which they are found, to serve as a perpetual guide to the
thorough understanding of the sacred volume. A concordance
then differs from a lexicon principally in this, that while the chief
object of the latter is the scientific exposition of the various shades
of meaning which words convey, that of the former is to show
where these words occur.
2. The notional words in Hebrew appear in a variety of forms,
produced by changes in their vowels and consonants, and by the
addition of initial and final augments. The principal changes to
which verbs are subjected consist in the inflections made use of to
distinguish the different species, modes, tenses, persons, and num-
bers, in which they are employed. Those which nouns undergo
are produced by the influence of the pause-accents, by passing
from the absolute to the construct state, and in forming the plural
566
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
number. Every part of speech may receive accessory letters of
different kinds in the shape of prefixes and suffixes. In the concor-
dance all the forms to which these changes and additions give rise
should constitute distinct heads arranged in a proper order; so that
any one of them may instantly be found, and the number of times
it occurs ascertained.
3. As the significations of words are affected in no slight degree
by their various connexions, it is requisite, as we have already
observed, that the concordance should give these connexions also,
by quoting with sufficient fulness the passages in which a word is
contained; and in order that the inquirer may be enabled to turn
to their places in the text for his further satisfaction, they should be
accompanied by references to the book, chapter, and verse whence
they are taken.
II. Having now briefly described what the objects embraced by
a concordance render necessary that it should contain, we next pro-
ceed to a delineation of the plan on which it should be constructed
so as to facilitate its use to the utmost. In the first place, then, the
author must decide upon what is to constitute the governing prin-
ciple of the whole arrangement-whether signification or gram-
matical form. He has next to determine upon the order in which
to dispose the words, viz., whether to commence with the sim-
ple forms of a primitive word and its derivatives, and then give
the different shapes arising from inflection and from the reception.
of prefixes and suffixes; or whether first to go through all the
forms of the primitive and afterwards those of each derivative in
regular succession. The proper arrangement of the quotations.
also demands some consideration; since various reasons may be
urged in favour of placing the books in the order of the Hebrew
Bible, in that of the Vulgate, or in that of the periods in which
they were composed. These are some of the principal points
which must engage the attention of the compiler of a Hebrew
concordance; and on the justness of his conclusions with regard
to them the utility of his work will in great measure depend.
In stating our own views on the subject we have no hesitation
in giving the preference to a plan founded on the scientific princi-
ple of disposing words in the order of their grammatical develop-
ment, and combining, as far as may be practicable, the advantages
of the alphabetical arrangement. Thus, the verb should be divided
into its several species of Kal, Niph'hal, Pi'hel, Pu'hal, Hiph'hil,
Hoph'hal, and Hithpa'hel, and each treated separately in succession.
The modes of each species should succeed each other in the
following order: the Indicative, comprising the preterite and
future tenses; the Imperative, which being formed from the
future should be placed immediately after it; the Infinitive; and
lastly the Participle, which as well as the infinitive is a verbal
noun, and receives for the most part the same prefixes and suffixes
as other nouns.
The two tenses should be subjected to a further subdivision
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
567
depending on number and person, and arranged as follows: first,
the third pers. masc. sing., since it usually constitutes the root of
the verb; next, the third pers. fem. sing.; then, the sec. pers.
masc. sing. &c. as laid down in most grammars of the language.
For the sake of uniformity the same arrangement should be
observed in the future tense, since no regular disposition of the
persons can be effected by observing the alphabetical order of
their preformatives. The persons of each tense should be subdi-
vided according to their vowel changes and the suffixes they may
receive, and these again according to their prefixes. The impe-
rative is to be treated in all respects like the future.
The infinitives and participles should be divided into absolute
and construct, and the latter also into singular and plural. Besides
these divisions, to which all other nouns are subjected, participles
and adjectives are to be still further subdivided into masculine
and feminine. Suffixes and prefixes give rise to new subdivisions
in the nouns as well as in the verbs.
The order then in which the different parts of a verb and the
nouns derived from it will succeed each other according to this
method is as follows. First, we have the third pers. masc. sing.
preterite Kal of the verb, as for instance bp, and immediately
under it the passages of the Bible in which it appears. The next
is the form which differs from the preceding only by a vowel
change arising from the reception of a pause-accent; here too, as
in all other instances, the quotations containing the word are placed
directly beneath it. The same word is again given, accompanied
by its prefixes; thus bp, bp. It next appears with the prono-
minal suffixes, arranged in the order of the persons, first, second,
and third; and each like the nude form, with its prefixes, e. g.
.c. &c. When the third pers& קְטָלָךְ .m 2 ; וּקְטָלָנִי הַקְטָלָנִי קְטְלֵנִי .1
masc. sing. of the verb is thus disposed of, the third person fem. is
treated in the same manner; and so on through all the persons
and both numbers of the preterite, future, and imperative of the
Kal species.
After the imperative are placed the verbal nouns belonging
to the species, viz. the infinitive and participle. The infinitive
is given in the nude form of the absolute, as, and then
with interrogative and conjunctive. This is followed by the
construct state, first with the prepositions, alone; and
? 2
next with the personal pronouns both without and with the prepo-
sitions, thus, hop, bppp, &c.; 4, pp, &c. &c.
the participles active and passive the masculine form is gone
through first, both singular and plural, and afterwards the feminine;
both numbers being subjected to a subdivision according to their
suffixes and prefixes, similar to that of the infinitive.
Of
All the forms belonging to Kal being thus exhausted, the remain-
ing species are treated in the same manner, until the entire verb
has been disposed of. The derivative nouns from the same root
568
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
are then taken up, beginning with the simplest and ending with the
most complex: accordingly we have first those which are derived
from the root by a mere vowel change, next those which receive
a preformative or afformative letter or syllable, and lastly such as
take both.
The passages quoted from the Bible should succeed each other
in the order of chronology, as this will assist the inquirer in ascer-
taining the comparative antiquity of the various senses in which a
word may be employed.
III. The above is our opinion as to the mode which should be
pursued in constructing a Hebrew concordance so as to be most
conveniently and profitably consulted. We have now to speak
concerning the uses to which a properly executed work of this
description is capable of being applied. In so doing, our remarks
will refer to the assistance it gives, 1. to an editor of the Hebrew
Scriptures, as affording the best means of restoring and preserving
the purity of the text; 2. to the Hebrew lexicographer and gram-
marian; 3. to the interpreter of Scripture and to biblical students.
in general.
1. The most important service which a concordance renders to the
editor of a Hebrew Bible, is that of enabling him, by consulting the
fragments of the Masora, to apply at once to the original sources
of information respecting the true orthography of doubtful words,
instead of being under the necessity of blindly following in the track
of his predecessors, perpetuating if not indeed aggravating the
errors they may have committed. In order to place this fact in
its clearest light, we will here give a brief account of the Masora
itself.
The word Masora (0) or Masoreth (2), signifying tra-
dition, is used to denote a collection of critical remarks relative to
the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, which, according to the Talmud-
ists, was settled by the High Synod, an assembly of the most wise
and learned men of the Jewish nation, constituted immediately after
the return from the Babylonian captivity, with Ezra the high priest
at their head. These are said to have collected the numerous
ancient traditions respecting the divisions, verses, words, letters, and
points of the Bible, and to have employed them in a thorough revi-
sion of the text, undertaken with a view of restoring it if possible
to its pristine purity, and of guarding against its subsequent deterio-
ration. The mass of ancient critical remarks thus brought together,
with the additions made to them by the members of the Synod,
continued to be preserved and taught in the schools of Judea until
about the middle of the third century of the Christian era, when
the chief seat of Jewish learning was removed to Babylon. There,
according to the Jewish Chronicles, it continued to flourish for a
space of eight hundred years, when at length the schools were
broken up, and the learned men scattered through Spain and other
parts of Europe. About the beginning of the sixteenth century the
fragments of the Masora were collected, revised, and published by
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
569
R. Jacob ben Hhayim in the Rabbinical Bible printed by Daniel
Bomberg at Venice.
The Masora is divided into greater and less; or, more properly
speaking, there are two Masoras, which respectively bear these
appellations. The greater Masora, which formerly constituted a
large independent work, is printed in Bomberg's Bible in the margin
of the text, both above and beneath it, and likewise down the side
when the brevity of the Rabbinical commentary leaves room. It
states the number of times that words of uncommon occurrence are
to be found in the Pentateuch or in the whole Bible; how often
words appear in unusual connexions; how often they receive
certain vowels and accents; and how often words usually written
fully, i. e. with one of the semivowels, are to be found defective or
without them, and vice versa. It also points out the K'ri and
C'thibh, and records the number of sections, verses, words, and
even letters in each book and in the entire Bible. The lesser
Masora consists of extracts from the greater, and is commonly
placed between the text and the Rabbinical commentaries.. It is
composed chiefly of numeral letters and abbreviations, showing
how often certain words occur in the Bible, but without quoting or
referring to the passages where they are found, except in the case
of such as appear only twice. The greater Masora gives the pas-
sages but not their places.
Many attempts have been made by Jewish writers to determine
the date of the origin of the Masoretic scholia, and to account for
the various readings they exhibit, without at the same time impugn-
ing the integrity of the sacred text. The principal opinions broached
by them on this subject are as follows:
Aphodi, in the seventh chapter of his grammatical treatise, says
that "Ezra the high priest endeavoured to correct all the faults of
manuscripts, as did also to the utmost of their abilities the learned
men who succeeded him, in order that they might hand them down
to us in a perfect state. To this end they numbered the sections,
verses, words, and letters of the Bible, noting those words which
were written fully, defectively, and irregularly, together with the
different opinions of the learned concerning them. All these obser-
vations they collected into books, which form the fragments of
the Masora; and in those places where they found mistakes or
disputes, they put the various readings in the form of K'ri and
C'thibh."
With this statement Kimhhi in the main agrees. In the preface
to his commentary on the historical books of the Old Testament
he observes: "It would appear that these words (viz. those with
respect to which a diversity of opinion is expressed in the Masora)
were found variously written in different manuscripts: for during
the first captivity the sacred books became lost or corrupted, and
the learned men died; so that when the High Synod, who under-
took the restoration of the text, found their manuscripts to disagree,
570
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
!
they followed the majority in the text, and placed the variations in
the margin."
This theory of Aphodi and Kimhhi, however, is strongly
opposed by Abarbanel in the preface to his commentary on Jere-
miah, where he makes the following remarks: "1st. How can
any one believe and maintain that Ezra could possibly have found
the Book of the Law and the Prophets defective or corrupt-that
Book of which, if a single word or letter be wanting, no use can
ever be made? yet according to these writers there must be
wanting many letters!
"2d. If it were true that after Ezra's having found in the manu-
scripts corrupt or doubtful words, he, being uncertain as to which.
was the true reading, placed one in the text and the other in the
margin, or pointed the words in the text according to a reading
different from that indicated by the letters, wherefore do we always
adhere to the K'ri and disregard the C'thibh? or wherefore did
Ezra always point according to the K'ri? and if he considered
those to be the genuine readings, why did he not insert them in
the text, and place the C'thibh in the margin?
"3d. If the K'ri and C'thibh owe their origin to the corruptions
that took place during the captivity, and thus be the work of mere
accident, whence comes it that the same word appears in different
places with the same K'ri and C'thibh? Thus, for example, we
frequently find in the K'ri for in the C'thibh, y for
which ישגלנה for ישכבנה and עפלים for טחורים and always ; כער
cannot assuredly be the result of chance.”
The conclusion to which Abarbanel comes, is, that Ezra and
his contemporaries found the Book of the Law in a perfect con-
dition. He supposes that Ezra, before settling the vowel-points,
accents, and the division into verses, subjected the text to a
thorough revision; and that those words which exhibited some
singularity of form or construction he either considered as written
so intentionally and with some mysterious import, on which
account he left them as they stood in the text, and placed in the
margin the word or form which grammatical analogy or the con-
text seemed to require; or possibly he regarded them as arising
from negligence or ignorance of the proper orthography, in short,
(כשגגה היוצא מלפני השליט) as errors of the prophet's own making
and therefore, not venturing to alter the writings of those who
spoke by inspiration, inserted in the margin his corrections, in
making which he doubtless only followed the opinions of antiquity
which had reached him by tradition.
This writer is opposed in turn by R. Jacob ben Hhayim, the
editor of Bomberg's Rabbinical Bible. Although he agrees with
Abarbanel in rejecting the supposition of Aphodi and Kimhhi, that
Ezra found the manuscripts to differ from each other; yet he will
not allow that the K'ri could in any way have proceeded from
Ezra, it being contrary to the authority of the Talmud, which
declares that Moses received them on Mount Sinai. Thus R.
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
571
Gedalya, in Shalsheleth Hakkabala, says, "I am persuaded that
all these things (i. e. those of which the Masora treats) were
delivered to Moses on Sinai, and afterwards neglected and forgot-
ten in the lapse of time; or else they were never committed to
writing, until the members of the Great Synod performed that
service, and communicated them to all Israel." The same senti-
ments are delivered by R. Isaac in the Mikra Sophierim.
From this, says Ben Hhayim, it is evident that the K'ri are to
be considered as a series of observations on certain strange forms
of the C'thibh, collected indeed and applied by Ezra, but proceed-
ing from Moses himself; while the hypothesis of Abarbanel, that
they may have originated in the carelessness of the prophets, is
scarcely worthy a serious refutation. For how can it for a
moment be imagined that the inspired penmen were liable to error
from such a cause? and if they had suffered an occasional ortho-
graphical mistake to escape them in the ardour of composition, is
it to be supposed that they would not afterwards have taken the
pains to correct it? Yet we find the same K'ri and C'thibh
repeatedly occurring in Jeremiah, whose prophecy contains one
hundred and thirty-three of these various readings!
Again, in the tract Sopherim (ch. 6), it is stated that three ma-
nuscripts were found by Ezra; that in one of them was written
adopted the latter reading and disregarded the former. So too he
upon which he מעונה וגו' and in the other two מעון אלהי קדם
and in the remaining two ואל זטוטי בני ישראל found in one manuscript
-and in like manner decided according to the ma ,דאל אצילי בני שראל
jority. From this R. Jacob proceeds to argue against the opinion of
Abarbanel that Ezra wrote the K'ri because he doubted the correct-
ness of the C'thibh; for, says he, if this were true, why did he not, as in
the cases just mentioned, consult the manuscripts in his possession,
and follow the testimony of the majority? And if all the manu-
scripts agreed, why did he not show how those words are to be
read in the synagogue roll, concerning which it is commanded
that not one letter be pronounced which is not written? Again,
if Ezra were in reality the author of the K'ri, how could the
custom which now obtains ever have arisen, of reading in accord-
ance with it and neglecting the C'thibh, which all acknowledge to
have proceeded from the finger of God? In this way he comes
to the conclusion, agreeable to the doctrine of the Talmud, that
all the K'ri and C'thibh were delivered to Moses on Sinai, except-
ing the instances mentioned in the tract Sopherim, where Ezra
was in doubt, in consequence of the discrepancy of manuscripts,
and followed the majority.
Yet, notwithstanding the great antiquity and consequent high
authority, which are thus ascribed to the Masora, we meet with a
number of cases in which the Masora and the Talmud disagree.
Thus we read in the tract Nidda: "In the passage OIN NUNTI
7777 Lev. xv. 10), the word NZ is written defectively; but
the Masora affirms it to be written fully. In the tract Shabbath,
i
""
572
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
Rabbi Huna says, "In the word n (1 Sam. ii. 24), the plural
termination is defective." Jarchi expresses his astonishment at
this, and declares it to be erroneous; since the most correct edi-
tions give the word fully, and the great Masora makes no
mention of its being defective. Jarchi, however, was not war-
ranted in contravening the statement of R. Huna on this latter
account, since he himself is frequently found to differ from the
Masora; and in this he is by no means alone among the Rabbini-
cal writers.
In consequence of the opinion expressed by the Talmudists rela-
tive to the origin of the Masora, to which they gave the name of
, or hedge around the law, it has for ages been regarded
as an authority superior to the Talmud itself. And although we
cannot concur in assigning to the Masora the high antiquity claim-
ed for it, or in considering the various readings which it points out
as indicative of certain mysterious significations, we are still com-
pelled to acknowledge the unwearied assiduity of those men,
whoever they were, who exerted their best efforts in endeavour-
ing to remove from the written word of God the slight yet nume-
rous imperfections by which it had gradually become defaced.
The Masora in fact is a most important and useful collection of
ancient critical remarks, the constant consultation of which is
indispensably necessary to every editor of a Hebrew Bible who
is inspired with the laudable ambition of improving upon the
labours of those who have gone before him; for the mind gifted
with the highest critical powers will not refuse assent to the truth
of the Talmudic axiom: the older the tradition, the greater its
.(כל הישן מחבירו חור יפה מחבירו) value
But how are the secret recesses of the Masora to be penetrated,
and its abundant materials rendered accessible for use? This can
be accomplished only with the assistance of a competent guide,
and such a guide is the concordance. By means of it the inquirer
is enabled to ascertain, from the forms and connexions of the
words referred to by the Masora, their places in the Bible; and is
thus relieved from the necessity of relying upon the correctness
and completeness of the testimony of others. The learned Ben
Hhayim thus expresses his sense of the services rendered him by
R. Nathan's Concordance (of which hereafter) in making use of
the Masora, as well as in collecting its fragments from the different
manuscripts in which it was contained :
In performing the revision of the biblical text, the task of find-
ing out the verses would have been impossible for me, without
knowing the whole of the Bible by heart, which I do not; so that
if I had not had the assistance of a book called a concordance,
which a learned man, R. Isaac Nathan by name, about forty years.
ago composed and printed here at Venice, I must have resigned
my undertaking. This is a precious work, which enumerates and
explains all the members of the Holy Scriptures, placing every
noun and verb with its like, and stating at the head the meaning
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
573
or meanings of each word, according to which the different pas-
sages are divided and enumerated, with references to book, chapter,
and verse; so that one may find any word both quickly and easily.
The advantages of such a work are incalculable, and without it
the Masora cannot be made use of: for if we wish to find a verse
which it (the Masora) quotes, we know not in what book it is to
be sought; and should we happen to know the book, we have still
to hunt out the section and the verse. Whoever possesses this book,
can dispense with Kimhhi's Otsar Hashshorashim:* in short,
deprived of its aid, I never could have performed what I have."
2. The utility of the concordance is not limited to furnishing
good editions of the Sacred Scriptures; it likewise extends to
the obtaining of an accurate knowledge of their contents.
This
it accomplishes in good measure by the aid it affords the Hebrew
lexicographer. We shall, perhaps, make ourselves better under-
stood, if we commence our remarks on this topic by concisely
stating the objects which the lexicographer should have in view,
and the means at his command for effecting them.
The principal objects then of the Hebrew lexicographer should
be, to ascertain the primitive words or roots of the language; to
exhibit in the natural order of their development the derivatives
which spring from them; to state the primary and secondary
significations of each of these classes of words; and to show the
degree of relationship which the various meanings of words from
the same root bear to each other and to the primitive idea.
In order to comply with these numerous requisitions (supposing
him to be without the assistance of any previous work of the kind),
he must begin by seeking out all the words in the Bible, and
arranging them under their several roots in the order of their
derivation and inflection. This done, he has next to ascertain
their precise significations, in which he is aided by the meanings of
words from cognate roots; the context, which frequently either
settles the meaning of a word beyond a doubt, or furnishes the
strongest presumptive evidence towards a decision; the ancient
versions and commentaries, which often contain important tradi-
tional information, reaching back to the period when the language
was yet a living one; and lastly, the cognate dialects, which the
great progress made of late years in the science of comparative
philology renders of immense utility.
Of all the means which the lexicographer has thus at his disposal,
those afforded by the Bible itself, in exhibiting all the forms and
connexions in which words are employed, undoubtedly rank the
first. And it is only when this evidence has been carefully con-
sulted, that other sources of information are to be resorted to,
either for the purpose of confirming the testimony when sufficiently
full and explicit, or of completing it when defective. One who,
* We have already mentioned the high estimation in which this lexicon is held
among the Jews.
574
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
neglecting this fundamental precept, hastens to other quarters in
search of aid, before having completely ascertained and duly
considered that which the sacred volume offers for its own eluci-
להניח זרים בהיכל הקודש שלא לצורך dation, runs into imminent danger
"of leading strangers into the holy temple without need," an error
which has already been too often committed, and is even now by
no means of unfrequent occurrence.
In Hebrew, as in other languages, some primitive words have
few or no derivatives, while from others a large number are formed
in a great variety of ways. Again, in some cases derivative
words are found to have survived their primitives, which can
now be discovered only by analogy, or by having recourse to
the cognate tongues. A word has often many different shades of
meaning, which depend in a great measure on the connexions in
which it is placed. The significations too of the various forms
which a word assumes, as, for example, the several species of the
verb, often differ essentially from each other; while those of its
derivatives are still more widely separated. These derivative
words and meanings, however, must all, if possible, be exhibited in
a natural relation to each other as well as to the original word and
its primary signification.
The means for prosecuting the inquiries necessary to the
proper accomplishment of this object are abundantly furnished
by the Hebrew concordance. For, besides exhibiting all the
words of the Bible with their connexions and the places where
found, it is also of essential service in consulting the ancient Jewish
glosses and interpretations. These, although containing much
that may be made available for lexicographical purposes, are
yet composed with such a total want of system, that access to the
valuable hints they afford respecting the etymology of words can
often be obtained only by means of a concordance; the reason
being that a word is often passed by several times without remark,
and is afterwards commented upon when occurring in some subse-
quent passage.
Of no less importance is the concordance to the Hebrew
grammarian. As far as relates to the doctrine of the derivation
of words, and the modifications of meaning accompanying the
changes in form which take place in the process, the several duties
of the lexicographer and grammarian may be said to coincide.
But in addition to this, the latter is required to ascertain the laws
on which depend the orthographical changes arising during inflec-
tion, and to account on natural principles for the origin of such forms
as may deviate more or less from those in which the genius of the
language usually exhibits itself. Besides these subjects of inquiry
which belong to the department of etymology, the grammarian has
also to investigate the principles which regulate the use of all these
forms and inflections for the purpose of expressing the various
operations of the human mind, and which constitute what is called
the syntax.
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
575
Now the facts from which a knowledge of these principles as
relates to the Hebrew language is to be derived, lie scattered
through the Bible; and they must first be collected and systema-
tized before the grammarian can hope to obtain that comprehen-
sive view of them, which is indispensable to his success. Thus,
in order to ascertain the rules on which the inflections of nouns
depend, it is necessary to trace a number of individuals of this
part of speech through all the modifications of which they are
susceptible. But what an expenditure of time and labour would it
require, to hunt for them through a book of such extent as the
Hebrew Bible? The difficulties in the way of making similar
investigations with regard to the verbs, owing to the number and
variety of their forms, would be, if not insurmountable, at least
incomparably greater. In addition to the regular inflections of
the language, the abnormal forms, as we have already observed,
must also be stated and explained in the grammar; yet how is this
to be done in a proper manner unless every passage be known in
which a given word in any of its forms occurs? The concordance
alone can give the information required.
3. If it be allowed that the concordance serves as the foundation
to Hebrew lexicons and grammars, and is consequently superior in
authority to them all, it follows that it must be of the greatest
value to the biblical interpreter, whose success in elucidating the
Scriptures depends in good measure on the extent and accuracy
of his knowledge of the language in which they are contained.
Moreover, the strength of the intelligent interpreter consists chiefly
in bringing forward new suggestions on difficult points, and in
supporting them by the appropriate citation of parallel passages,
which makes the Bible its own expositor; for this the concordance
is peculiarly intended. He will also find it of great assistance in
turning to the productions of the ancient Jewish commentators,
which, owing to their absence of method, would otherwise be
exceedingly difficult to consult.
The use of the concordance in an exegetical point of view is
not confined to the finished Hebrew scholar, who aims at carrying
forward the science of the language; it extends also to the far
more numerous class of students who have acquired sufficient
knowledge of it to enable them to consult and even peruse their
Hebrew Bibles, but who do not possess that familiar acquaintance
with its minutiæ, which alone can confer the power of deciding in
all cases with certainty respecting grammatical forms. The lia-
bility of such to error is greatest with respect to the most impor-
tant part of speech, viz. the verbs, of which there are a multitude
of similar and abnormal forms, the confounding of which may
lead to serious errors of interpretation. A concordance in a
great measure obviates these difficulties; since, by presenting
the student in regular order with all the forms of every word,
it affords an instantaneous solution of many a doubt, which he
576
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
might be unable to solve by means of the grammar and lexicon
alone.
From the preceding observations on the utility of the concord-
ance to different classes of scholars, it will be obvious that it con-
stitutes the foundation of the whole apparatus of biblical learning.
This has so long been apparent to those who have reflected on the
subject, that even while the art of printing was yet in its infancy,
and when the undertaking of large and expensive publications was
attended with much greater difficulty and risk of pecuniary loss
than at the present day, we find voluminous concordances in differ
ent languages issuing from the press, whose magnitude and labori-
ous execution challenge our admiration.
4. We will now complete what we have to say on concordances
in general by a short history of such works to the present time.
And as our principal object in undertaking this sketch is to give an
account of concordances to the Hebrew Bible, we will first briefly
mention those compiled for the Latin Vulgate, previous to the pub-
lication of the first of the Hebrew concordances, and then confine
our observations to the latter.
The author of the first Latin concordance, or rather of the first
rudiments of one, for it appears to have been little more, was
Antonio de Padua, a Spanish Franciscan, who lived during the
pontificate of Gregory IX., and who, for his wonderful facility in
quoting the Scriptures, received from that Pope the title of Ark of
the Covenant. He died in 1231. The second concordance to the
Vulgate, which indeed was the first worthy of the name, was the
production of the celebrated Cardinal Hugo, considered by many
to have been the author of the existing division of the Bible into
chapters, and who died at Rome in the year 1262. His work
included only the common nouns and verbs. The third of the kind
was that of Pere Arloto, a native of Tuscany, who lived under
the emperor Adolphus, about the close of the thirteenth century.
With him was contemporary Conrad of Halberstadt, a German
priest and professor of theology, who rendered the concordance
more complete by the introduction of the particles. This depart-
ment, however, remained in an extremely defective state until the
year 1430, when Johannes de Segovia, a Toledan canon, published
one containing the particles alone, which cost himself and an
assistant five years of labour.
The first concordance to the Hebrew Bible was that composed
by Rabbi Isaac* Nathan, who was occupied on the work ten years,
and completed it in 1448. According to the account given by
himself in the preface, it was a mere translation or counterpart of
* In the title of his work he is styled R. Mordecai Nathan, and in the preface R.
Isaac. This discrepancy is conjectured by Buxtorf, with great probability, to have
been the result of a severe sickness, during which he changed his name: a practice
observed even among the Jews of the present day, and which is prescribed in the
Talmud, with the view that the sufferer may thenceforth be regarded by God as a
new being, and thus be delivered from the fate to which he appeared devoted.
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
577
a Latin concordance, which R. Gedalya in his historical work, the
Shalsheleth Hakkabala, affirms to have been that of Arloto. The
principal inducement to this undertaking, as R. Nathan assures
us, was, that he might furnish his co-religionists with a controver
sial weapon which had been employed against himself by Chris-
tian theologians with the greatest effect. So high was his opinion
of the value of such a work, and so earnestly did he desire to see
it in the hands of his people, that he confesses himself to have has-
tened its publication at the expense of its completeness.
We find, accordingly, on examining the work, that it contains.
only the principal words of the language, the verbs and nouns.
The omission of the particles he endeavours to excuse, partly on
the ground of their want of independent signification, and partly
on that of the immense number of times they occur, which would
have rendered their insertion a task infinitely tedious and labo-
rious. For this reason also he omits the proper names. The exe-
cution of the work does not betray those marks of haste which
the author's impatience in urging it forward might lead us to
expect; but we cannot say as much for its plan, which is both ill-
digested and inconvenient. Of this the following sketch will
suffice.
The roots are printed in large square characters without points,
and accompanied by their meanings in Rabbinic Hebrew. Under
each one are arranged all the words belonging to it, without any
other regard to system than the placing of them according to the
books of the Bible in which they are found. Thus, for example,
under the root 2 is first given the heading n (Genesis), and
immediately after it all the passages of this book which contain
any form of any word belonging to , with references at the
side to chapter and verse in Hebrew numerals; next follow all the
passages from Exodus under the head nn, and afterwards, in
regular succession, those from the remaining books. A feature of
the work which we have not yet noticed is, that whenever a root
has two or more significations, each of them is made to constitute
a great division, under which are placed all the passages in which,
according to the author's opinion, that particular meaning obtains.
In carrying out this part of his plan he appears to have experi-
enced no inconsiderable degree of difficulty; for, besides placing
words under the wrong signification, which he not unfrequently
does, we find that he sometimes inserts the same passage under
different heads, as though unable or unwilling to decide as to the
proper one. Words which are derived from roots formed by the
addition of different weak letters and liquids to a common bilite-
ral theme, and bearing the same general meaning, are placed by
the author together under the triliteral most in use; in this manner
he intermingles words from us and we, from and , from
and, from p and yp, &c. Since his chief object was
to enable the inquirer to find a given word or passage, he takes no
notice of words written fully or defectively, or of the K'ri and C'thibh.
ישב
קיץ
קצה
אנש
בוש
,יבש
37
578
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
The Hebrew Bible having not yet been divided into chapters, he
makes use of the divisions of the Latin Vulgate which he found in
his original; the references to them are by no means free from
errors, yet they are far from abounding to the degree which might
have been anticipated from the hasty manner in which the book
was published.
One of the most serious faults of R. Nathan's plan is that of
arranging words in the order of the places where they occur,
and not according to their grammatical forms. By this means
serious obstacles are presented to the ready consultation of
the work even for the purpose of finding a given word or
passage; for should the inquirer not know beforehand in what
book it is to be found, he will probably be compelled to wade
through several folio pages of quotations before obtaining the
information required. These inconveniences are greatly aug-
mented in the case of the lexicographer or grammarian, who
desires to know to what derivatives each root has given birth and
in what forms they are used; since to ascertain this he must
examine each article from beginning to end, in order that facts
may not escape him which a properly constructed concordance
would exhibit at a single glance.*
The first edition of R. Nathan's Concordance was published by
Daniel Bomberg at Venice in 1523; and the second by Ambrose
Froben, the son of the friend and patron of Erasmus, at Basle, in
1581; this corrected some of the errors of the former, but intro-
duced no improvements. The third was that of Mario de Calasio,
Hebrew professor at Rome, which appeared in 1621 in four vo-
lumes folio. Many of the errors both in the quotations and
references of the preceding editions were here corrected; yet
the general plan of the work was suffered to remain untouched.
Its immense increase in size was in part owing to the insertion
of most of the Chaldee words in Daniel and Ezra, the appending
of a Latin translation to Nathan's expositions of the meanings of
the roots with additions by the editor, and the citation and explana-
tion of cognate terms and synonyms from the Rabbinic, Aramaic,
and Arabic. But what principally contributed to swell the bulk of
this edition was a literal Latin version of all the quoted passages
placed at the side of the text, with citations in the margin of the
places in which the Septuagint and Vulgate differ from the inter-
pretation given. The proper names of persons and places were
also added in the form of an appendix.
The radical defects and numerous errors which still disfigured
the Hebrew concordance caused the elder Buxtorf to undertake
the compilation of a new one, which, besides being more complete
and correct than either of its predecessors, should also be arranged
* What will the reader think when informed that we have now before us a pro-
spectus lately issued in London for the publication of a concordance, dedicated by
permission to the Lord Bishop of Lincoln, which is faithfully to copy the very plan
we have now been deprecating?
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
579
on a more scientific and convenient plan. To this he was espe-
cially induced by the essential service the concordance had ren-
dered him in re-editing Bomberg's Rabbinical Bible, even while his
attention was continually drawn to its many imperfections. The
admirable performance in which his labours resulted was published
after his death under the superintendence of his learned son, at
Basle, in 1632, and has been the standard work ever since. As
the chief merit of Buxtorf's Concordance consists rather in its new
and excellent plan than in the amount of its corrections and addi-
tions, we will describe it somewhat in detail.
The roots are arranged in the same manner as in Kimhhi's lexi-
con, that is, the triliterals are placed in alphabetical order, and the
multiliterals are collected together at the end of each letter of the
alphabet. The root is followed by R. Nathan's Hebrew exposi-
tion and its substance in Latin. The various inflections of the
root and its derivatives then succeed each other in regular gram-
matical order. Not only every word, but also every one of its
forms, whether arising from the mere change of a vowel or con-
sonant, or from the reception of an augment, is made to constitute
a separate head. These are printed in smaller characters than the
root, and are accompanied by a Latin translation, and followed by
the passages from the Bible in which they occur, with reference to
book, chapter and verse.
The verb is given first, beginning with the Kal species in all its
modes, tenses, numbers, and persons, and proceeding with the
remainder in the order in which they are treated in the grammars.
Each species is subdivided as follows: 1. The Preterite tense, the
persons of which are placed in the order of third, second, and first;
the reason, as we have before mentioned, being that the third per-
son constitutes the root. Each person is divided into several heads
according to the suffixes it receives, and these are subjected to a
further subdivision depending on the prefixes. 2. The Participles,
subdivided according to their numbers, genders, suffixes, and pre-
fixes. 3. The Infinitive, in all its forms. 4. The Imperative. 5.
The Future tense, divided and subdivided in the same manner as
the preterite, excepting only the arrangement of the persons, which
is here reversed, probably because the first commences with .
When the verb has been completed, the nouns belonging to the
same root are introduced in the order of their development. These
as well as the infinitives and participles are divided according to
their inflections and to the suffixes and prefixes they may receive,
in the manner prescribed in the portion of our article relating to
the plan of a concordance.
The concordance is thus made to embrace all the verbs and
common nouns of the language extant in the Bible, excepting a few
that are not inserted on account of their extremely frequent occur-
The particles, whether derived from verbs or nouns, are
entirely omitted, as are also the proper names. The biblical
Chaldee, added by the younger Buxtorf, is not intermingled with
rence.
580
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
the Hebrew, but is placed by itself at the end of the volume. The
words of the quoted passages are in general given fully or defec-
tively, as they stand in the text, but the various readings indicated
by the K'ri and C'thibh are allowed to go unnoticed. The refer-
ences to book, chapter, and verse, are given, as in the work of R.
Nathan, in Hebrew letters; the order of the books adopted by
the latter, which, as we have seen, is that of the Vulgate, is like-
wise retained.
Buxtorf succeeded in a great measure in correcting the most
prominent faults of his predecessor by constructing his plan on a
grammatical basis, not only separating the primitive and derivative
words, but also making each form of a word a distinct heading.
These improvements rendered the concordance so well adapted to
the uses for which it is designed, that the work of Buxtorf retained
its pre-eminence for more than two centuries, a proud testimony to
the extensive learning and the praiseworthy industry of its author.
When speaking of the deficiencies which the advanced state of
modern science enables us to discern in the works of such mer,
we should do it in the spirit of filial veneration which prompted
the Talmudic expression employed by himself with reference to his
our fathers have left מקום הניחו אבותינו להתגדר בו : predecessors
room for improvement.
The faults of plan and execution with which the work of Buxtorf
is fairly chargeable, although comparatively few, are yet sufficiently
numerous to render an improved edition desirable, and indeed
necessary for the present age. The defects of its plan are seen
chiefly in the lexicographical portion, and in the influence this was
suffered to exert upon the conduct of the entire work. Although
it is not clear that a concordance should be required to embody a
lexicon within itself, yet when this is undertaken, it is to be expected
that it will offer at least the results of the most important
discoveries and improvements that have been made till the
time of its publication. As we have already mentioned, the
lexicographical remarks of Buxtorf are taken almost wholly from
the meagre statements of R. Nathan respecting the significations
of words as determined by their use in the Bible, or by Rabbinical
commentators. This perhaps was doing as much as could be
expected in the then state of lexicographical science; but as every
department of philology has of late years been brought to a higher
point of perfection than at any former period, Buxtorf's work has
come to be regarded with all its acknowledged excellence as want-
ing in many important particulars.
The influence which Buxtorf's lexicographical views had upon
the arrangement of the concordance was of greater detriment than
their more immediate consequences, since they caused him to follow
Nathan in arranging the words of each root under the several
meanings assigned to it in the outset. The author's intention in
so doing was doubtless to increase the value of his work to students
of the Hebrew, by affording them the means of ascertaining with
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
581
certainty the literal meaning of every passage of Scripture. But
in reality this was a serious defect; since by distributing passages
which contain the same word under various heads, the work is
rendered more troublesome to consult, and, what is worse, the chief
ends of a concordance are in a great measure defeated by fettering
the judgment of the lexicographer and interpreter, for whose deci-
sions it should merely furnish the materials.
These faults in the plan of Buxtorf's work in addition to many
in its execution, as for instance the omission of hundreds of citations
and even entire articles, besides a multitude of typographical errors,
all combine to insure a favourable reception for a new concordance
designed to embody the improvements which the progress of phi-
lological science, and the accumulation of materials, have now
rendered both practicable and requisite. And we feel happy in
being able to state, after a careful examination of the work of Dr.
Julius Fürst, that as a concordance it completely answers every
reasonable demand, while its excellence in point of lexicography is
such as to exceed the most sanguine expectations. This latter
subject we have already discussed in the early part of our article ;
it therefore remains for us only to offer a few observations on the
author's concordance, properly so called, as distinguished from that
of Buxtorf.
He gives in the same manner and order as Buxtorf the forms of
words both primitive and derivative; but by placing together all
the passages which contain words agreeing in form and gram-
matical derivation, and differing only in use, he leaves the precise
significations of words to be ascertained from their connexions, aided
by his own masterly etymologico-historical illustrations, and thus
avoids the grave error into which Buxtorf had suffered himself to be
led by the example of his predecessor, Rabbi Nathan. Dr. Fürst has
likewise endeavoured to combine the double advantages of the alpha-
betic and scientific modes of arrangement, by inserting in the order
of the alphabet the forms of such derivatives from imperfect roots
as do not contain all the radical letters. These are accompanied
by references to the pages in which they regularly occur accord-
ing to their etymology, and cannot but prove very acceptable to
students not perfectly familiar with the niceties of formation. The
insertion of the Chaldee words in the body of the work immedi-
ately after their respective Hebrew equivalents, we regard as
another decided improvement, since it affords the means of readily
comparing the uses of a word in both languages, which often throw
considerable light on one another.
Besides these advantages in the plan of Dr. Fürst's concordance,
it also excels that of Buxtorf in completeness. This is chiefly
observable in the following points.
1. He inserts some entire articles, verbs as well as nouns, which
Buxtorf, after R. Nathan, had omitted on account of their frequent
Occurrence.
582
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
2. He inserts all the particles, both Hebrew and Chaldee, which
are derived from verbs.
3. He gives many hundred quotations more than Buxtorf.
These he obtained partly from an examination and comparison of
various lexicographical works, and partly from the collections of
other scholars to which he was allowed access. Among these
latter was one of more than six hundred passages noted in a copy
of Buxtorf by the learned Jewish grammarian, Wolff Heidenheim.
The effects of this large accession of materials soon became appa-
rent; thus under
Buxtorf cites two passages, and Fürst four.
Buxtorf has not Gen. xxxi. 9, given by Fürst; it should,
however, have been referred to xxxi. 8.
inserts.
Buxtorf omits Num. xxx. 5, and Judg. xix., 3 which Fürst
Das Fürst gives three passages not found in Buxtorf, viz.
2 Chron. vii. 22, xxx. 7, 22, &c. &c.
Dr. Fürst is also more correct than his predecessor in many
minor details. For example, Buxtorf places Deut. xxxii. 28
.Sam 1 לאביו תסף Deut. xiii. 1 under תסף אבד under the head
the form
xiii. 24 under
is likewise retained in quoting
the passage under . All these errors Dr. Fürst corrects. He
also makes a better choice of the words to be included in the quo-
tations than Buxtorf; thus under , instead of 3
Num. xvii. 17, he gives in preference 3 nun mob.
3
The most numerous errors in Buxtorf are to be found among
the references, which, as we have before observed, are given by
him in Hebrew letters. These have been subjected to a strict
revision by Dr. Fürst, who has greatly lessened the liability to the
future recurrence of such mistakes, by exchanging the Hebrew
numerals for Arabic figures. We will not detain the reader with
a long enumeration of mistakes of this class; a few, with their
accompanying corrections by Dr. Fürst, will suffice. Thus we
have under Lam. iv. 28 for v. 3. Prov. xv. 2 for xv. 20 (this
was not properly corrected by Dr. Fürst, who, not observing that
2 had been erroneously put for >
20, omitted the passage
altogether); under Jer. xxxi. 8 for xxxi. 9. Ezek. xliv.
26 for xliv. 25; under 1 Num. xxvi. 27 for xxvi. 3; Is.
Ixiv. 8 for lxiv. 7, &c. &c.
ב
Over and above the improvements introduced into the body of
the work, of which we have attempted to give something like an
adequate idea, the following additions are promised by the author
in the form of appendices :
1. An etymologico-alphabetical index of all the words in the
Old Testament, with references to the pages of the Concordance
where they are to be found.
2. An index purely alphabetical, with references like the pre-
ceding.
FURST'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.
583
3. A tabular view of all the forms of nouns systematically
arranged according to their origin and formation.
4. All the particles in alphabetical order.
5. An alphabetical list of all the Aramaic, Talmudic, and
modern Hebrew words explained in the lexicographical part of
the Concordance, with references to the places where they are
introduced. This will be so large as to form an almost complete
Aramaic and Rabbinic lexicon.
6. An alphabetical list of all Hebrew proper names.
7. The Hebrew verbal roots alphabetically arranged in a tabu-
lar form, according to the relations shown to exist between them
and those of the six other families of languages belonging to the
ancient world.
8. A complete collection of the fragments of the Masora, with
an introduction containing a full history of it, and with notes show-
ing the points of difference between the Masora and the received
biblical text.
9. A chronological table of the Hebrew Scriptures.
*
Combining such great and manifold advantages, the Concord-
ance of Dr. Fürst may be affirmed with the greatest truth to be
superior in all respects to every other that has hitherto been pub-
lished, Buxtorf's not excepted. The only fault of consequence
that we have detected, is a certain negligence in following out the
minutiæ of the plan laid down. The different forms of words do
not invariably succeed each other in the order generally observed:
thus, the participle, which usually precedes the future tense, is
placed after it in the Pi'hel of 3 and sometimes the suffixes are
made secondary to the prefixes in regulating the subdivision of the
forms, which is contrary to the general practice. The books of
the Bible are not always quoted in the same order, and in some
instances they are even mingled together in a promiscuous mass,
as for example under and N. Such slight defects as these,
however, cannot be considered as materially detracting from the
extraordinary merit of the work. On the contrary, the talents,
learning, and industry displayed by its author, with the splendid
style of its typographical execution, are such as to demand the
admiration of all competent judges, and do honour to the age and
country in which it is produced.
*This noble monument of German Jewish erudition and diligence, was completed
in the year 1840, and forms a magnificent folio of 1428 pages, exclusive of the Preface.
The valuable Appendices it contains are essentially the same as were promised in the
Prospectus, from which the list in the text was taken.-Ed.
ESSAY XXI.
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
PUBLISHED IN 1832.
*
THE Mohammedan imposture is, in some respects, the most
remarkable of all false religions. The specious simplicity of its
essential doctrines, and its perfect freedom from idolatry, dis-
tinguish it for ever from the gross mythology of classical and
oriental paganism. But besides these characteristics, it displays a
third, more interesting still. We mean the peculiar relation which
it bears to Christianity. Whether it happened from a happy acci-
dent or a sagacious policy, we think it clear that Islam owes a vast
proportion of its vast success, to the fact that Mohammed built
upon another man's foundation. Assuming the correctness of the
common doctrine that the impostor was a brilliant genius, though
a worthless libertine, and that his book is the offspring, not of
insane stupidity, but of consummate artifice, there certainly is
ground for admiration in the apparent union of simplicity and
efficacy in the whole design. The single idea of admitting freely
the divine legation of the Hebrew seers, and exhibiting himself as
the topstone of the edifice, the Last Great Prophet, and the Para-
clete of Christ, has certainly the aspect of a master stroke of policy.
Besides conciliating multitudes of Jews and soi-disant Christians,
at the very first, this circumstance has aided the imposture not a
little ever since. It relieves the Moslem doctors from the dire neces-
sity of waging war against both law and gospel. Whatever can be
cited from the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, without disparaging
Mohammed, they admit as readily as any Jew or Christian.
ever, on the contrary, is hostile to his doctrines or pretensions, or
at all at variance with the statements of the Koran, is disposed of,
not by an absolute rejection of the Bible, but by a resort to the con-
venient supposition of corruption in the text. It is not the policy
* The citations in this article are chiefly in the words of Sale, with occasional
departures from his phraseology, too minute to need specification. Where there is
more than a verbal difference, the reader is apprized of it.
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
585
of Islam to array itself against the Jewish and the Christian dis-
pensations, as an original and independent system; but to assume
the same position in relation to the Gospel, which the Gospel seems
tɔ hold in relation to the Law-or, in other words, to make itself
the grand dénouement of that grand scheme, of which the Old and
New Testaments were only the preparatory stages. Indeed, if
we were fully satisfied that the Rasool Allah* had any plan
at all, we should be disposed to account for it in this way. He
was acquainted with three forms of religion, Judaism, Christianity,
and Paganism. Disgusted with the last, he was led, we may sup-
pose, to make some inquiries into the points of difference between
the Jews and Christians. This he could not do, without discover.
ing their singular relation to each other-the Christians acknow-
ledging the Scriptures of the Jews, but adding others to them, and
regarding Jesus Christ as the Messiah-the Jews on the other hand
rejecting the New Testament, and bitterly denying the Messiahship
of Christ. This fact might very readily suggest the project of a
new dispensation-a third one to the Christian, and a second to
the Jew. The impostor would thus be furnished with an argu-
ment ad hominem to stop the mouths of both. To the Jews he
could say, Did not Moses tell your fathers that a prophet should
rise up in the latter days, greater than all before him? I am he.
Do you doubt it? Here is a revelation just received from Gabriel.
Do not all your sacred books predict the coming of a great deli-
verer, a conqueror, a king? I am he. In a few months you shall
see me at the head of a thousand tribes going forth to the con-
quest of the world. If this was the ground really taken at first,
how striking must have been the seeming confirmation of these
bold pretensions, when Mohammed and his successors had in
fact subjected, not Arabia only, but Greece, Persia, Syria, and
Egypt.
To the objection of the Christians, that the line of prophets
was long since completed, he could answer, Did not Jesus come
to abrogate or modify the law, when its provisions were no longer
suited to the state of things? Even so come 1, to supersede the
Gospel-not to discredit, but to render it unnecessary, by a more
extensive and authoritative doctrine. So far from being anti-
christ (as some no doubt objected) I am the very Comforter whom
Jesus promised.
That such sophistry might easily have undermined the faith
of renegadoes and half-pagan Christians, is certainly conceiva-
ble. Whether this was in fact the course adopted in the infancy
of Islam, will admit a doubt. Be that as it may, it is certain
that the impostor considered it expedient to incorporate the lead-
ing facts of sacred history into his revelation, so far as they were
known to him. That his knowledge of the subject was imper-
* The Apostle of God. We are not aware that Mohammed ever called himself a
prophet.
586
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
fect, need not excite our wonder. The sources which probably
supplied his information, could scarcely be expected to emit a
purer stream than that which irrigates the pages of the Perspicu-
ous Book.
Sale's Koran is a very common book, and has passed through a
surprising number of editions, considering its character. The
text is, however, of necessity so dull, that nobody can read it
patiently for fifteen minutes, without taking refuge in the more
amusing matter of the notes and preface. Were there any conti-
nuity, connexion, consistency, or unity to be discovered in it, this
would be of less importance. But in such a jumble of discordant
elements, it is hard to get any information by just reading on in
course. Remote parts must be brought together and arranged in
order to enucleate the mysteries of Islam; a task which most
would look upon as vastly disproportioned to the value of the
object. And yet it is important that the Koran should be better
understood. It is daily growing more important, and will very
soon be thought imperatively necessary. Theological students
who look forward to the missionary service, are too apt to under-
rate one class of difficulties, while perhaps they magnify another.
You will find a man hesitating whether he shall run the risk of
being bastinadoed, or of dying with the plague, while he forgets
that if he had a perfect security against infection and corporeal
violence, he might still be disappointed and defeated in his whole
design. That a man should go to convert the Moslems with an
impression on his mind that they are fools or children, is not
merely proof of ignorance on his part, but a melancholy omen for
the cause which he espouses. It would be well, therefore, if at
this time, when the Mohammedans are objects of so much atten-
tion to the friends of missions, a little preparatory study could be
spent upon the Koran. It is certainly desirable that he who under-
takes the instruction of a Mussulman, should know what the false
opinions are which he must combat. If he expects to find the
mind of his catechumen a tabula rasa on the subject of religion,
he will find himself most grievously at fault. Such strength of
prejudice has rarely been exhibited, as that which is the product of
a thorough education in the doctrines of Mohammed, aggravated,
as it must be, by the fixed belief of fatalism. No less erroneous,
on the other hand, is the opinion, that the Moslem's creed is wholly
false, and must be utterly destroyed before the truth can find
admission. There are two questions, therefore, which the mis-
sionary should know how to answer: what are the peculiar dog-
mas of Mohammed's system? and what has it in common with the
true religion? It ought to be considered as a great advantage, that
the facts of sacred history are not wholly unknown to the Moham-
medans. For though they may consider our intelligence as bor-
rowed from their Book, it is, nevertheless, something to be able to
appeal to striking facts, by way of illustration, confirmation, or
induction. This might, as it were, present a vulnerable point,
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
587
when all the rest is shielded in impenetrable prejudice. A begin-
ning might be made by a judicious use of facts which they believe
as well as we, from which occasion might be taken to correct the
errors of Mohammed's narrative, and eventually to demonstrate
and explain important truths.
What are these facts, then? or, in other words, how large a
portion of the sacred history has been wrought into the Koran,
and thereby placed beyond the reach of cavil on the part of all
true Moslemin ?
There is but one passage in the Koran, we believe, where a
connected account is given of the creation of the world, though
it is frequently mentioned incidentally as God's immediate and
almighty act. The passage alluded to occurs in the forty-first
chapter, and is very brief. The amount of it is, that God made.
the universe in six days, two of which were employed upon the
earth, two more upon its products, and the remaining two upon
the heaven. The latter, we are told, were made of smoke, into
which it is again to be resolved hereafter.* This element was
moulded into seven distinct heavens, each having its own office.
In the lowest of the seven the great lights were placed.
In glancing at this passage, we have had occasion to observe
Sale's assiduity in striving to impart coherence and significancy to
his author's text-not by false or loose translation, nor by sheer
interpolation, but by adding something to fill up the yawning
chasms of the porous and Perspicuous Book. In a word, he makes
Mohammed say in English, not what he does, but what he should
have said in Arabic; a harmless artifice, so far as substance is
concerned, but disingenuous, so far as it conveys too high a notion
of the psuedo-prophet's merits. For example, after stating the
creation of the earth, Mohammed says, he blessed it, and provided
therein its food, or their food (for the words admit of either sense).
What says Sale? "He blessed it and provided therein the food
of the creatures designed to be the inhabitants thereof." To the
last eight words there is nothing corresponding in the Arabic.
One thing more in this account of the creation may deserve our
notice. "He said to the heaven and the earth, come either obedi-
ently or against your will; they answered, we come obedient to
thy will." This was obviously intended as a match for that inimi-
table sentence, "God said, Let there be light, and light was." One
can hardly help smiling at the Irish sublimity of poor Mohammed's
master-piece, the alternative proposed to two nonentities, and their
sagacious choice. It is but just, however, to admit, that the
language may be considered as addressed to the heavens and the
earth after they were created, but before they were arranged and
beautified.
The Genii, we are told in the chapter of Al Hejr,† were made
of subtle fire, as Sale translates it. The original words are nar
* See the chapter entitled Smoke. Sale, vol. ii., c. 41. Lond. 1801.
+ c. xv.
588
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
t
semum, the latter term properly denoting the hot wind of the
desert called simoom by travellers. There is something poetical
in this idea, which would, no doubt, strike the fervid fancy of a
Bedouin with mighty force. The account of the creation and fall
of man is scattered piecemeal through the Koran. The narrative
is given, more or less completely, in the second, seventh, eighth,
fifteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth chapters. By putting
together the disjuncta membra, we make out this story. After
the earth and angels were created, God announced to the latter
his intention to create a khalif or vicegerent upon earth. The
angels are represented as remonstrating, and saying, "Wilt thou
place there one who will do mischief and shed blood, whereas we
celebrate thy praise and glorify thee?" What suggested their
forebodings is not mentioned. The only reply was, "I know that
which ye know not." Agreeably to this annunciation, a body
was formed of black mud and dried clay, into which God breathed
a spirit. Adam, thus produced, was taught by revelation the
names of all the animals, which were then presented to the angels
with these words, " Declare the names of these, if ye are upright!"
They said, "God forbid! we have no other knowledge than that
which thou hast given us: thou art the Knowing and the Wise!"
He said, "Adam, tell them the names of these!" When Adam
had told their names, God said, "Did I not tell you that I knew
the mysteries of heaven and earth?" The angels were then
required to worship Adam. All did so except Iblis, who, Moham-
med says, (6
was of the Genii, and resisted the commandment of
his Lord." From this it appears that the Jinn or Genii were
included under the term Angels or Malayic. Whether they were
before this evil spirits, we are left to guess. The prophet's notions
seem to have been exceedingly confused.
In another place we find the following dialogue between the
Almighty and the devil.
Allah. "O Iblis, what hindereth thee from worshipping that which
I have created with my hands? Art thou elated with vain pride,
or art thou really one of exalted merit?"
Iblis. "I am better than he; thou hast created me of fire, and
hast created him of clay."
Allah."Get thee hence, therefore, for thou shalt be driven away
from mercy, and my curse shall be upon thee till the day of judg-
ment."
Iblis. "Oh Lord, respite me till the day of resurrection."
Allah. "Verily thou shalt be one of the respited."
Iblis. “By thy might I swear, that I will surely seduce them all,
except thy servants who shall be peculiarly chosen from among
them."
Allah. "It is a just sentence: I speak the truth: I will fill hell
with thee, and with such as follow thee."T
xv., 26.
§ ii., 30, &c.
fii., 30.
|| xviii., 50.
‡ xv., 25. 28.
¶ xxxviii., 76-86.
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
589
The same account, substantially, is given in the seventh and
fifteenth chapters. In one of these passages, Iblis is made to say,
"Because thou hast seduced or deceived me (Sale says depraved),
I will lie in wait for men in thy strait way; and I will come upon
them from before and from behind, and from their right-hand and
from their left, and thou shalt not find the greater part of them
thankful."*
Such is the account of the apostasy of Iblis. Its immediate
consequence was the fall of man, which is related thus: "God
said to Iblis, Get thee hence, despised and driven away! Verily,
whoever, shall follow thee, I will surely fill hell with you all.
But as for thee, O Adam, dwell thou and thy wife in the garden,
and eat of it wherever ye will, but approach not this tree, lest ye be
of the wicked. And Satan (i. e. the adversary, as in Hebrew)
whispered to them that he would reveal their nakedness which was
concealed from them. And he said, your Lord has not excluded
you from this tree, except for fear that you should become
angels or immortal. And he sware to them, I am one of those
who give good counsel. And he caused them to fall by his deceit.
And when they had tasted of the tree, their nakedness appeared to
them, and they began to join the leaves of the garden upon them-
selves. And their Lord called to them saying, Did I not forbid
you this tree, and tell you that Satan was your avowed enemy?
They said, Our Lord, we have sinned against our own souls, and
unless thou forgive us and have mercy upon us, we shall certainly
be of those who perish."+
"And Adam learned words (of prayer,
Sale adds) from his Lord, and he turned unto him, for he is easy
to be turned and merciful. And God said, Go down, the one of
you an enemy to the other, and there shall be a dwelling place for
you on earth and provision for a season.”‡
"Therein shall ye
live and therein shall ye die, and therefrom shall ye be taken forth
(Sale adds, at the resurrection)."§ "There shall come to you a
direction from me, and as many as obey that direction shall be
free from fear and grief; but as many as disbelieve and charge
our signs with falsehood, shall be companions of hell-fire. Therein
shall they dwell for ever."||
The account of Cain and Abel is very brief. Brief as it is,
however, there was room for one sheer fabrication, borrowed
from the Rabbins. "Tell them the story of the two sons of Adam
truly. When they offered an offering, and it was accepted from
one of them and not from the other, he said (Cain said to his bro-
ther, quoth Sale), I will kill thee. He said (Abel said, id.). God
accepteth gifts from those who fear him. If thou stretch forth thy
hand against ine to slay me, I will not stretch forth my hand
against thee to slay thee, for I fear God the Lord of the Uni-
verse. I am willing that thou shouldst bear my iniquity and thine
* vii., 16, 17.
§ vii., 26.
† vii., 18-23.
ii., 38.
‡ii., 36, 37.
590
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
own iniquity, and thou shouldst become one of the companions of
hell-fire; for that is the reward of the unrighteous. And his soul
permitted him to slay his brother, and he slew him, and become
one of those who perish. And God sent a raven which scratched
the earth, to teach him how he should hide his brother's naked-
ness. Then he said, woe is me! am I unable to be like this raven
that I may hide my brother's nakedness? And he became one of
the penitent. On this account, we prescribed it to the children of
Israel, that whoever slays a soul without a soul (i. e., probably,
without having slain a soul) or without having acted wickedly in
the earth, shall be as if he had slain all mankind, and he who saveth
a soul alive, shall be as if he had saved the lives of all mankind."*
This last fine sentiment is finely countenanced by the repeated
order to exterminate the infidels, and the many promises of ever-
lasting happiness to those who die upon the field of battle.
•
It will be observed, that in the narrative just given, the names of
Adam's sons do not occur at all, except in Sale's translation. We
have no recollection of their being mentioned elsewhere. Noah,
the Koran says, was sent to warn his contemporaries, and remained
among them "a thousand years save fifty."+ The only persons who
submitted to his guidance were obscure and abject; the nobles and
the wealthy stood aloof. At length it was revealed to Noah that all
had believed who would believe, and he was directed to construct a
vessel. While engaged upon this task he was treated with general
derision and contempt. At last the appointed time arrived, "and
the oven poured forth boiling water." The narrative then pro-
ceeds as follows: "We said unto Noah, carry into the ark of
every kind of animal one pair, and thine own family (excepting
him on whom sentence had already passed), and those who believe.
And there believed not with him except a few. And Noah
said, embark upon it in the name of God, while it floats and
while it is at rest. Surely my Lord is merciful and gracious.
And it floated with them upon waves like mountains; and Noah
called to his son who was separated from them, Oh my son, embark
with us, and be not with the unbelievers. He said, I will ascend a
mountain which will secure me from the water. He said, there
is no security to-day from the decree of God except for him on
whom he shall have mercy. And a wave passed between them,
and he was one of the drowned. And it was said, oh earth
swallow up thy water, and oh heaven withhold! And the water
subsided, and the decree was accomplished, and it (the ark) rested.
on Al Judi; and it was said, away with the ungodly people! And
Noah called upon his Lord and said, oh my Lord, my son is one
of my family, and thy promise is true, for thou art the most just of
those who judge. God said, Noah, he is not one of thy family;
this is not a righteous work (viz., his intercession). Ask not of
me that of which thou hast no knowledge, I admonish thee not to
V. 29-34.
† xxix., 14.
‡ xi, 40.
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
591
be one of the ignorant."* Noah then acknowledges his fault,
leaves the ark, and receives a benediction. At the close of the
history the prophet adds, as if apprehensive that some of the faith-
fu might have been beforehand with him, "This is a secret history
which we reveal unto thee; thou didst not know it, neither did thy
people before this."+
:
With respect to Abraham,‡ there are many statements and allu-
sions in the Koran. The substance of his history is this. While
yet a boy, he was led to disbelieve in the idolatrous religion of his
father and his countrymen. Having secretly renounced the wor-
ship of images, he was in doubt to what object he should pay his
adorations. He first pitched upon the sun and moon, but after-
wards reflected that their setting every day rendered them unwor-
thy of divine honours. He came at last to the conclusion, there-
fore, that he would worship God alone.§ Having formed this reso-
lution, he remonstrated with his father on the folly of idolatry. Ezer,
however, as Mohammed calls him, rebuked his son severely and
threatened him with death.|| Even this, it seems, did not deter
the young reformer from playing a bold and witty trick upon his
pagan friends. Absenting himself from one of their festivals," he
went into the temple where the idols stood, and he brake them all
in pieces except the biggest of them, that they might lay the blame
upon that. And when they were returned and saw the havoc
which had been made, they said, who hath done this to our gods?
He is certainly an impious person. And certain of them answered,
We heard a young man speak reproachfully of them he is named
Abraham. They said, bring him therefore before the eyes of the
people, that they may bear witness against him. And when he
was brought before the assembly, they said to him, hast thou done
this unto our gods, oh Abraham? He answered, nay, but that
biggest one of them hath done it; ask them if they can speak.
And they came to themselves, and said one to the other, verily ye
are the impious persons. Afterwards they turned down upon their
heads (i. e. relapsed) and said, verily thou knowest that these can-
not speak. Abraham said, do ye therefore worship besides (or
instead of) God that which cannot profit you at all, neither can it
hurt you! Fie on you and upon that which ye worship besides
God! Do ye not understand? They said, Burn him and avenge
your Gods. (And when Abraham was cast into the burning pile)¶
we said, oh fire be thou cold, and a preservation unto Abraham.
And they sought to lay a plot against him, but we caused them to
be the sufferers."** After this miraculous preservation, he boldly
inveighed against idolatry in public, but without effect. Lot
alone believed, in company with whom Abraham forsook his
native country "to go to the place which the Lord had com-
manded him."tt
* xi., 40-46.
|| xix., 46.
xxi., 58-69.
† xi., 49.
Ibrahim.
§ vi., 74-79.
These nine words are interpolated by Sale.
(Sale, vol. ii., p. 158. Lond., 1808.)
tt xxix., 26.
592
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
The reader will have observed, amidst the fiction and obscurity
of these details, not a few glimpses of the truth from which they
were derived. We find the case the same as we pursue the nar-
rative. The very next step brings us to a lamentable travesty of
Genesis xv., 7–12. "Abraham said, Lord show me how thou
wilt raise the dead. Dost thou not believe? He said, yes, but
that my mind may be at ease. He said, take then four birds, and
divide them, and place a piece on every mountain. Then call
them and they will come to thee in haste; and know that God is
mighty and merciful."*
The visit of the angels is related with laudable accuracy as to
some particulars, and woful want of it in others. The object of
their coming and the mode of their reception, are correctly stated.
But the laughter of Sarah is made to precede the promise of a son.†
This slight anachronism has occasioned an incredible deal of pains
to the Mohammedan commentators, who, we need not say, are
very numerous, voluminous, minute, and silly. They have at-
tempted in vain to account for Sarah's laughter, and the ground of
its connexion with the promise which ensued. The son thus pro-
mised is correctly stated to have been called Isaac ; and yet that
patriarch is treated, both by the Koran and the commentators, as
a very obscure and unimportant personage. He is only men-
tioned incidentally, and then but briefly. Ishmael§ is constantly
brought forward as the leading character. The reason of this is
plain. It was intended to exhibit his descendants, instead of the
Jews, as the chosen people. The only wonder is, that he was not
made the child of promise. We mention it as an instance of the
clumsy manner in which Mohammed put his stuff together.||
The account of the incidents immediately preceding the awful
overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, so far as it goes, is tolerably
accurate. Abraham's intercession, and the outrageous conduct of
the wretched Sodomites, are stated briefly but distinctly. On
reaching the catastrophe, the reader is surprised to learn that it
was effected by a storm of brickbats! Sale gives it thus:
"And
when our command came, we turned those cities upside down,
and we rained upon them stones of baked clay, one following
another."¶
The facts in relation to the sacrifice of Isaac are stated in the
thirty-seventh chapter of the Koran, without any material depart-
ure from the truth, but also without the touching simplicity and
circumstantiality of the original. The last passage which we shall
advert to, in the history of Abraham as scattered through the
Koran, is purely Koranic, and was obviously designed to trace the
imposture of the camel-driver up to the father of the faithful.
We give it in the words of Sale, inserting brackets to denote inter-
polations. "God said, verily I will constitute thee a model of
* ii., 259.
† xi., 71.
Is-hak.
§ Ismail.
It may have been because the etymology of Isaac's name would suggest the same
idea to an Arab as a Jew, viz., laughter.
xi, 82.
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
593
And
religion* unto mankind: he answered, and also of my posterity?
God said, my covenant doth not comprehend the ungodly.
we appointed the [holy] house [of Mekka] to be a place of resort
for mankind, and a place of security; and said, take the station of
Abraham for a place of prayer; and we covenanted with Ismael
and Abraham, that they should cleanse my house for those who
should compass it and those who should be devoutly assiduous
there, and those who should bow down and worship. And Abra-
ham and Ismael raised the foundations of the house, saying, Lord,
accept it from us, for thou art he who heareth and who knoweth.
Lord, make us all RESIGNED unto thee, and of our posterity a people
resigned unto thee, and show us our holy ceremonies, and be turned
unto us, for thou art easy to be reconciled and merciful. Lord,
send them likewise an Apostle from among them, who may
declare thy signs unto them, and teach them the book [of the
Koran], and wisdom, and purify them; for thou art mighty and
wise. Who will be averse to the religion of Abraham, but he
whose mind is infatuated ?" This last triumphant interrogatory
harmonizes well with the assertion elsewhere made, that "Abra-
ham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but a Hanif, or orthodox
believer.‡
In the passage just quoted, we find the religion of Mohammed
identified with the millah Ibrahim or religion of Abraham. We
also find the origin of the distinctive name of the imposture. The
Arabic word which Sale translates resigned, is Moslimin, a partici-
ple. The verb Aslama means to yield one's self up unreservedly.
It is used to denote entire resignation to God's will, and devotion
to his service. The participle Moslim (plural moslimun, moslimin)
is the proper equivalent to our word Mohammedan, which they
seldom employ, and signifies one resigned and devoted. The
infinitive of the same verb is Islam, resignation and devotion, the
term used by Moslems to denote their own religion, and one
which might well supersede the uncouth European form, Moham-
medanism.
Dr. Scott says, somewhere in his correspondence, that the history
of Joseph is worse murdered in the Koran, than his brothers ever
wished to murder him. Comparatively speaking, this is quite too
harsh a judgment. That narrative, compared with others which
Mohammed gives us, is a model of coherence and correctness.
There are fewer anachronisms and interpolations here, than in
almost any other of his attempts at history. Joseph's dream con-
cerning the sun, moon, and stars, and its effect upon his brethren,
are correctly stated. In order to gratify their spite, they are
represented as requesting Jacob to send Joseph to the pastures
with them. The proposal to kill him, and Reuben's interference,
are distinctly mentioned, but without the name of Reuben. They
are said, moreover, to have left him in the well, and carried the
* (Arab.) an Imam.
tii., 124-130.
iii., 67.
38
594
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
:
report of his death to Jacob. "And certain travellers came, and
sent one to draw water for them; and he let down his bucket,
and said, good news! this is a youth! And they concealed him,
that they might sell him as a piece of merchandise.” *
He is car-
ried to Egypt and sold. The wickedness of his mistress, and his
constancy, are related with substantial accuracy; but by an awk-
ward blunder, Joseph is sent to prison after being pronounced
innocent. The dreams of the baker and butler, Joseph's interpre-
tation of them, Pharaoh's dream, and Joseph's liberation and pro-
motion, are given, without much deviation from the truth. He is
made, however, to propose his own elevation to the chair of state.†
The famine in Canaan, the journey of Jacob's sons to Egypt,
Simeon's detention, the restoration of the money, Benjamin's visit,
the recognition of Joseph, and Jacob's emigration, are all mention-
ed. Some embellishments are introduced, no doubt. Jacob is
blinded by weeping for the loss of Joseph, and restored to sight
by the application of Joseph's under garment. The following
nonsense is put into the mouth of the venerable patriarch, on send-
ing his sons a second time to Egypt. My sons, enter not into
the city by one and the same gate; but enter by different gates.
But this precaution will be of no advantage unto you against the
decree of God, for judgment belongeth to him alone." By a ridi-
culous anachronism, Joseph is made to reveal himself to Benjamin,
before the discovery of the cup; and thus the stratagem is left
without an object. Joseph's messengers, despatched to bring his
brethren back, offer a reward of a load of corn to the man who
should produce the cup. His brethren are made to say, "If Ben-
jamin be guilty of theft, his brother Joseph hath been guilty of
theft heretofore!"
66
Still, as we said before, the narrative, compared with others in
the book, may be said to be consistent, continuous, and even accu-
rate. At the same time, it should be mentioned as an interesting
fact, that from beginning to end there is no approach to pathos,
nor the slightest indication of that masterly acquaintance with the
human heart, which shines in the inimitable and divine original.
And we venture to say, that no one, after reading the Koran in its
native dress, however much he may be pleased with many rhyth-
mical and sonorous passages, will be able to recall one solitary
sentence which evinces either tenderness or purity of feeling. Let
those who would see this difference between a genuine and a spuri-
ous revelation exhibited in very striking contrast, read the twelfth
chapter of Sale's Koran in connexion with the history of Joseph
in the book of Genesis. The comparison is fair; for both are
literal translations from cognate dialects. To take a single stroke
from either picture as a specimen, we give the account of Joseph's
making himself known, as recorded by Moses and Mohammed.
"Then Joseph could not refrain himself before all them that stood
xii., 18.
† xii., 53.
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
595
And
by him; and he cried, Cause every man to go out from me.
there stood no man with him while he made himself known unto
his brethren. And he wept aloud. And Joseph said unto his breth-
ren, I am Joseph. Doth my father yet live? And his brethren
could not answer him; for they were troubled at his presence.
And Joseph said unto his brethren, Come near to me, I pray you;
and they came near. And he said, I am Joseph your brother,
whom ye sold into Egypt. Now, therefore, be not grieved nor
angry with yourselves, &c. &c. And he fell upon his brother
Benjamin's neck and wept." (Gen. xlv.) "Wherefore Joseph's
brethren returned into Egypt; and when they came into his
presence they said, Noble lord, the famine is felt by us and
our family, and we are come with a small sum of money: yet give
unto us full measure, and bestow corn upon us as alms; for God
rewardeth the alms-givers. Joseph said unto them, Do ye know
what ye did unto Joseph and his brother, when ye were ignorant
of the consequence thereof? They answered, Art thou Joseph ?
He replied, I am Joseph and this is my brother. Now hath God
been gracious unto us. They said, Now hath God chosen thee
above us; and we have surely been sinners. Joseph said, Let there
be no reproach cast on you this day. God forgiveth you; for he
is the most merciful of those who show mercy." (Kor. xii., Sale,
vol. ii., p. 50. Lond. 1801.)
The twenty-eighth chapter of the Koran, called The Story,
opens with these words; "In the name of God most merciful,
T. S. M. These are the signs of the Perspicuous Book. We
dictate unto thee some of the history of Moses* and Pharaoht with
truth for those who believe." And accordingly we have a very
copious account of the great lawgiver, both in this same chapter
and in several others. In reading it over we are struck with the
illustration which it yields of the way in which these shreds of
sacred history were gathered by the pseudapostle. We can per-
ceive throughout an effort to retain as much as possible of what he
had been told, without regard to the causes and connexions of events.
Facts, which are stated in the Scriptures as the natural results of
antecedent facts, stand here detached and unaccounted for. This
would indeed be in Mohammed's favour, if he were alluding to
events already known, as such-just as the allusions in the Psalms
and Prophets prove that the Jews were acquainted with the Pen-
tateuch. But such is not the case. Here, as elsewhere, he pro-
fesses to reveal what was before unknown, and by so doing proves
himself a liar. Our object is, to show how much of the Scripture
history is borrowed, and how much new matter is interpolated.
He mentions Pharaoh's tyranny, and speaks of it as general, though
most excessive towards the Hebrews. He mentions the sanguinary
edict with respect to Jewish children, and the signal deliverance
of Moses from the water, his adoption by Pharaoh's wife (not
† Firaun.
* Musa.
596
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
daughter), and his strange restoration to his mother as a nurse;
his killing the Egyptian, and his flight to Midian,* his behaviour
at the well, and his introduction to the family of Jethro, who is
here called Shoaib. We are then told, that he served eight years.
for Shoaib's daughter, a circumstance borrowed from the history
of Jacob, who is scarcely ever mentioned except in the history of
Joseph, and in a few other cases where his name is joined with
those of Abraham and Isaac. Having fulfilled the term of his
engagement, he set out for Egypt with his family. While on his
journey, he perceived a fire upon the side of Mount Sinai which
he turned aside to, with a view to warm himself and ascertain the
road. On his approach, however, a voice commanded him to put
off his shoes because he was in the holy valley Towa. The two
miracles are then recorded, without any reason for them being
given. That of the serpent is correctly stated, but the other is
ridiculously misrepresented. The account given by Moses him-
self is that he thrust his hand into his bosom and drew it out
leprous as snow (m'tzoraath casshaleg). Whether the former of
these words was wanting in the copy of the law which more or
less remotely furnished Mohammed with his information, or
whether his Jewish teacher did not know its meaning, or whether
he himself remembered only half of what he heard, these ques-
tions must for ever keep their place among the mysteries of which
he talks so much. Certain it is, however, that he says not a word.
of leprosy, and makes the miracle consist in his drawing out his
hand white and uninjured !§ To make the aspect of the thing a
little marvellous, the Moslem commentators tell us that Moses was
very swarthy, and that his hand underwent a miraculous change
of complexion! How much perplexity may be occasioned by the
misconception or omission of a word! And oh, how hard, how
impossible it is, for awkward imposture to ape the consistent sim-
plicity of truth!
The fact of the prophet's hesitation and reluctance to obey the
Lord's injunction, is here mentioned; but the grounds of it are
strangely jumbled. "Moses said, Oh Lord, I have slain one of
them, and I fear they will put me to death; but my brother Aaron||
is of a more eloquent tongue than I; wherefore send him with me
for an assistant, that he may gain me credit; for I fear lest they
accuse me of imposture."T
Pharaoh charges them with a design to dispossess him of his
land by magic, and challenges them to a competition with the
sorcerers of Egypt. Moses accepts the challenge, and a great
feast-day is appointed for the contest.** The people assemble, and
the magicians come prepared with cords and rods, which they
make by their enchantments to appear like serpents. The rod of
Moses swallows up the rest, whereupon the magicians publicly
* Madian.
|| Harun.
† xxviii., 1-30.
+ Exodus iv., 6.
¶ xxviii., 34, 35.
§ Koran xx., 22.
XX., 59.
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
597
acknowledge their belief in the God of Moses and Aaron. Pha-
raoh, enraged with this defection, threatens them with the severest
punishment.
In this part of the narrative, there is a single sentence which is
itself a curiosity. Pharaoh said, "Oh Haman, burn me clay unto
bricks, and build me a high tower, that I may ascend into the
God of Moses."* Here we have Haman burning bricks in Egypt,
in the days of Moses, for the purpose of building the tower of
Babel! We say the tower of Babel, because there is no notice
taken elsewhere in the Koran of that striking incident in sacred
history, and because the motive here ascribed to Pharaoh is so
near akin to that mentioned in Genesis. Gross as the anachro-
nism seems to us, however, the Moslems steadfastly maintain that
Haman was prime minister to Pharaoh.
The Egyptians, refusing to believe on Moses, were punished by
a flood, locusts, lice, frogs, and blood, distinct miracles. These
being removed by the intercession of Moses, they broke their pro-
mise and refused obedience.‡ Moses was then directed to with-
draw with the Israelites at night. Pharaoh pursued them. The
sea was divided into twelve parts, separated by as many paths,
through which the Hebrews passed, while the Egyptians were all
drowned. The Israelites, proceeding on their journey, came
among a people who worshipped idols, whereupon they requested
Moses to give them idols also. This he refused; and in obedience
to the divine command fasted forty nights, after which God wrote
the law upon tables, and delivered them to him. During his
absence, however, the people made a calf which lowed, and which
they worshipped. The chief agent in this business was one Al
Sameri, who declared that he had given life to the calf by sprink-
ling on it a handful of dust from the footsteps of the Messenger of
God. The calf was burnt and pulverized, and Al Sameri con-
demned to say to every one who met him, Touch me not.
singular speech of Aaron's is recorded here. He is made to say,
on the return of Moses, Oh, son of my mother, drag me not by
my beard nor by the hair of my head." In a parallel passage it
is stated that Moses threw down the tables, and seized his brother
by the hair.
(C
A
The division into tribes, which is spoken of as arbitrary, the
appointment of the seventy elders, the smiting of the rock, the
giving of manna and of quails, are all recorded. In connexion
with these incidents we find the following, which has occasioned
no small difficulty to the hapless commentators. "We said, enter
into this city (no city had been previously mentioned) and eat of
the provisions thereof plentifully as ye will; and enter the gate
worshipping and say Hittaton ! We will pardon your sins and
give increase to the well-doers. But the ungodly changed the
xxviii., 39.
§ xx., 94.
† vii., 130, 131.
|| vii., 136.
† xxvi., 53–67.
Tii. and vii.
598
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
expression into another different from what had been spoken,
&c."*
The following passages are no less valuable. "Ask them
concerning the city by the sea, when they profaned the Sabbath;
when their fish came unto them on their Sabbath day, appearing
openly on the water, but on the day whereon they did not keep
the Sabbath, they came not unto them *** And when they
proudly refused to desist from what had been forbidden them, we
said to them, be ye transformed into apes, driven away from the
society of men *** And we shook Mount Sinai over them as
though it had been a covering."+ Having despatched the fish and
the apes, we must by no means overlook the cow, since it has given
name to one of the longest chapters in the Koran, and since it
affords a proof of the divine legation of Moses, which he has him-
self forgotten to record. The story may be gathered from the
following dialogue:
"Moses. God commandeth you to sacrifice a cow.
People. Dost thou make a jest of us?
M. God forbid that I should be one of the foolish!
P. Pray for us unto thy Lord, that he would show us what cow
it is.
M. She is neither an old cow nor a heifer, but of middle age
between both: do ye therefore what ye are commanded.
P. Pray for us unto thy Lord, that he would show us what
colour she is of.
M. He saith she is a yellow cow, intensely yellow; her colour
rejoiceth the beholders.
P. Pray for us unto thy Lord, that he would show us further
what cow it is; for several cows with us are like one another;
and we, if God please, will be directed.
M. He saith, she is a cow not broken to plough the earth or
water the field; a sound one, there is no blemish in her.
P. Now hast thou brought the truth."§
"Then," says the Book, "they sacrificed her; yet they wanted.
but little of leaving it undone. And when ye slew a man, and
contended among yourselves concerning him, we said, strike the
dead body with part of the sacrificed cow. Thus God raised the
dead to life." Among the many animals for which the Moslems.
entertain a high regard, none, we believe, not even Ezra's ass, nor
the seven sleepers' dog, is more esteemed than this middle-aged,
intensely yellow, cow.
In connexion with the history of Moses, Karun must be men-
tioned. He is the Croesus of oriental history and fiction, being
described in the Koran as immensely rich. Nothing more is
there related of him, except that on account of his presumption and
ingratitude, the earth opened and swallowed him up, which identi-
fies him with the Korah of the Pentateuch.T
ii, 28, 59.
ii., 67–71.
† vii., 153, 156, 161.
|| ii., 72, 73.
The second.
¶ xxviii., 77–83.
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
599
The only other incident related of Moses, is a purely fictitious one.
It is interesting, however, in itself, and also because it has fur-
nished the conception and the leading incidents of a well-known
poem, Parnell's Hermit. Where Mohammed got it, is a matter of
dispute. Lord Teignmouth, we believe, has traced it into Hin-
dostan. The passage in the Koran occupies some pages of the
eighteenth chapter.
From Moses, the false prophet takes a sweeping stride to Saul,
whom he calls Talut. As if to compensate for this yawning
chasm, he contrives to bring into connexion with this prince, two
facts belonging to two other periods. After mentioning the
application made by the Israelites to their prophet (Sale adds
Samuel, in capitals) for a king to command their hosts, he says
that they objected to the person chosen. To remove this diffi-
culty, they were told that a proof of his divine vocation should
be given. "Verily the sign of his kingdom shall be that the
ark shall come unto you: therein shall be tranquillity from your
Lord, and the relics which have been left by the family of Moses
and the family of Aaron. The angels shall bring it. Verily, this
shall be a sign unto you, if ye believe."* The word, which Sale
here renders tranquillity, is sekinah or sekinaton, the Hebrew
shechinah. To the Arabic commentators it seems to have been
exceedingly mysterious.
The enemy against whom Talut led the Hebrews, was Goliath,
here called Jalut. The form in which these names appear, is
easily explained. It is well known, that to an elevated style
oriental rhetoric makes jingle an essential requisite. This may
result, in part, from organic sensibility, since rhyme is confessedly
a product of the east, and since the Hebrew Scriptures furnish
some examples of paronomasia. The proximate cause of this
perverted taste, however, is the usage of the Koran, that standing
miracle of perfect eloquence, in which not only pages, but whole
chapters, have a rhythmus and a rhyme, which to our ears is
paltry, but to a Turk's or Arab's is the music of the spheres. This
childish weakness leads the orientals to take undue liberties with
foreign names. The Greeks, who were above this folly, had
another of their own. Everything with them must have a
meaning, sense or nonsense; and accordingly they tortured
Persian and Phoenician simples into Attic compounds. With the
Arabs on the other hand, and their disciples, sense must yield to
ii., 247.
† We say some examples, for a part of those collected by Gesenius cannot be fairly
reckoned as belonging to this class. His remarks upon the subject have a tendency,
indeed, to make the reader think that the Bible is deformed throughout with this
most offensive form of rhetorical affectation, which he calls a Lieblingszierde of the
Hebrew language! We venture to affirm that a large proportion of the cited
instances are purely accidental, and might easily be matched by German phrases from
the Lehrgebaeude; and that as to the rest, they almost all occur in peculiar idioma-
tic and proverbial phrases, not as in Hariri, at the end of every clause of every para-
graph, prosaic or poetical.
600
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
sound. Names historically cognate must likewise rhyme together.
Thus in the case before us, Julat really varies very little from
Goliath, the radicals being the same. But poor Saul is made
to rhyme with the Philistine. Talut and Jalut is a combination
full of beauty to an Asiatic ear. So is Harut and Marut, which
occurs in this same chapter.* So is Habel and Cabel, the Moham-
medan improvement upon Cain and Abel.
In the account of Talut's campaign against Jalut, the other
misplaced incident, which we referred to, is inserted; Gideon's
method of selecting his followers, by their drinking, is transferred
to Saul.t
Jalut is killed by David, who is abruptly introduced for the pur-
pose, and correctly spoken of as Saul's successor. Of David we
are elsewhere told, that he was a true penitent, that he was endued
with strength, that he was inspired with the art of making coats
of mail, that the mountains sang in concert with him, and the birds
also, a notion founded probably on the frequent personifications
and apostrophes in the book of Psalms.§ The passage, which we
are now about to quote, is an instance of Mohammed's skill in
divesting his stolen scraps of all historical, rhetorical, and moral
worth. It surpasses even the example before given from the his-
tory of Joseph, as a specimen of the Koranic process for the trans-
mutation of pathos into bathos. Let the reader turn to the exqui-
site parable, by means of which the prophet Nathan touched his
master's conscience. With that passage fresh in his mind, let
him read as follows. "Hath the story of the two adversaries
come to thy knowledge; when they ascended over the wall into
the upper apartment, when they went in to David, and he was
afraid of them? They said, Fear not, we are two adversaries.
who have a controversy to be decided. The one of us hath
wronged the other: wherefore judge between us with truth, and
be not unjust and direct us into the even way. This my brother
had ninety and nine sheep; and I had only one ewe: and he said,
give her me to keep; and he prevailed against me in the discourse
which we had together. David said, verily he hath wronged thee
in demanding thine ewe in addition to his own sheep: and many
of them who are concerned together in business wrong one another,
except those who believe and do that which is right; but how few
are they! And David perceived that we had tried him by this
parable [what parable?] and he asked pardon of his Lord, and
he fell down and bowed himself and repented. Wherefore he
forgave him this fault [what fault?] and he shall be admitted to
approach near unto us, and shall have an excellent place of abode
[in Paradise]." Of this poor parody, Sale says with great sang-
froid, "it is no other than Nathan's parable to David, a little dis-
* ii., 102.
|| 2 Sam., xii.
† ii., 248.
‡ii., 250.
‡ See ch. xxi., xxxiv., xxxviii-
¶ xxxviii., 22-26.
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
601
guised."*
A little disguised! disfigured, mangled, massacred, he
surely meant to say.
That Solomont acts a most conspicuous part in oriental fiction, is
known to every reader of the Thousand and One Nights. For this
distinction he is indebted, remotely to the Rabbins, more directly
to the Koran. In the latter may be found the germ-the crude
and shapeless elements of that extravagant, but fascinating, spe-
cies of romance, which the western Asaiatics doat upon so fondly,
and which, in the hands of their prolific writers, has grown up like
an enchanted palace full of mysteries and wonders, of ethereal
spirits and of airy tongues that syllable men's names. There is
something in the eastern tales of genii and fairies, most agreeably
contrasted with the sombre aspect of the Gothic legends which
people our nurseries with grisly goblins. There is something
gross, as well as dismal, in the latter, which offends the taste, while
it agitates the nerves. The eastern fables, on the other hand, are
airy and poetical. Their fictions savour of the palm-grove and
the fountain, ours of the church-yard and the charnel-house. Both
are cqually unreal and unprofitable. But their very unreality (to
coin a word) is different, Both are mere dreams. But theirs are
the dreams of childish gaiety, ours are the somnia agri, the visions
of disease. And as to their unprofitableness, when we consider
the effects of ghost stories heard in childhood, we can boldly say,
that if we must have the stimulus of falsehood, we would rather
have the exhilarating gas of eastern fancy than the stupefying
opiate of home-brewed superstition. Of that sort of fiction, which
has led us into this digression, the embryo exists in the Koranic
account of Solomon. He is represented, not only as remarkable
for wisdom, but as gifted with sundry supernatural advantages;
as empowered to control the winds, as acquainted with the lan-
guage of animals ;§ as possessed of a fountain which emitted mol-
ten brass; but above all, as invested with absolute authority
over the Jinn or Genii. We have said, that with respect to this
class of beings there is some obscurity in the Koran. It should
seem from certain passages, that they are what we call demons;¶
and yet the oriental fabulists do not exhibit them precisely in that
light. The probability is, that there has been an amalgamation of
the Jewish doctrine with another from a different quarter, probably
from India. Accordingly, it seems to be the popular opinion in
the west of Asia, that between the good angels and the devils
there are two intermediate orders, the one called Peris by the Per-
sians, excluded from heaven, yet allowed to hope; the other, whom
they call Divs, unhappy and depraved, yet not condemned to hell.
The Arabic word Jinn sometimes denotes the devils, sometimes the
Divs just mentioned. In which sense Mohammed used it, we do
not know. Most probably he did not know himself, or rather
* Vol. ii., p. 319. London, 1801.
‡ xxi., 81.
§ xxvii., 17-19.
† Suleiman.
|| xxxiv., 12.
↑ E. g., ch. xxxviii., 38, where the word used is Shayatin, or Satans.
602
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
employed it to express the vague idea suggested by his converse
with the Jews on one hand, and the Magians on the other. Be
that as it may, he constitutes King Solomon sole monarch of
Jinnistan, the oriental Faery-land. For him the genii dived and
quarried, carved and built, ard rendered other services recorded
in the Koran, which we have not time to copy.* It might be a
question of some interest, how far these fables may be traced to
misconceptions of the Scriptures. The fountain of molten brass,
and the mysterious manufacture, by unseen hands, of dishes like
fish ponds, and gigantic cauldrons,† have certainly more than
a fortuitous connexion with the works of Hiram as described in
Scripture.
The only real incident in Solomon's history which is distinctly
mentioned, is the visit of the queen of Sheba, and even that is
loaded with embellishments. The marvellous account of Solo-
mon's march at the head of an army of genii, birds, and men;
the intelligence brought to him from Sheba by a lapwing; his
letter to the Queen; the transportation of her throne through the
air by the agency of genii; the sudden conversion of herself and
all her nobles to the true religion (Islam); and other equally
authentic statements may be seen at large by turning to the twenty-
seventh chapter in Sale's Koran.
Some of the statements and allusions in this history are so con-
cise and obscure that they seem to imply a previous acquaintance
with the facts which they relate to on the part of those who were
to read the Koran. For example: "When the horses standing on
three feet aud touching the ground with the edge of the fourth foot,
and swift in the course were set before him," &c. (See Sale.)
Again, "We also tried Solomon and placed on his throne a coun-
terfeit body. Afterwards he turned unto God and said, oh Lord
forgive me."§ And again, in relation to his death: "When we
had decreed that Solomon should die, nothing discovered his death
unto them, except the reptile of the earth which gnawed his staff."
This the commentators explain by saying, that the time of his
death arrived before the temple was completed, and that in order
to keep the genii still at work, his corpse remained in a standing
posture leaning on his staff, till they had performed their task.
This they did in about a year, at the end of which time a worm
gnawed the staff in two, and the body fell. This gloss is favoured
"Then the
by the words immediately succeeding in the Koran.
genii plainly perceived, that if they had known what was secret,
they had not continued in a vile punishment." Sale justly observes
that this story has perfectly the air of a Jewish invention. But
even though it had not been forthcoming from that quarter, there
would have been no difficulty in the exegesis. The orthodox
† χχχίν., 13.
* xxxviii., 38.
The sixteen words in italics correspond to three in the original: of course the
meaning must be very dubious.
§ xxxviii., 35, 36.
|| xxxiv., 14.
¶ Vol. ii., p. 289. Lond., 1801.
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
603
expounders of the Koran have a very easy process for solving the
enigmas and salving the absurdities of the sacred text.
On a
single fact, or an obscure allusion, they erect a superstructure of
minute details by way of explanation, descending even to dates,
genealogies, and surnames. Thus Al Beidawi does not scruple to
enumerate by name the Egyptian magicians, placing Simeon
(Simon Magus?) at their head: though on this important point he
is probably at swords' points with his brother Jallallodin'; for, of
course, each commentator is at liberty to manufacture stories at
his pleasure, and he whose fables are the most ingenious bears
away the palm. This license, notwithstanding, they prefer, where
it is possible, to borrow from the Rabbins, through the medium of
the Sonnah or canonical traditions.
The only other characters transferred from the Old Testament
history to the Koran are Job and Jonah. The account of them is
so concise that we give the substance of it in Mohammed's words.
"Remember our servant Job,* when he cried unto his Lord, say-
ing, verily Satan hath afflicted me with calamity and pain;† and
thou art the most merciful of those who show mercy? And we
answered his prayer and delivered him from his distress. And it
was said to him, strike with thy foot. This is for a cold bath and a
drinking place. And we restored to him his family and as many more
with them, through our mercy, and for an admonition unto those
who are endued with understanding. [And we said] take in thy
hand a handful [Sale adds, of rods] and therewith strike [Sale
adds, thy wife]. And break not thine oath. Verily we found him
a patient person; how excellent a servant was he, for he was one
who frequently turned himself to God."§
Jonah is, in the Koran, called by two names, Yunas and Dhul’nun.
This last denotes about the same that Fish-man, or He of the fish
would in English. His story is as follows: "Jonah was one of
those sent by us. He departed in a rage, and thought that we
could not exercise our power over him. When he fled into the
loaded ship; and they cast lots; and he was condemned; and the
fish swallowed him, for he was culpable. And if he had not been
one of those who praised God, verily he had remained in its belly
unto the day of resurrection. And he cried aloud in darkness.
There is no God besides thee! Praise be to thee! I am one of
the wicked. And we answered him and delivered him from his
distress. And we cast him on the naked shore; and he was sick
and we caused a gourd plant to grow over him; and we sent him
to a hundred thousand persons or more, and they believed.
Wherefore we prolonged their lives for a season."||
The account of John the Baptist in the Koran, approaches very
nearly to the truth. We are not told who Zacharias was, but are
informed that he prayed for a son because he was afraid of his
Ayyub.
xxxviii., 43-45.
† xxxviii., 42.
‡ xxi., 82, 83.
|| xxi., 87. xxxvii., 138 146.
604
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
heirs at law. An answer was brought by angels to his chamber,
assuring him that he should have a son, and should call his name
Yahya (John), a name never borne, as he was told, by any one
before. Zacharias doubted and desired a sign. He was, there-
fore, informed, that he should not speak for three days except by
gesture. He was also told that his son should be a holy man, and
should bear witness to the WORD, which the Moslems properly
apply to Christ, referring the name, however, to his miraculous
conception, produced by the mere command or word of God.
Nothing more is said of John except what follows. "[We said to
him] receive the book [of the law] with resolution [to observe it];
and we gave him wisdom when a boy, and mercy, and purity, and
he was devout and dutiful to his parents, and was not proud or
rebellious. Peace be on him the day of his birth, and the day of
his death, and the day of his resurrection."* Not a word is said
of his peculiar mode of life, nor even of his office as baptizer.
The statements of the Koran, in relation to the Virgin and our
Saviour, when picked out and arranged, form the following narra-
tive. The wife of one Imran (whom Mohammed seems to con-
found with Amram, notwithstanding Sale's denial), in expectation
of a son, devoted him to the service of the Lord. The child, how-
ever, proved to be a daughter, whom the mother named Mariam,
or Mary, and solemnly commended her to the divine protection.
The care of the child was, after a time, committed to Zacharias
the father of John, who was surprised, when he visited the cham-
ber, to find her supplied with food without his interference. Mary,
on being questioned, answered, "It is from God. He supplieth
whom he will, without measure."+
The annunciation and miraculous conception of our Lord are
distinctly mentioned. God is said to have conveyed the intelli-
gence to Mary by his Spirit, as, in another place, he is said to
have sent down the Koran by his Holy Spirit. Both these expres-
sions the Mohammedans apply to the angel Gabriel, in which point
they agree verbally with those Christian writers, who consider
Gabriel a name of the Holy Spirit. The annunciation was in
these words: "Oh Mary, verily God sendeth thee good tidings,
that thou shalt bear the Word, proceeding from himself: his name
shall be Christ Jesus the son of Mary, honourable, honourable in
this world and the world to come, &c. He shall speak to men in
the cradle, and when he is grown up: he shall be one of the
righteous." Not a word is said of Joseph, or of any espousals.
Nor are the stable and the manger mentioned. The suspicion,
which by Matthew is ascribed to Joseph, is spoken of as common
to her friends and relatives. One of the reproachful speeches
here set down begins, "Oh, sister of Aaron !" a sufficient proof
that the Miriam of the Pentateuch was stupidly confounded with
* xix., 1-15. iii., 38-40.
‡ xvi., 102.
† iii., 35-37-
§ iii., 45, 46. xix., 16-28.
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
605
the Mary of the Gospel. Yet even in the face of this strong fact,
Sale is afraid" that the charge of anachronism cannot be sus-
tained!
"But she made signs to the child [to answer them]; and they
said, how shall he speak to us who is an infant in the cradle?
Whereupon the child said, verily I am the servant of God; he
hath given me the book [of the Gospel] and hath appointed me a
prophet. And he hath made me blessed wheresoever I shall be;
and hath commanded me to observe prayer, and give alms, so
long as I shall live; and he hath made me dutiful to my mother,
and hath not made me proud or vicious. Peace be on me the day
whereon I was born, and the day whereon I shall die, and the day
whereon I shall be raised to life. This," says Mohammed, “was
Jesus the son of Mary, the Word of truth concerning whom they
doubt. It is not worthy of God, that he should have a son. God
forbid! When he decreeth a thing he only saith unto it, Be, and
it is. And verily God is my Lord and your Lord; wherefore
serve him; this is the right way. Yet the sectaries differ among
themselves concerning Jesus, but woe be unto those who are unbe-
lievers, because of their appearance at the great day."* A very
respectable Socinian sermon, with the exception of the concluding
woe, which is rather too illiberal.
To the children of Israel, Jesus offered to perform the following
miracles; to make a bird of clay and then animate it with his
breath; to give sight to one born blind; to heal the leprous; to
raise the dead; and to declare by inspiration what they ate, and
what provision they had stored away. This last appears to strike
the Mussulman with special force, as it holds a conspicuous place
among Mohammed's own alleged performances. A full detail of
this pretended wonder may be found in the treatise written about
twenty years ago, by Aga Acber, a Mollah of Shiraz, in reply to
Henry Martyn. A large part of the tract is given both in Persian
and English, by Professor Lee in the "Controversial Tracts on
Christianity and Mahommedanism."+
Jesus also informed them, that he came to confirm the truth of
the Law revealed before him, but at the same time to abrogate
some of its restrictions. The Jews, however, charged him with
imposture, and ascribed his miracles, as usual, to magic. Jesus
then asked them who would be his helpers in the cause of God?
To this appeal none responded but the apostles or Hawariyun, a
word which signifies sincere or candid, but is applied by Moham-
med to our Lord's immediate followers.
In the chapter called The Table, being the fifth in order, we find
a story which was probably derived, remotely and obliquely, from
the Scriptural account of our Lord's last supper, and may have
been designed to account for the solemn and mysterious observance
which was seen to prevail among the oriental Christians. The
* xix., 29–37. † Cambridge (Eng.), 1823.
iii., 49-52. lxi., 6.
606
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
i
statement is, that the apostles said to Christ, "Oh, Jesus, son of
Mary, can the Lord cause a table to come down to us from
heaven?" He replied, " Fear God if ye be true believers." They
persisted, however, on the ground that they must have some satis-
fying proof of his divine legation. Jesus then said, "Oh God our
Lord, cause a table to come down to us from heaven, and let the
day of its descent be a festival day* to us, to the first of us, and to
the last of us [i.e. to us and our successors], and do thou provide
food for us; for thou art the best provider." God replied that it
should be done, but declared that all who withstood such evidence
should inevitably suffer an aggravated punishment. It may be
well to add, that among the remarkable days in the Mohammedan
calendar is one called Yd-Mesiah, or the Festival of Christ, being
that on which this table is supposed to have descended.
No other of the acts of the apostles is recorded in the Koran, if
we except an obscure and confused statement in the chapter called
Ya Sin. We are there told that two of Christ's apostles came to
a city, for the purpose of preaching, and were joined on their
arrival by a third believer. The name of the city is not mentioned
in the text, though Sale has inserted ANTIOCH in capitals, accord-
ing to the commentators. The people, instead of hearing them,
forbade their preaching upon pain of death by stoning. The apos-
tles continued, however, to exhort them, and while they were so
doing, "a man came hastily from the further parts of the city,"
and made a very unintelligible speech in the apostles' favour. The
narrative then proceeds abruptly, "It was said to him, enter into
paradise," leaving us to infer that he was stoned, which inference
is introduced by Sale into the text. Here, it would seem, we are
presented with the death of Stephen and that of the penitent thief
in a compound state. We are informed, moreover, that the city
was destroyed.§
The next passage that we shall advert to, is the famous one with
which the zealous Moslem stops the mouth of Christian cavillers,
and which, in his opinion, is abundantly sufficient to decide the
controversy, wholly and for ever. It is as follows: "Jesus, the son
of Mary, said, oh children of Israel, verily I am the apostle of
God sent to you, confirming the Law, that was before me, and
bringing good tidings of an apostle who shall come after me,
named Ahmed."|| All that need be said in explanation, is, that
Ahmed and Mohammed are regular derivatives from one root, and
are nearly synonymous, the latter meaning Praised, and the former
Praise-worthy, or in the superlative, Most Laudable. Whether
the pseudapostle was actually known in common life by both
Literally, let it be a festival.
tv., 112-115. There is a remarkable coincidence between the language of the
Apostles here and that of the Israelites, Ps. lxxviii., 19. Mohammed may very pos-
sibly have mingled the events. No elements are too discordant to enter into his
untempered mortar.
Richardson's Dictionary, p. 1038.
xxxvi., 13–29.
|| lxi., 6.
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
607
names, is of little moment. To an Arab the very sound would be
sufficient to identify them, even if tradition had not fixed the appli-
cation far beyond the reach of oversight or error. It admits of
doubt, whether this false citation was a sheer invention of Moham-
med's own, or whether it was palmed upon him by his Christian.
accessaries. The question depends upon the general view which
is taken of his character and that of his imposture. On the sup-
position that he was himself a dupe, in whole or in part, it seems
most likely that this forged prophecy was furnished by another;
for if he had manufactured it, he would probably have shunned all
ambiguity by using his real, or his most familiar name. If, on the
contrary, he laid his plans sagaciously, which is the common the-
ory, this very equivoque resolves itself into a stroke of policy, a
sly contrivance to elude suspicion, by affecting the obscurity which
most men look for in a bona fide prophecy.
This notable prediction is of course regarded by all true believers
as an accurate quotation from the uncorrupted gospel. For they
admit that there was once a gospel pure and undefiled, now utterly
disfigured by malicious mutilation. Here is a spot of ground on
which the champion of the cross must be prepared for battle. It
is easy for us, assuming all the controverted points, to laugh at
the Mohammedan opinion. But on missionary ground, in actual
conflict with intelligent, though prejudiced and obstinate opponents,
a laugh will hardly do. Nor will a simple charge of falsehood
and absurdity, however gravely urged, decide the contest. Its
only result, most probably, would be a volley of Arabic or Turkish
curses, and, where the necessary power was possessed, a summary
reductio ad absurdum in the shape of the bastinado. How could
it be otherwise indeed? To make Mohammed out a liar, you urge
the very fact which they employ to prove the corruption of the
Christian Scriptures. You tell them that their Book is false, because
it puts words into the mouth of Jesus which he never uttered.
They tell you that your Book is garbled, for it omits a most remark-
able and memorable prophecy. Can such recriminations prove a
point? Surely not. The only human means thatcan avail in such a
case is argument, legitimate argument, logically accurate, historically
just. Now, we ask, is it probable that men who cannot reason at
home, will be able to reason at Cairo or Algiers? And in view of
the efforts which are likely to be made for the conversion of the
Mussulman, we also ask, would it be prudent, would it be right,
for minds without strength or discipline, to be enlisted in this
war? Let those who think that Moslems cannot argue read their
subtle arguments, and bear in mind the fact, that Martyn, the first
mathematical proficient in his class at Cambridge, found no cause
to repent the rigid discipline of St. John's and the Senate House.*
*We take this opportunity of asking for the ground of the assertion sometimes
vented, that Martyn was a man of very common-place abilities. His course of life
precluded a display of brilliant talent, and his printed sermons cannot furnish a cri-
terion, considering the light in which pulpit performances are viewed by English
608
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
We have chosen to express these opinions in connexion with the
main point of controversy between Islam and the gospel.
(6
The Moslems, it is well known, like the Cerinthians and other
early heretics, deny the crucifixion of our Saviour. The Koranic
doctrine upon that point may be gathered from the following quo-
tation: "They [the Jews] contrived a plot; but God is the best
contriver of plots. And God said, oh Jesus, I am about to make
thee die, and to take thee up to myself; and I will cleanse [or free]
thee from the unbelievers, and I will place thy followers above the
unbelievers, at [or until] the day of resurrection."* They [the
Jews] say, We have killed Christ Jesus [Ysa the Messiah] the son
of Mary, God's apostle; whereas they did not kill nor crucify him,
but he was counterfeited [or personated] to them.† And those
who differed respecting him were in doubt about it; and indeed
they had no knowledge, but followed mere conjecture. They did
not really kill him; but God took him up to himself, and God is
mighty and wise."I
66
To set Mohammed's unitarianism in a clearer light, we need
only quote a few sentences from different parts of the Koran.
They are certainly infidels who say, that God is Christ the son of
Mary. For Christ himself said, oh children of Israel, worship
God, my Lord and your Lord. Verily he who gives God a com-
panion shall be excluded from paradise by God, and the fire shall
be his dwelling place. Surely they are infidels who say that God
is the third of three; whereas there is no God but one God, and if
they do not cease from what they say, grievous torments," &c. &c.§
"Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was an apostle from God, even
his Word, and a Spirit proceeding from him. Verily God is one
God. Far be it from him that he should have a son. Christ does
not disdain to be God's servant," &c. &c.|| "When God said"
[Sale renders it, when God shall say at the last day; but the verb
is in the past tense, without anything to modify it] "oh Jesus, son
of Mary, didst thou say to men, Take me and my mother for
deities besides God? He replied, God forbid! I have no right to
assert what does not truly belong to me. I have told them only
what thou didst command me, to wit, serve God my Lord and your
Lord."¶ "He is only a servant whom we have highly favoured,
and set forth as an example to the children of Israel, and verily he
shall be a sign of the Hour" (viz., the last).**
66
Verily, Jesus, with respect to God, was just like Adam. He
created him of dust, and then said to him, Be, and he was."††
Besides the denial of our Lord's divinity, the attentive reader
will observe, throughout these sentences, another strong resem-
blance to a certain class of writers, in the clamorous assertion of
churchmen. We are acquainted with no proofs of his inferiority, and his standing
at Cambridge is at least a presumption in favour of his powers.
* iii., 54, 55,
iv., 155-157.
T v., 116, 117.
>>
"He was represented by one in his likeness.' Sale.
|| iv., 168, 169.
§ v., 74, 75.
** xliii., 58-61.
tt iii., 59.
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
609
some tenets, as peculiar to themselves-such as, that God is one,
that there are not three Gods, that Jesus Christ was the servant of
God-tenets which all true Christians hold as fully and as firmly
as any Socinian or Mussulman on earth. It is but just, however,
to repeat, that the Arab's creed breathes too much of a fire-and-
fagot spirit to please the fastidious taste of a latitudinarian.
We believe we have now noticed all the fragments of the sacred
history, occurring in the Koran. It must be observed, however,
that some of the stories are repeated half-a-dozen times over, in as
many different places. In that case, we have selected the most
minute and circumstantial of the narratives, adding the facts which
it omitted from the parallel passages.
Besides the statements which may thus be traced to scriptural
originals, there are a number of stories and allusions in the Koran
which derive their origin exclusively from profane history, rabbi-
nical traditions, monastic legends, or the romantic fictions of Arabia
itself. It is true, that even those purloined from Scripture have
received embellishments from all these quarters, but we now refer
to such as rest entirely upon that foundation. Of this kind are the
celebrated story of the Seven Sleepers, the account of the Prophets
Hud and Saleh, the obscure and scanty notices respecting Dhu'lkar-
nein, commonly supposed to be Alexander the Great, and other
minor passages in historical form. How far some of these might be
identified as mutilated fragments of the Bible and Apocrypha, we do
not now inquire. At first view they have no such aspect, and our
only object here has been to give a connected view of those whose
pedigree is obvious.* We are aware that we have been employed
upon a very humble task, in collecting and arranging the absurdi-
ties and falsehoods of an impudent impostor. Perhaps, however,
we have done for our readers what they would not have been
willing to do for themselves, and what some of them may find it
just as well to be acquainted with. Our hasty and imperfect, but
methodical synopsis will, at least, present a clearer view of the
Mohammedan belief upon the points in question, than could
possibly be gained by a continuous perusal of the book itself.
We have also had occasion, here and there, to point out instances
of Sale's strange fondness for interpolations tending to raise his
author in the reader's estimation. We have often been at a loss to
reconcile his scrupulous precision as a mere translator, with the
disingenuousness of his latent glosses and disguised interpola-
tions. Some one has said that "Šale was half a Mussulman;" but
this we think incredible. That he was not a very zealous Chris-
tian, may be safely granted, but we cannot think it fair to push the
accusation further. Our own explanation of the matter is, that he
was biassed by the feelings which all scholars feel in relation to
* In doing this we have confined ourselves, in almost every instance, to the text of
the Koran. The commentators explain everything abundantly, as may be learned
from the specimens in Sale. We have chosen rather to exhibit its native imperfec-
tion and obscurity.
39
610
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
their favourite pursuits, and to the subjects of their diligent and
long continued study. That Sale did study both the Koran and
the commentators deeply and successfully, no one can doubt who
has carefully inspected his translation. As to the rest, we suppose
that he was led to interpolate a little by a natural unwillingness to
look upon the object of his toils as wholly worthless. When we
have spent time and labour on a thing, as valuable, we are loth to
see it treated with contempt. This explanation we prefer, because
we would have justice done to a distinguished orientalist, even in
stripping a deformed imposture of its borrowed garments.
We shall add a few words with respect to the study of Arabic.
It is highly desirable, on various accounts, that a knowledge of this
noble and important language should become more common. Biblical
learning and the missionary enterprise alike demand it. What we
most need, is a taste for the pursuit, and a concientious willingness
to undertake the task. The great deficiency is not so much in
grammars as in men to study them. We observe that Mr. Smith,
the American missionary now at Malta, has declined to undertake
an English version of Ibn Ferhat's grammar. His views are such
as might have been expected from a man of sense and learning.
It may, indeed, be stated as a general truth, that translated gram-
mars are as likely to be hinderances as helps. A grammarian can-
not possibly explain the phenomena of a foreign language, except
by appealing to the structure of his own, or of that in which he
writes. Now, as every language has its peculiarities, both great
and small, no two can stand in the same relation to a third. Latin
and French agree where French and English differ. The same
form of speech in Latin, therefore, which must be explained to
English learners, may be as clear, without elucidation, to the
Frenchman, as if founded upon some fixed law of nature. Give
the latter the same comments that you give the former, and you
not only do not aid him, but you really confound him. For we
need not say, that the attempt to explain what is perfectly intelli-
gible must have that effect. The same remark may be applied to
any other case. For a familiar instance, we refer to Josse's Spanish
Grammar, as translated by Mr. Sales of Cambridge. The original
work was designed for Frenchmen, and as the translator, we believe,
is himself a Frenchman, many rules and statements, in themselves
just, and in their proper place useful, are wholly unintelligible to
the English reader. Analogous cases will occur to every scholar,
abundantly proving, that the servile transfer, not of language
merely, but of rules, arrangements, proofs, and illustrations, is
unfriendly to the only end which grammars should promote.
While we believe with Dr. Johnson, that the practice of translat-
ing (in the proper sense, and on an extensive scale) is injurious to
the purity of language, we likewise consider it injurious to the
interests of sound and thorough scholarship. To avoid the former
evil, we would substitute the transfusion of thoughts for the trans-
lation of words. To remedy the latter, we would have bilingual
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
611
scholars to study, sift, digest, remodel, reproduce. By this we should
avoid the needless introduction of an uncouth terminology and the
practical paralogism of attempting to explain ignotum per ignotius.
By this means, too, a freshness would be given to our learned
works, very unlike the tang contracted by a passage over sea. This
too would serve to check the strong propensity of young philolo-
gists towards a stagnant acquiescence in the dicta of their text-
books, which is always attended with the danger of mistaking
form for substance, and forgetting the great ends of language in the
infinitesimal minutiae of a barren etymology. In Germany, that great
philological brewery, the extreme of stagnation has been long ex-
changed for that of fermentation, and although we do not wish to see
the eccentricities of foreign scholarship imported here, we do believe
that much of their advancement may be fairly traced to their con-
tempt of mere authority, their leech-like thirst for indefinite improve-
ment, and their practice of working up the material of their learn-
ing into new and varied forms without much regard to pre-existent
models. Let us imitate their merits and avoid their faults.
Let us mount upon their shoulders, not grovel at their feet. Let
us take the stuff which they provide for us, and mould it for our-
selves, to suit our own peculiarities of language, habit, genius,
wants, and prospects. Let our books be English, not Anglo-
French nor Anglo-German. Let us not make them as the Chi-
nese tailor made the tar's new jacket, with a patch to suit the
old one.
To return to grammars-though what we said above may seem
directly applicable only to those written in one language to explain
another, it applies, a fortiori, to what are called native grammars,
which are merely designed to reduce into systematic form the know-
ledge previously gathered by empirical induction. To those who
have become familiar with a language in the concrete by extensive
reading, such works are highly useful and need no translation.
To beginners they are useless; for they presuppose the knowledge
which beginners want. Besides, they are untranslatable, as Mr.
Smith justly affirms, with special reference, indeed, to Bahth El
Mutalib, of which we know nothing but through him. We may
add, however, that even if that work admitted of translation, it
would scarcely throw more light upon the subject than de Sacy's
lucid digest (pre-eminently lucid after all deductions, drawbacks,
and exceptions), the fruit of most laborious and long continued
study of numerous authorities-a work, too, which has had more
indirect influence on biblical philology than many are aware of.*
When de Sacy has been mastered and exhausted, he may very
fairly be condemned and thrown aside. To those who would pre-
fer a shorter grammar and the Latin tongue, Rosenmüller's book
may be safely recommended. It is Erpenius re-written, with
* No one, we think who is familiar with de Sacy's noble work, can fail to recog-
nise its agency in giving form, perspicuity, and richness, to the famous Lehrgebäude
of Gesenius.
612
THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN.
improvements from de Sacy. Meanwhile we look with some
impatience for the forthcoming work of Ewald, whose acuteness,
ingenuity, and habits of research, afford the promise of a masterly
performance.
It must be owned, however, that we do need reading-books, or
readers, for beginners. Most of the Chrestomathies prepared in
Europe appear to presuppose some acquaintance with the Koran.*
For us this will not answer. Here, where the study is at most
but nascent, we need an introduction to the Koran itself. We
have often thought, that a selection of historical passages from
that book, reduced to order, with grammatical notes and a voca-
bulary, would answer the ends of a chrestomathy for mere begin-
ners most completely. It is highly important that the learner's
first acquaintance with the written language should be formed
upon the Koran. Amidst all the dialectic variations of a tongue
which is spoken from the great Sahara to the steppes of Tartary,
there is a large proportion, both of words and phrases, every-
where the same. These are the words and phrases of the Koran
which religious scruples have preserved from change, and reli-
gious use made universally familiar. He who is acquainted with
the language of the Koran, has the means of oral access to any
Arab, and almost to any Mussulman. He may not understand as
yet the many variations of the vulgar from the sacred tongue,
much less the local diversities of speech; but he has the founda-
tion upon which these rest, the stated formula from which they
are mere departures. He will also have acquired a measure of
that knowledge, with respect to facts and doctrines, which no
man can dispense with, who would either vanquish or convert the
Moslem.
*
See, for example, the preface to de Sacy's Chrestomathie Arabe, Paris, 1826.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 06725 1739