Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

and a treachery to truth. Do those who use this curt but boastful canon of criticism, mean, that in the wide scope of human affairs there is a tendency to social and religious progress? If this be their meaning, they would less frequently and more definitely use the expression; for the complicated, startling, and changeful phases of modern society would lead them to a severer and more extensive generalization of facts than they have already made. Such a view of the tendency of things is generally the last resort of the weary and troubled mind, that humbly seeks to unravel the mysteries of human affairs. Do they mean by the spirit of the age' the obvious direction society is taking within the bounds of civilization? The contradictions presented within this sphere of vision, hardly warrant a belief in the affirmative, yet we think this to be the most definite idea that is attached to the phrase, greater prominence being awarded to the spirit of the age in those countries which most powerfully influence the destinies of the world, and conceding to England the most distinguished place. By age,' then, we suppose is meant the passing generation; and by its spirit the most prevalent practical convictions and conduct. Now if the argument we are opposing is really valid, it is so on the supposition that the immediate tendency of the passing time, is compelled by certain necessary and fixed general laws, to assume a virtuous and pious character. Those religionists who employ this camelion-faced argument assume this: if not, their reasoning is baseless, and their claims to intelligence are extremely questionable. Those who decide all controversies in the way already stated, but who make no pretensions to piety have no reason to complain, if a christian moralist demands them to endorse this assumption, or give up the argument, since chances on this subject are clearly inadmissable. We ask now, are there such

[ocr errors]

laws? Where are they inscribed? What is their authority? Will science by her torch reveal them? Are they engraved on the human conscience? folded up amid the experiences of man's inner life? or made known in the Word of God? In vain shall we search for them at these sources; man's great teachers know them not. Thus the immediate tendency of every age is an uncertain one. It may be an evil spirit' and as it ever comes in a questionable shape' we owe it attention only, but not obedience. We might here unclasp the mighty volume of the poet, and read off on this subject the records of the absorbing page.

[ocr errors]

If we may try the truthfulness of principles, and test the rectitude of conduct by the spirit of this age, our ancestors would be justified in doing the same. Suppose, now, at one of the interviews which took place between pope Gregory XI., and John Wickliffe as one of the ambassadors of King Edward, a conversation like this had ensued :

The Pope.-I bear that you, John Wickliffe, have written various treatises against the authority and power of the Holy See: that you have denounced indulgences, which all men seek after; and have accused the priests of pride, covetousness, and of neglecting to preach the gospel, while you maintain the right of the people to the word of God.

Wickliffe.-I have done all this, and am ready and willing to defend my principles, which I declare to be taught in the Scripture.

Pope. I will enter into no controversy with you on that point; the christian world confesses the authority and worth of the Catholic church, and you ought not to assail it, for by so doing you do not act in accordance with the Spirit of the age.'

We can easily imagine that our readers will smile at this illustration. But we ask, is not its logic precisely that used by those persons who acquit or condemn both sentiments and men,

on the principle opposed in this paper? What was the spirit of the age of the Tudors and the Stuarts? of the infamous Henry the 8th, and his imperial daughters? of him whom panderers and flatterers, called a second Solomon? of his treacherous son? of the royal profligate who was placed on the throne by the Puritans and Presbyterians?-essentially a spirit of persecution and of burning. We cannot, therefore, admit a principle so fallacious and opposite to reason and the Word of God. Let us not be misunderstood. We know, and are ready to confess, that every age has its great idea, its master thought, which a partial glance at things around us will be as impotent to discover, as too narrow an induction of what we see will declare our incompetency duly to appreciate. To the absence of these broad and philosophic views of passing events, is to be traced the disposition to decide all questions by stretching them on the procrustean bed of the spirit of the age. We hope we shall not be guilty of immodesty if we point out in what the master thought of every generation is to be found; and to request those who have not with patience, candour, and modesty searched for it there to be less ready to condemn the men from whose convictions they dissent. We must look, then, for the age's great idea, in the customs and habits of social life, and in established laws and institutions. We must put the different schools of the fine arts through the like process; our current literature and philosophy must not be forgotten; nor our popular religious pretensions passed by. These pertain to every era, and as they are, so will be the spirit of the age.

We cannot in this paper dwell on all these subjects. The field is very tempting, but too broad to be travelled over here; we must therefore content ourselves with indicating the directions of popular views in relation to those subjects which demand our

earnest attention as followers of the 'teacher sent from God.'

On political affairs we must refrain from lengthy observations. We profess liberal views and are friends of progress. We devoutly wish for certain organic reforms, but incline to the idea that a people's virtue is the only sure guarantee of the stability of civil institutions. A virtuous nation. cannot long be enslaved; but the fullest amount of liberty may exist with little social happiness. This last observation is corroborated by the state of those nations, who by their recent constitutional changes have intimated their belief that a nation's virtue is its liberty; and in doing this have given proof that bad passions have been as prominent in revolutionary enterprize as a wish for freedom. History teaches many practical truths, among which the following stand prominently forth: that the extreme of liberty is closely allied to the worst form of despotism; that such extremes are not permanent, but that all truly valuable and enduring alterations in national institutions are slow in progress, just and benevolent in character, and achieved by the morality and virtue of those who accomplish them.

We can endure a sneer in avowing our belief that the monarchical sentiment enters so deeply into the English mind, and has given so decided a tinge to British institutions and character, that its destruction is not desirable, but would be one of the greatest social disasters that could come upon our fatherland. One type of government is impossible in the present mixed condition of the world, and will only be realized under the bright sceptre of the Prince of

Peace.

It is perhaps impossible to decide the amount of influence exercised in any country by its periodical literature. By it, to a great extent, the popular mind is moulded; and the newspaper and the magazine are potent agencies, while the Bible is little

regarded. Very few of our journals possess a moral, much less a christian tone, and not more than two or three of our 'quarterlies' even recognize the authority and leading principles of the gospel. Of the remainder it may be said, that they have an indirect bearing against our religious faith. The silence they maintain in reference to its records and verities; the low, sordid, and selfish morality they inculcate; a morality uninspired by the thought of a judgment to come, and indirectly, but not less effectually, esstranging the popular mind from the claims of Christianity as a system revealed by God, and adequate to all the necessities of the spiritual nature of man. The conductors of our periodical press may not mean this, but the tendency is not the less certain to indoctrinate their readers with the thought that the gospel is either an exploded imposture, or a theory inapplicable to man's aspirations after spiritual perfection, and unfitted to direct his daily deportment. Within the last few years, how prevalent has become the craving for the writings of men, of what, perhaps, it is too charitable to call a negative faith. How numerous are the admirers, in almost every class, of such productions as 'Sarta Resartus,' Festus,' 'The Vestiges,' and Representative men ;* writings which we can only compare to the flower-fringed banks of a river whose waters poison all who drink them. Yet these authors are the professed exponents of the spirit of the age; they teach only a perverted humanity,

[ocr errors]

It is a favourite doctrine of Emerson that there is no evil in the world, and that pure malignity is impossible. Those who on this subject prefer Bible teaching to Emersonian philosophy he terms guilty of the last profanation.' This author adopts what he calls,' the old philosophy,' and accordingly writes in this shallow strain:-'the divine effort is never retarded, the exertion of the sun will convert itself into grass and flowers; and man, though in brothels, or in jails, or on the gibbet, is on his way to all that is good and true.'

give false views of life, have the dishonesty to adopt Scripture phraseology to communicate ideas which are thoroughly antagonistic to the teaching of that volume which in heart we verily believe they hate and despise. Of such writings, and of those of our popular phrenologists and cheap journalists, we are bold to assert, that they are more pernicious in their ultimate effects, than the works of Voltaire, Payne, or Owen, because they sap faith by a subtler process; they inculcate in amusing shapes, principles, directly, though not ostensibly opposed to those of Jesus Christ. It is poison wrapped up in jelley, and ere their victims know that they are in danger, they find themselves in death.'

On this branch of the subject much more might be said. We only add, however, another remark. In watching for the last few years, the direction of our current literature, we have been pained to observe, that scarcely a month passes in which there does not issue from one press in London, a volume aimed either at the divine authority or inspiration of the Scriptures, and filled with a malignity against them which plainly shews the animus of the writers; and prompts us to believe that a number of powerful pens are combined together to write down the Bible. Do not such books as the History of the Hebrew Monarchy,' and 'Phases of Faith,' point in this direction? both written by an eminent professor in one of our most popular universities; who having passed through every grade of belief, from a high Calvinist to a low Arminian, by a not unnatural transition became a Socinian, and has at length declared himself an Infidel! This unhappy writer is a choice exponent of the tendency of the passing time; but is only one of a class who is beguiling unstable minds from the faith of Christ, and thus too clearly indicates the spirit of the age.'

[ocr errors]

Again, every true believer in the christian verities, must look with

alarm on the philosophic tendency of the present generation. It is worthy of attention, that the daring and reckless philosophic speculations of this age are coeval with the birth, nurture, and progress of the worst forms of Scepticism, in relation to the divine origin and sanctions of revealed religion. This phenomenon seems to indicate that our earlier and more cautious thinkers in the region of ontology and mental philosophy are safer guides to him who believes in the unity of truths than many flippant talkers in the present day are disposed to allow. We confess a growing reverence and attachment to the modest principles of Bacon, nature's great interrogater; Locke and Reid, though in certain quarters it has become the fashion to pour contempt on their lucubrations; and are disposed to believe, that as a truer spirit of philosophizing prevails, these great minds will be again in the ascendant. It is a well-known fact, that in Germany a current has set in which threatens to sweep away all the landmarks of mental and moral science the world has been wont to recognize; and to erect others which, as believers in revelation, we earnestly hope the returning tide of humble and devout enquiry will sweep away.

Our space is limited, or we would tarry to enumerate the teachings of our transcendentalists, from Kant to Hegel. We must therefore content ourselves with saying, that the tendency of the German philosophy is to destroy all faith in the doctrine of the Bible. It teaches the identity of 'subject and object,' that the 'me' and the 'not me' are the same; that nothing exists but in the human consciousness; that everything is but a modification of that consciousness, and that a belief in God is the only ground for inferring his existence. Hence it bases our belief in a future state, and the existence of God, as well also a system of morals, in the veracity of consciousness, and sets

aside the Bible as a rule of faith and practice; while many, ensnared by these delusive teachings, have logically enough become Pantheists. The rising intelligence of German universities is imbued with these atheistic and soul-destroying doctrines, and but a few professors are found who dare to resist the withering breath of the spirit of the age. Our own literature is spreading these pestilential opinions; and it is to be feared, not without positive effect. Many young men, some of whom have essayed to become teachers of religion, are enamoured of them as furnishing some plausible shelter against the claims of the Bible. Is it not becoming a fashion to be a sceptic? Shall the christian, then, reverence 'the spirit of the age.'

Nor are we, from the facts above stated, unprepared to find false views of the Bible prevailing in this generation. Nothing is more indicative of the progress of opinions among many who claim to be considered thinkers, than the theories recently propounded as to the Word of God. It is to be observed, that infidelity in the present age has changed its tactics in the assault it has made on the Scriptures, and this change believers in revelation ought to claim as a concession in their favour. The polished satire of the gifted author of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,' and the coarse invective and miserable wit of the mind that produced 'The age of Reason,' were employed to destroy the evidence of the credibility of the Scriptures furnished by miracles. To the same part of the evidence, modern infidelity has directed its efforts; but for the purpose of proving the Bible to be a myth, or an illusion of the human understanding.-The former is the theory of Strauss, the latter of Paulus. It would be easy to demonstrate that the old-fashioned historic argument shivers both theories to atoms; and also to shew, that the doctrines they coutain are as fatal to all historical records as to the writings

of the evangelists. The application and logical developement of the theory of Strauss has been sententiously described by Quinet in the following words: Christ,' says Strauss, 'is not an individual, but an idea; that is to say, humanity. In the human race behold the God-made man! behold the child of the visible virgin, and the invisible Father! that is, of matter and of mind; behold the Saviour, the Redeemer, the Sinless One; behold him who dies, who is raised again, who mounts into the heavens! Believe in this Christ! In his death, his resurrection, man is justified before God!' Need we say more as to the views of Strauss on the gospel? Ab uno disce onmes. We deplore the fact, that this writer has attained a popularity almost unprecedented in the land of Luther, and is looked upon with much favour in our own country, by those who are enemies to the Bible. They boast of him as having crumpled up the evidences of the historic reality of the gospel, with all the ease that a man would crumple a piece of old parchment; and regard him as the wizard whose magical wand is to disenchant the popular mind of those superstitions in which ignorant or designing priests have for eighteen centuries held it.

But other, and not less pernicious views of the word of God, have recently been propounded among us, by those who wish to be regarded as sound in the faith. About five years ago we heard a popular preacher and lecturer say in the pulpit, while explaining the important doctrine of regeneration, whatever may be your views of Scripture doctrines, my belief is, that they may be picked up among the opinions which govern every-day life.' We knew the parentage of this sentiment; we recognized it at once, though put in another dress, as the doctrine of a leading living French philosopher of high reputation, whose distinguishing tenet is, that man's reason and conscience

are sufficient to instruct him in his duty and secure for him a happy destiny. The words just quoted were uttered by one who is a professed despiser of modern christian organization, and aspires to be the oracle of the working-classes of this country; but from whose doubtful and dangerous leadership we are happy to believe our virtuous artizans shrink away. The sentiment contained in those words has two applications, both of which are indicative of the spirit of the age. The first is, that the Bible is not necessary to instruct and perfect the human mind, and that human appliances brought to bear upon it will be sufficient to its necessary cultivation and developement. Is not this the semi-infidel principle of a certain class of the boasted friends of education at the present time, though glossed and lauded over by many professions of pity for the ignorant and debased part of the juvenile population. We suspect their sincerity to be least questionable, in its dislike to the teachings of God's word. The second is, a denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures; for none need be inspired to write what every man's conscience reveals, or what by the diligent use of his natural powers he is able to discover. Hence we are not surprized to find, that a popular writer of no mean attainments, should propound the theory, that intuition is inspiration; thus denying the superhuman element in the instructions vouchsafed to, or the influence exerted on, the scribes of Jehovah's will. Nay, more; this view of the Bible is not unconnected with another,—that all men are inspired; a view which pantheists and sceptics delight to honour. Nor do we see how this conclusion can be escaped, if the inspiration of the Scriptures be denied while their credibility is maintained; for then will man's reason be the arbiter of the truth; and who shall assert that the most opposite creeds are not the result of the exercise,

« ElőzőTovább »