« ElőzőTovább »
his opinion; but, the reason assigned for that belief, if it be well founded, * does not extend to the purpose for which his authority is here cited.
Now every circumstance in the cases supposed makes the principle apply, with the greater force, to that now under consideration. If a Christian king may on an emergency constitute a bishop, much more may the whole body of the churches interested; especially when they interfere not thereby with the civil magistrate. If a prince would be justifiable in taking such a step, rather than have recourse to the spiritual authority of some neighboring and allied kingdoms, much more should we, who labor under peculiar political difficulties. If it were commendable on the mere hope of converting infidels to the Christian faith, it would be more so, for the purpose of maintaining the principles of Christian knowledge and practice, among those who are already of the number of its possessors. If a prince ought to do this from concern for the spiritual welfare of his subjects, much rather ought we, for that of ourselves and our children.
On the credit of the preceding names the author rests this the last part of his subject; and if his sentiments should meet with an unfavorable reception, he will find no small consolation from being in a company so respectable.
Perhaps, however, there would be little room for difference of sentiment among the well-informed, if the matter were generally taken up with seriousness and moderation, and were to rest on religious principles alone. But unhappily there are some, in whose ideas the existence of their church is so connected with that of the civil government of Britain, as to preclude their concurrence in any system, formed on a presumed and final separation of the two countries. Prejudices of this sort will admit of no conviction but such as may arise from future events; and are therefore no farther considered in this performance, than with a sincere sorrow, that any persons professing to be of the communion of the Church of England, should so far mistake the principles of that Church as to imagine them widely different from what form the religion of the Scriptures; which, as Bishop Sherlock observes, "stands clear of all disputes about the rights of princes and subjects; so that such disputes must be left to be decided by principles of natural equity and the constitution of the country.”+
•The reason is, Cranmer's signing the book called "The Erudition of a Christian Man." This book has led some to believe that the Archbishop's principles on church government were unset. tled at the time of its pablication. That it contradicts itself on this subject, is certain ; but this is owing not to Cranmer's inconsistency, but that of the King. In the answers of the former as giver by Barnet, bis sentiments seem fully fixed, and (perhaps) are reconcilable with the Episcop plan; according to the distinction taken between the APPROPRIATED and LARGER meanings of the word - Bishop." As to “the erudition," Guthrie says, (History of England, vol. 8, page 597,) "The writings were modelled by the King as he wanted them to appear before the Parliament add public;" and Dr. Warner says, (Book II.,) " It was more probably a declaration of the Kir religion, than of any other man's in the kingdom."
+ Vol. 4, Discourse 13th. The indefeasible right of kings is pretended to be founded on certain passages of Scripture. The author takes the liberty of referring to the very sensible sermon above quoted for an easy and natural explanation of the passages alluded to; whereby they are vindicated from & sense which makes the Gospel an engine of despotisin and oppression, and which, however
As for those who are convinced that the “United States" have risen to an independent rank among the nations, or who even think that such may probably be the event of the war, they are loudly called on to adopt measures for the continuance of their churches, as they regard the public worship of God, the foundation of which is immutable; as they esteem the benefit of the sacraments, which were instituted by the Supreme Bishop of the Church; and as they are bound to obey the Scriptures which enjoin us “not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is.”
More especially is this their duty if they entertain a peculiar preference for the principles and worship of their own communion, from a persuasion of their superior excellence. That the Church of England is a creature of the state, an engine of civil policy, and no otherwise to be maintained than by human laws, has been said by some, as a reason for their dissenting from her. If the same prejudice has been with others a reason for conformity, it is to be hoped they are comparatively few, and that the great majority of Episcopalians, believing that their faith and worship are rational and Scriptural, have no doubt of their being supported independent of state establishments; nay, it is presumed there are many, who, while they sincerely love their fellow-Christians of every denomination, knowing (as one of their prayers expresses) that the “body of Christ” comprehends “the blessed company of all faithful people," are more especially attached to their own mode of worship, perhaps from education, but as they conceive from its being most agreeable to reason and Scripture, and its most nearly resembling the pattern of the purest ages of the Church. On the consciences of such, above all others, may be pressed the obligation of adopting speedy and decisive measures to prevent their being scattered “like sheep without a shepherd,” and to continue the use of that form of divine service, which they believe to be “worshiping the Lord in the beauty of holiness."
sincerely believed by some, is with others a mere trick of state. Although Bishop Sherlock's reputation in the Church of England is generally known, it may be proper to mention that his sermons are among the books formerly sent out by the honorable "Society for Propagating the Gospel," to be distributed by their missionaries.
LITERATURE OF THE QUARTER.
(The pages falling under this general head are intended to give a fair and reliable exposition of the contents of such books published during the previous quarter, as it may be desirable to bring to the notice of the readers of the REVIEW. No books are accepted from publishers for this purpose, and no obligations, therefore, of a business kind are incurred; nor will the editors, in the discharge of this portion of their duties, permit themselves to be drawn by any influence from the line of independence and faithful criticism.]
RATIONAL COSMOLOGY; OR, THE ETERNAL PRINCIPLES AND NECESSARY LAWS OF
THE UNIVERSE. By Laurens P. Hickok, D.D., Union College. New-York : D. Appleton & Co.
According to Dr. Hickok's philosophy there must be one eternal principle underIying or pervading the entire structuro of the universe. The cosmos is a fact, a thing made, and made after a preconceived plan or archetypal ideal, which existed in the divine mind. This divine idea, or principle, is put into the fact, and becomes the law of its being. Thus, to use one of the author's illustrations, the steam-engine was not a fact until its principle had been first discovered. A thing made em. bodying this principle constitutes the steam-engine. And as any one who would understand the philosophy of the steam-engine must not only be acquainted with the laws which govern its action, but also with the principle which determines these laws, so whoever would understand the philosophy of the universe, must discover both the laws of the universe, and the eternal principle which determines these laws. The author does not profess to have attained this principle—the con. summation of all science--in the present work; although he intimates that the human reason may, at some future day, completely apprehend it. He endeavors only to point out the “grand outlines" of the plan of creation, and thus to read her laws "not as mere arbitrary facts, but as the necessary result of a work rationally begun and wisely accomplished."
The fundamental proposition with which Dr. Hickok begins his investigations, is that "principles are truths prior to all facts;" that they “stand in immutable and eternal necessity;" that they, while unconditioned themselves, "condition all power." All facts are the embodiments of principles, and the object of true phi. losophy is to detect in the facts the principles according to which they are made, and which give law to their being. Now, by the perception of sense we can only know facts, by the logical understanding we can combine and compare these facts, and thus deduce other facts; in this way we may acquire that practical wisdom, which is known as good sense and good judgment, but we can never arrive at philosophy. We can only know that things are, without being able to see how they are, or why they are so, and not otherwise. These two faculties man shares, to some extent at least, with many orders of the brute creation, but he is also endowed with a higher faculty, no trace of which is found in the brute. This faculty is called by Dr. Hickok " the insight of reason;" it is this which is often able to detect principles in facts, and which alone makes philosophy possible. Having, then, the three faculties of Sense, Understanding, and Reason for prosecuting investigation, the author states what is necessary in order to constitute a Rational Cosmology. As universal nature is a fact, it necessarily implies a maker. Hence we must have, (1) "a clear conception of what is essential in a being that must be the maker of the universe;" and (2) "a clear conception of the immutable principles that must determine the laws, and by which we may expound the nature of the universe."
Thus the plan of the work before us is as follows: (1) To point out how we may obtain a clear idea of an " Absolute Creator;" (2) to discover, by the insight of reason, the "eternal principles of the universe;" and (3) to examine the “laws of the universe," as deduced from the facts, and see whether they are such as the already discovered principles made necessary.
Before entering upon the first of these divisions, Dr. Hickok gives, in his introduction, a brief summary of all past philosophical investigations, in which he shows how all the philosophers from Thales to Cousin, with the exception of Plato, have erred radically in not fully admitting an absolutely independent and personal creator. Thus Bacon's system, in rejecting all à priori principle, has found its full development in the positivism of Auguste Comte, and thus the "world's philosophies, holding all being as fact, or constitutionally natured, are, to-day, all radically materialistic," and “necessarily in the end Atheistic or Pantheistic.”
Passing to Chapter I., the author discusses, as preliminary to his cosmology; "the idea of an Absolute Creator." Such an idea, lie shows, can not be attained by the intellect acting through the sense. • For, in order to a clear perception, a sensation must be so distirguished and limited by the intellect, that its quality and quantity may be known. If, then, we seek for the Absolute by means of the sense, it will be impossible to attain more than the unlimited, or infinite. Again, the Absolute can not be attained by means of the Understanding. This faculty can only connect qualities into some common substance, in which they inhere. And to at. tempt to reach the upconnected, or Absolute, by a series of successive connections, is attempting, argues Dr. Hickok, “to make an endless descent where each dropping footstep can only fall upon a stair that must be conditioned upon another yet beneath it." Having shown that it is impossible, from the nature of the case, to arrive at the Absolute by means of the Sense or the Understanding, the author next appeals to the Reason, “the faculty for direct and immediate insight." This insight of Reason discovers a spontaneous, living energy in a grain of wheat, but this energy is dependent for its action upon so many conditions of earth, air, rain, etc., that it falls far below the Absolute. The same spontaneous energizing is found, by the same faculty, in the ox, with the important addition of self-direction. The ox can move himself, select his food, etc., but still he is subjected to all the conditions of matter," so that he is far removed from the Absolute. On examining the next higher order of animal existence, we find another important addition. Man has not only the spontaneous energizing and self-direction of the ox, he has also a rational existence. He can create for himself ideals of excellence, and thus has within himself tests by which to judge himself, and to approve or disapprove his actions, Here we have spontaneous agency with its own law imposed upon itself, but we have not reached the Absolute. For we know that man is much under the influence of sense and appetite; there is a law in his members working against the law of his mind, and continually threatening to overthrow it. The same is true to
some extent of a still higher order of beings, whose existence Revelation makes known to us. Although higher in supernatural endowment than human beings, yet there are orders among them imposing the conditions of superior and inferior, and " opening the door to such spiritual passions as pride, envy, etc." Besides, the higbest angel is still " limited in his rational powers," and hence must often be led to seek light and guidance from a higher source.
The insight of reason finding these several orders of existences all subjected to some limiting conditions, rises to the idea of Supreme personality, "elevated above all outer authority, and absolved from all obligation ab extra." "He is conditioned solely by what he knows in himself is due to himself, and is, therefore, Absolutely self-law and self-determiner." "Such supreme self-determination is the very conception of Absolute Reason," and "is manifestly a person, having in himself the knowledge of all possible, and the self-determining will to execute all his own behests." Such a Being must be without beginning or end, unsustained and uncaused; "the positive affirmation of the I Am."
Having thus indicated the process by which we arrive at the idea of an Absolute Creator, and having defined what is comprehended in this ideå, the author proceeds, in Chapter II., to discuss “the eternal principles of the universe." These "principles” are educed from what is perhaps an original view of matter. ACcording to Dr. Hickok, matter is not a dead mass, moved by external forces, but is itself force. The simplest idea of matter is the point at which two antagonist forces meet and hold one another in position. This gives permanent substance, but it would remain uniform and invariable. Hence, in order to account for the varied modes and forms of matter, another force is necessary. This is called a diremptive or repulsive force, and is conceived as starting from the limit where the two antagonist forces meet, and working away from the limit on each side. Now these three forces, called molecules, meeting in the limit, make up a compound different from all, which may be called an atom. Thus objective matter is a "combination of distinguishable forces." As to the origin of these forces, Dr. Hickok takes the ground, that while man has a “capacity of initiative causality," and may thus origipate personal acts, he can not originate any thing impersonal. Neither man nor angel could evolve and put into action an objective force. This, the insight of reason clearly sees, may be done only by the Supreme Spirit, who is limited by no conditions without himself. “God," says Dr. Hickok, “not from the impulse of constitutional craving," but under the “ethical behest” of a sense of what is due himelf " arises to the work of creation.” He "puts his simple activity in counteragency, ... causes act to meet and hold act, and in this originates an antagonism which constitutes force."
This notion of matter being a compound of antagonist forces, which hold one another in some permanent position, furnishes a basis for all space and time determinations. Without such a substantial object common to all men, and furnishing the same varied phenomena, or successions, to all, each man would have his own spaces changing with every change of place, and his own times changing with every interval of unconsciousness, but there could be no “determination of one common space, and one common time."
Again, if matter were not force, it could never be known. No impression can be produced upon the senses, and hence there can be no perception, except by somo force. Now, if the sensation is caused by a force impressed upon matter, and not by matter itself, then it is not matter, but the force which is given in perception.