1848.]

Systematic Truths discovered by united Effort.

629

adoption of systems; for as the author of this sermon has admirably asserted: "It is said that systems of divinity tend to prevent men from forming any real opinions of their own, and to infringe on the right of private judgment. This consequence no more flows from reading systematical writings than from reading any other books, or attending on any other theological instructions. The reason is, a man's opinions are as much his own, if he derives them from another, as if he derives them from his own research and examination. No man can be said to have a real opinion upon any subject, which is not derived from evidence; and if it be derived from evidence, it is totally immaterial whether he derives the evidence from his own investigation, or from conversation, or from reading, or from public or private instruction." Sermon, page 16. We may add, that every man has some conception of the leading ideas of revelation, and it is a miserable affectation to pretend that his mind is a tabula rasa, and then call this vacancy, impartiality.

The view taken in the foregoing remarks is abundantly verified in the history of the church. It is curious to see how the general mind cooperates with the individual; how the accumulated knowledge of a past age, like leaven, ferments and shapes the speculations of a subsequent period. We everywhere see a tendency which becomes more manifest in a final result. True orthodoxy, in its human development, shines not on the world like the sun, from a single majestic light, extinguishing all the inferior luminaries, but like the moon, surrounded by a host of assisting stars, which pour their united radiance on the spectator's eye. How was it with respect to the Trinity? That doctrine did not receive its definite shape until the Council of Constantinople was held. Even Athanasius is hardly sound in the symbols to which he gave a manifest tendency. The same may be said of that previous Calvinism, which indeed always existed in the church, undeveloped, untraced as a system, unseen in its unity, unpursued to its consequences; but which emerges and sinks, gleams out and hides itself, is asserted and contradicted in the writings of the fathers before the Pelagian age. This, I know, has been made an objection to the established creed; but certainly it was just so in philosophy, with regard to our most certain doctrines. The truth is, the public mind was constantly forming itself-giving to the individual a key to interpret the Bible by; abridging his labor in his independent investigations; and facilitating his march to truth by showing him the road which the collected labors of all the earnest, the intelligent and the good, had made open and plain before him. If it was necessary that elementary and simple truths should early be revealed to all who were seeking

salvation, it was very natural that SYSTEMATIC TRUTHS should be the discovery of united exertion.

It is strongly to be suspected, and indeed the opinion seems to be gaining ground every day, that even in philosophy the rigid derivation of all knowledge from induction has been pushed too far. Man is the minister and interpreter of nature. Be it so. Yet man is himself a system. He brings an implicit system in him when he comes to the interpretation of nature; and if nothing was seen by the independent reason, in vain would the senses observe the operations of the outward world. Take the three laws of motion as laid down by Newton as the foundation of his philosophy. Certainly the first of them, perhaps all of them, is such as not to be verified by experiment. They are seen and foreseen as the necessary conditions of all experimental philosophy; and they prove how impossible it is to separate the pure reason which idealizes, from the attentive observation which regulates idealism. The two powers must always be joined. But the inward reason must have a system, or, in stricter language, it is a system. It is an implicit, internal system; as the Platonist would call it, a dim vaticination of what is to be; a foreshown certainty that there is a connection in truths, and a forefelt relish for order and consistency. Indeed, in our apprehension, the laws of philosophizing were as well stated by Plato as they were by Bacon. The ancients failed in applying them. Plato, in the changes of the elements, insists upon it, that experiment and observation are perhaps always to be applied: πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ὑπάρχειν αἴσθησιν δει τοῖς λεγομένοις ἀεί.Timaeus, page 61, C. Stallbaum. By alonois I understand observation assisted by experiment. And yet, in another part of his dialogue, he makes the GREAT LOCRIAN talk, of forms, or ideas: άvaíoỡŋrα vq' ἡμῶν, νοούμενα μόνον. “ If,” says he, “true observation differs in nothing from those necessary truths perceived immediately by the mind, then the perceptions of our senses are as sure as the perceptions of our reason. But they are very different in their nature and origin. The one comes by teaching, the other by persuasion or probability; the one from true reason, the other without reason, i. e. without the independent reason; the one convinces without motion, i. e. without occurring in the phenomenal world, the other after such occurrence. Every man partakes of the last, but only the gods and a few of mortal race of the first." He concludes, therefore, that there is a department which belongs to the independent reason only: ó 8n νοήσις εἴληχεν ἐπισκοπειν. Now the followers of Bacon almost deny this last element; and, indeed, great errors have sprung up in Timaeus, page 51, D. Stallbaum.

1

66

1848.]

Method of Studying the Bible.

631

investigation in consequence of this denial. When Copernicus thought it necessary to account for the parallelism of the earth's axis by a positive cause, and when Leibnitz applied his sufficient reason to Newton's first law of motion, they both show in opposite ways the importance of keeping induction in its proper place.1 In Dr. Brown's famous INQUIRY INTO THE RELATION OF CAUSE AND EFFECT, the whole fallacy of that treatise (and it is almost too gross to be a fallacy) in which he denies the existence of POWER, consists in demanding that that should be proved by observation which is obvious without proof to the independent reason: τοῦτο, ὃ δὴ νόησις εἴληχεν ἐπισκοπεῖν. Surely the argument ¿§ άváyxys, which Plato so often uses, is of some force.

When a man goes to the Bible, he has something within him, which meets and corresponds to the system there involved and presented. And, if he is a rational man, his first curiosity will be to form some outlines of the end and aim of the book, which is to enlighten his faith and harmonize his heart. He cannot understand the book in fragments, for he is not himself a fragment; he wishes to catch some glimpse of the central light—the harmonizing whole. The writer of this Article remembers very well when he first went in to see Mr. Catherwood's circular picture of Jerusalem, with what giddy confusion he received the first impression, and with what anxious suspense he asked the question: Where is the mount of Olives? Which way is north? Where is the hill of Evil Council? And he recollects from what perfect chaos, the beauty and order, the satisfaction and delight arose on the observer when the points of the compass were once fixed and the parts of the picture assumed their places. But in an intellectual and moral prospect, it is still more important; for the eye of reason loves order more than that of the senses.

Dr. Chalmers says: pure criticism-your "No," says Dr. Emrational being; you

Now there are two learned doctors which give us exactly contrary directions-Dr. Chalmers and Dr. Emmons. "In studying your Bible, it is a question of grammar and your dictionary is all you need." mons, "you need something more-you are a need a system; for you have an implicit system in your own soul." Thus the two doctors contradict each other. Both good men, both wise men, both in earnest—which shall we follow? For my part, I love my country, and reverence the deep voice that comes from its mountains and hills. I go for the American divine. I believe that his decision is ratified by experience, and comes from the depths of

1 See Playfair's Second Dissertation on the Progress of Mathematical and Physical Science, page 126.

divine truth. The grammar and the dictionary!! Professor Lee may take the one; and Dr. Pearson, if he will rise from the grave, shall swallow the other.

We have heard it suggested that when Dr. Emmons says you "must have a system," he means really to say, "You must be a Hopkinsian before you understand the Bible." But no! we do not believe he meant this. The words had a deeper meaning in his mouth. They might have meant this-possibly-uttered by Dr. Spring. But Dr. Emmons was made a sectarian by his views of truth; he did not view truth through sectarianism. No man was more independent; no man saw the deeper channel of the stream with a more penetrating eye. Besides, he has precluded the charge by an express declaration : "All these doctrines are plainly and confessedly contained in the Gospel, in some sense or other. I do not pretend to say in what sense, they are to be understood; but I do not hesitate to say, that they ought to be understood in a sense, which renders them harmomonious and consistent with each other." See Sermon, page 5. Read the whole.

It will be easy for any one, whose disposition is jealous and whose proclivity to misapprehension is in proportion to his disposition, to pervert what has now been said to a conclusion, as if revelation were imperfect; and as if human reason must prop up divine authority. But this, I apprehend, was not the design of Dr. Emmons. He would allow that the Bible was perfect; but so is nature. We have no fault to find with her symbols. They were established by a perfect God and partake of his infallibility and perfection. And yet how slowly were they interpreted! How gradually did true philosophy dawn on the world! What I contend for is simply this; that as some glimpses of the true system are sometimes found and are always desirable in interpreting the laws of nature; so in understanding the Bible, THE TRUE SYSTÉM IS NEEDED AS A LIGHT TO THE INTERPRETATION. It will never be found unless it is first anticipated; and he is a benefactor who abridges my labor by putting this necessary torch into my trembling hands

A little onward lend thy guiding hand

To these dark steps, a little further on.

And now we would submit with all deference to those whose duty it is to profit by the living and the dead, whether these principles are duly appreciated in our theological seminaries. We have an impression-though it is a very loose one and we bring it forward with infi

1 The late Dr. Samuel Spring of Newburyport.

1848.]

Constitution of Spiritual Beings.

633

nite caution-that too much time is spent under the mere guidance of the grammar and the dictionary. Our youth sometimes become better verbal critics than theologians. I have no doubt of the learning, the earnestness and the sincerity of our accredited teachers. To suggest vague suspicions is a miserable employment. But if there be any danger, let a most acute observer warn us, who is now in his grave.

ARTICLE III.

OF SPIRIT AND THE CONSTITUTION OF SPIRITUAL BEINGS.

By George I. Chace, Prof. of Chemistry and Geology, Brown University.

IN a former number of this Review, we laid before its readers, what we believed to be the true view of the constitution of matter. We endeavored to show, that in accordance with the principles of sound logic, it must be regarded as having a real existence, as possessing inherent, constitutional properties, and as acting by virtue of those properties. As such a constitution of matter, would at first view, seem to place all physical events under the control of an iron necessity, leaving no room for the influence of prayer or the exercise of that superintending Providence, which according to the teachings of our holy religion, God continually extends over the affairs of this world, it may be well before entering upon the subject of our present Article, to notice briefly, what, were it true, would constitute so serious an objection to the view taken. In doing so, however, we would say at the outset, that we do not propose considering whether it be possible to reconcile this idea of matter with the above Christian doctrines, but whether it presents in connection with those doctrines, any peculiar difficulties which do not equally attach themselves to any other hypothesis capable of explaining the phenomena. Unless this latter question can be answered in the affirmative, the objection, so far as we are concerned, has no weight.

Now we think it is clear that no practical conclusions whatever can be drawn from the supposition, that all the changes of the external world, are brought about by the spontaneous reaction of the elements composing it, which may not, in like manner, be deduced from that established order which we everywhere observe in the succession VOL. V. No. 20.

54