V.—THE RESOURCES OF THE CHURCH AGAINST THE universal Church is stirred to its depths by the inroads of Rationalism. Germany, having recovered in great part her clergy from the tone of skeptical criticism, now finds that her people have too well learned the lessons of their early apostacy to be willing to hear a Gospel of myths. France has called forth her ablest champions in both Protestant and Roman Catholic literature, to contest the influence of Comte and Renan. Italy finds herself liberated from Jesuitism only to be overrun with Infidelity. England has contended with pamphlets, lectures, reviews, Bishops' charges and Church courts against Rationalism in Church and University. And in the United States, the College, the Lyceum, the Pulpit and the Press, have been enlisted vigorously upon either side of this new controversy of Christianity with Unbelief. One good promised by the unaccomplished Ecumenical Council at New York was, a survey of the whole field of this discussion through the reports of competent observers from every part of Christendom; and it is carnestly to be hoped that the facts and inferences upon the Rationalistic controversy which have been gathered with such pains-taking ability, will be given to the public without waiting for a meeting of the Alliance in the now doubtful and perhaps distant future. In advance, however, of these materials for a detailed review of this controversy, we may glance at the principles involved in it, and the methods by which it has been conducted, with a view to revise the errors of some and to fortify the faith of others. In some quarters the mistake has been made of meeting the spirit of Rationalism with a more intensified Ecclesiasticism or a more extreme Ritualism. We do the Pope the credit of believing that in so much of the Syllabus, now mnade dogmatic, as had respect to the prevalence of unbelief, he devoutly thought that the evils of skepticism grow out of liberty of conscience, and must be checked by a revival of ec clesiastical authority and discipline. Many an earnest Angli can has the same conviction, while differing as to the seat of ecclesiastical control; and so sincere and intelligent a pastor as Dr. Morgan Dix, of New York, though he openly avows his distaste for "extremes in ritualism," and refuses "to be identi fied with anything inconsistent with the system of the Bible as his Church has received it," nevertheless regards the exercise of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures as the source alike of sectarianism and of skepticism, and would remedy these evils by a true Church authority.* Others again have sought to oppose Rationalism by the moral force of Christian union in testimony and in action. The Evangelical Alliance and the Pan-Anglican Council, are examples of this; and no doubt the tendency toward PanPresbyterianism has been greatly stimulated by the desire to unite the Church against her foes. But a union within the pale of Ecclesiasticism and upon an ecclesiastical basis, tends to intensify the spirit of sectarian aggrandizement at the expense of moral union and co-operation with the whole body of Christ. This is already foreshadowed in the action of the Presbyterian Church withdrawing its support from the American Board, and for no fault or change in the Board iself, ter minating the coöperation of more than fifty years. Neither Pan-Anglicanism, nor Pan-Presbyterianism, nor Pan-Evangelicism can bring out fully and fairly the resources of the Church against the unbelief of the times. Those resources lie in other directions, and call for recognition and use, rather than for development through organization. A study of the facts in the case in the light of Biblical principles and precedents, will show that however new phases of unbelief may awaken the sense of danger, they should excite no dis trust of the strength of the Faith or of its final victory. The present are simply new phases of the spirit of unbelief, so often vanquished under other forms. When Paul began to preach Christ he encountered this same spirit in the Ritualism of the Pharisees and the Rationalism of the Sadducees; and *See Dr. Dix's letter of Se t. 2, 1870, on the St. Sacrament Mission, and his Sermon on Christian Union preached in the Broadway Tabernacle Church, March 13th, 1864. standing thus between Ecclesiastical Authority and Tradition on the one hand, and a Rationalizing Skepticism on the other, he took his position in the right use of Reason and the just authority of the Scriptures; and when prejudice and unbelief barred the synagogues against him, he obtained the use of the school of a Pagan philosopher, and taking his followers with him-openly separating from the Jewish communion-he there disputed daily with whoever came to inquire or discuss, whether Greek or Jew. Here is a very plain case of Apostolic procedure in dealing with unbelief, under the forms of an intellectual or a prejudiced opposition te the gospel. Not assertion but argument, not dogmatism but reasoning from the Scriptures, was the weapon that Paul used against the religious per versity and skepticism of his age. In dealing with the skepticism of the present age, the Church of Christ should adhere closely to this Apostolic precedent; and when from this point of view we shall have estimated what Resources are at our command, and what Power is lodged with the body of Christ, for the conflict with modern Rationalism, it will appear that so far from being appalled at the alledged advance of infidelity, or disheartened by any seeming advantages of its later positions, we have grounds for the highest confidence in the actual resources of Christianity, and in the general unity and power of the Church of Christ, in wielding those resources. We are far from conceding that the present age may be fitly characterized as the age of Infidelity. As compared with the corresponding period of the 18th century, the era of Frederic the Great and of the French Revolution, of Rousseau and Voltaire in France, of Lessing and Kant in Germany, of Gibson and Hume in Britain, of Priestley and Paine in America, an era in which skepticism ruled in literature, in philosophy and in politics, and over-ran the civilized world like an epidemic-an age in which power, genius, and fashion were openly arrayed against Christianity, when college students adopted the names of leading French infidels,* and the lips of the masses *Most of the class before me in Yale College were infidels, and called each other Voltaire, Rousseau, D'Alembert, &c.-Dr. Lyman Beecher; Autobiography, vol. 1, p. 43. derided the name of Jesus in ribaldry and song,-as compared with a period now marked as "the skeptical era of modern history," this 19th century is not infidel but Christian. For what is a Strauss, a Colenso, a Renan, to a system that has outlived and outgrown the hostilities of the eighteenth cen tury? So far gone was Germany toward Atheism, that when the devout and eloquent Schleiermacher preached his moderate evangelicism, it was wittily said that he had once more introduced the Almighty into good society in Berlin. Granting all that can be fairly claimed for the influence of Rationalism upon our literature, our theology, and the tone of our society, yet the moral characteristics of our age are not infidel, but Christian;-Christian philanthropy and reform; Christian revivals and Christian missions; the growth of Christian sentiment in jurisprudence, in politics and in international law. Beyond almost any previous age is this marked by the predominance of a practical Christianity, and by the res pectful consideration shown to Christianity both in the public and in the private walks of life. It were unjust to his tory, it were unfair to truth, it were ungrateful to God, should Christians assume a despairing tone, as if infidelity were in possession of the field of thought, and they had nothing to oppose to it but a few scattered and enfeebled divisions, that suspect one another's loyalty, and acknowledge no common head. Freethinking and Infidelity have ceased to be a terror to men who comprehend the Gospel and their age. If Infidelity still lives, Christianity is yet more alive; and at no period since the second century has the Church of Christ had a greater strength and union of resources against the common foe. The more we are made conscious of this, the more shall we realize the priv ilege and the power committed to the church of the living God. The very activity of skepticism under its new phase, is a concession to the vital power of Christianity. The old sneering, scoffing Infidelity, that spit upon the Bible, that threw it into the fire, or used its leaves for lighting pipes, that made the name of Jesus and the virgin Mary the theme of ribald jests, has disappeared from civilized society. The decent garb and studied speech of modern Rationalism, its garb of science, of criticism, of morality, are an admission that Christianity must be assailed with other weapons than those it has already vanquished. Rationalism, instead of denouncing Christianity as an imposture, would rather extol it as a development of the religious genius of mankind,-disfigured it may be by legends of the supernatural, and now antiquated by science, yet venerable as both a reforming and a conservative power in history, and still to be admired for its norality.* For the essence of Ration. alism does not lie in denying altogether the genuineness of the Bible, nor in repudiating its moral teachings, but in discarding the supernatural, whether in miracles or inspiration, and in making human Reason the ultimate test, the absolute criterion of truth. It would wrest from the Bible the excellences which are the admitted source of its power, and appropriate these to another authorship; it would steal from Heaven the stereotype plates of the book of Truth, and retaining their general form, bring out a revised edition, with the name of Reason on the title page for the name of God. Now the form of this new skepticism, and its activity, instead of marking the progress of Infidelity, are a concession to the power of Christianity. A theory in physical science once exploded by evidence, dies, and cannot be resuscitated. But after all the assaults of Infidelity and its boasted conquests, the Bible still lives and must still be met, for it is still a power, and so great a power that it must be respected even in the act of assailing it. In enumerating the resources of the Church for this conflict, we place first the power she has through the recovery for modern times, of the Apostolic principle, that right Reason and Revelation are in accord one with another. By this principle we meet the Rationalist upon his own ground. We do not put down his reasonings by dogmatism, nor insist that he shall submit his convictions of truth to be revised by the judgment of other men, or by any human authority, ancient or modern, ecclesiastical or secular. So far from denying the competence * We speak here of the general tone of skeptical criticism, making no account o diversities of schools. f |