صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

The first thing that will strike an impartial observer, and produce impressions for which he could not be expected to have been prepared, is the disunion, the discord, or the domestic hostility between the different bodies that call themselves Christians. More than this, there appears between them an antipathy wholly irreconcilable with the clearest maxim of their common Master. If there is an expression upon whose meaning there can be no theological quibbling, it is that in which his followers are told to "love one another." Hermeneutists can find but one meaning in these words, nor can exegetists discover more than one sense. Yet, has there been a principle more rigorously pursued by the different denominations than that of hostility to each other?

It sometimes appears that there is amongst them a stronger desire to combat or secretly thwart the designs of a rival body, than to forward their own interests. Are there not cases-we hope exceptional-in which the aim of one party is directed to spoil the prospects, or ruin the projects of another, rather than aid or wish success to the missionary enterprises of its neighbour? A noble emulation in good is commendable, but a spirit of opposition to the works of another, because of another, is disreputable. This is more unaccountable in Christian bodies when we consider the action of their Master in a similar case. His disciples brought him word upon one occasion, that other men were doing good works in his name, without his express commission. Far from approving of his disciples' jealousy, he forbade them to interfere, and approved the works of the strangers.

Although we judge that his spirit is not the most prominent feature in his modern disciples, our remarks here are rather suggestive than otherwise, as we desire those interested to draw their own conclusions. Our view is that the internal discord and external hostility between the various branches of Christianity within the last three hundred years, have been highly injurious to its efficiency, and an impediment to the propagation of its principles among heathen nations.

Moreover, this discordance and unfriendly spirit have been productive of disastrous consequences to the Christian body at large, with respect to its own standing in the light of the present age. It is not too much to say-for it is patent to the eyes of every thinking man who wishes. to see it-that the bonds by which the interests of religion and civil society might be expected to be now drawn

[ocr errors]

closely together, have, on the contrary, become strained, and, to some extent, dissevered more than is well for either. There is a wide-spread feeling of dissociation, if not a threatened total disruption, between the secular elements of modern social life, and what is regarded as the religious element.

This is more so in Europe than in our own country. Religious criticism and religious discussion have gone farther in advance in the old seats of Christianity than with us; although there is an undeniably rapid progress in imitation of the same springing up around us, and even boldly mounting into pulpits most stiffly conservative. The ultimate effects of this powerful current of human thought, it is not for us to predict; we are more particularly concerned with its immediate results. One of these, and not the least important, is the gradual removal of many old landmarks which were fondly believed to have indicated the limits of human science. The strong tendency to which we have alluded above, i.e., of separating the secular from the religious elements of social life, or of ignoring the supernatural in any restricted sense, and taking cognizance only of the natural, must be chiefly owing to the internal dissension and consequent weakness superinduced by the domestic strife for which Christian polemics have been, and still are, the field.

A Christian maxim, of no difficulty to comprehend, says that "a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." If this be true, those who profess the deepest interest in the Christian republic may find much to disturb their dreams of universality in the present state of the various churches, divided and indefinitely subdivided as they are. If this process of disintegration continue--and we see no satisfactory reason to think it may cease-what hope can the future hold out to even the most ardent zealot? We are aware that a few enlightened believers take another view of this phase of their religion, and, instead of regarding it with feelings of regret, deem it a natural, if not a necessary consequence of Christian principles, and one, moreover, highly desirable, because highly be neficial. As this is the opinion of only a few, it cannot be looked upon as of much importance; it is by no means prevalent to any respectable extent. There being an indescribable variety of doctrines in Christianity, it is certain that there is no one doctrine of all these not denied by members of the Christian body.

In mechanics, a system of forces acting in combination will produce a result that cannot be obtained from the same forces separately applied, much less if acting in opposite directions. Now it appears very clear to us that this same principle is at work in the moral world. The long-standing and apparently irreconcilable divisions of the Christian body impair its efficiency in the conversion of nations not yet regenerate, whilst the incomprehensible confusion, the disorder, the contradictions in which it is so prolific, weaken the intelligent faith of its own members, and depend very much upon zeal and enthusiasm. This, however, is but one characteristic of that religion which has given a name and civilization to Christendom. With what it has done in the past we are not now concerned. With its present influence upon men and nations we are occupied; and although there are many things in it that strike us as inexplicable, we shall endeavour to express our views of its various forms so far as they are intelligible to us.

It is not without a feeling somewhat akin to humiliation that a Christian can bring home to his mind the fact that his religion is professed only by a moiety of the human race; and this, too, after its long existence in the world. There are more Buddhists than all Christians put together. That these heathen are more sincere in their belief, and more faithful in the practice of their religious tenets than are Christians, it would not be rash to assert, and it would be difficult to disprove. This, of course, does not imply that we defend the degradation to which, undoubtedly, heathenism reduces its devotees, or that we compare it with Christianity. We only compare the subjective sincerity of the professors of the different forms of belief.

We are convinced that the doctrines of Christianity are sufficiently profound to afford ample field for the subtlest research of the highest intellect, and we know that they have been accepted by men of the first order of genius. This nobody can venture to affirm of the irrational postulates or incredible riddles of Brahminism or its kindred sects, which must be regarded as the highest type of heathenism. The advocates of Christianity have always had amongst them some of the noblest exemplars of the human mind, both in natural powers and in cultivation. Her most enlightened champions aave made it their especial care to teach that the most hbstruse mysteries of faith are in harmony with natural

reason, and contain nothing contradictory to well-established principles of natural science. It is only the crude conjectures of some modern sciolists that Christianity reprehends. And it is only with exceptional mystics or extravagant supernaturalists, not recognized as exponents of any, but occupying the extreme outskirts of every creed, that the irreconcilability of Christian doctrine and natural human science, in its most advanced, approved state, is maintained. Notwithstanding all this prestige of being the acknowledged cause of our civilization and freedom, it is not altogether satisfactory to think that the diffusion of Christianity over the earth has not been more complete, and is not now triumphant over all systems of religion having a different origin.

The Mahometan creed retains its sway over the minds of extensive Asiatic and African populations once believers in Christian revelation, which they exchanged for the visions of Mahomet. These are, at least, as firm in their devotion to the Crescent, as are Christians to the Cross. China, Hindostan, and other densely populated regions, adhere to their unyielding idolatry, without being greatly influenced either by a copious distribution of Bibles by Protestant, or the prodigal effusion of blood by martyred Catholic missionaries. Even at our own doors, in face of our westward advancing civilization, uncouth idolatry squats undisturbed, more likely to give way to the shriek of the locomotive than to the voice of the missionary. If, then, Protestants fail to make their lavishly distributed money and Bibles an effective means of diffusing belief in mysterious doctrines upon whose intelligence they are not themselves entirely agreed; and if Catholics cannot, by their well-known means of self-sacrifice, attain the same end, it is not easy to foresee the definite period at which the world shall be wholly Christian.

Although there is an evident discrepancy between the proclaimed efforts to spread the gospel and the results of these efforts, it must not be supposed that Christianity is inoperative in modern society. Without entering upon the nature and the doctrines of our religion, we cannot omit to state briefly, that it is a civilization as well as a worship. It has not been ordained to lead men to a future state, otherwise than in a human, rational manner. ilization is the practical completion and elevation of the intellectual powers of man, over the grosser portions of material nature. Christianity has civilization for its object as much as it has the inculcation of a spirit of reverence

Civ

and submission to the Deity. It must even civilize before it can teach to worship.

To suppose that there can be a Christian without a proper knowledge of the Great Cause of all things, of his own nature and destiny, and some of those natural truths upon which Christianity is based, would be absurd. Yet there are not a few mystics in all creeds, who seem incapable to admit this. Thus they would destroy all harmony between the natural and the supernatural, by placing between them an impassable abyss, over whose obscurity humanity could never find a way, even guided by the Divinity. The natural and supernatural have the same origin-they arise from the same cause-the creative act of God. By regarding Christianity as hostile or repugnant to the principles of nature, particularly of man's nature, instead of harmonizing the natural and supernatural, the secular and the religious, by a synthetic act, there arises that dangerous dissociation, which has gone so far to estrange the sympathies of modern life from the old faith.

Rather than enter into general principles, illustrating this state of things, we place before our readers a statement or two from the works placed at the head of this article.

Mr. Hurst has been industrious in collecting much useful information regarding the state of feeling in the Protestant world, whilst Dr. Döllinger, has shown a much more extensive acquaintance with his kindred subject. They both profess orthodoxy, but of a different stamp. Mr. Hurst does not make it clear, in any one line of his six hundred and twenty-three pages, what name belongs to the type of orthodox religion whose claims to truth he asserts, against the assaults of rationalism; whilst Dr. Döllinger leaves no room to doubt his uncompromising, but liberal and enlightened advocacy of all the prerogatives of the Catholic Church in any page of his work. As Mr. Hurst, however, is quite laudative of "the Church," and does not maintain the peculiar dogmas of Catholics, we suppose him to represent the Protestant Church, though to which branch of it he clings it is impossible to divine.

This, however, we say hesitatingly, well knowing, that of the countless denominations of which Protestantism may justly boast, none would be willing to abide by the interpretation of a rival sect. And, that few Protestants would to-day admit Mr. Hurst's opinions, we are convinced, when we discover that he holds (as we intimated

« السابقةمتابعة »