not such men; nor is the fact that a man lived in a venerable antiquity, or that he has travelled down in the company of such men, any proof that he held all the truth, or that his opinions deserve implicit regard. "Whatsoever time," says Milton, "or the heedless hand of blind chance hath drawn down from of old to this present, in her huge drag-net, whether fish or seaweed, shells or shrubs, unpicked, unchosen, those are the fathers." He who wishes to go through them, and collect their opinions, will accomplish a task, not a little resembling a celebrated journey described by Milton :

O'er hog, or steep, through strait, rough, dense, or rare,
With head, hands, wings, or feet, pursues his way,
And swims, or sinks, or wades, or creeps, or flies.

"Time," says Bacon, " seemeth to be of the nature of a river or stream, which carrieth down to us that which is light and blown up, and sinketh and drowneth that which is weighty and solid."*

It is a remarkable fact, that the mode of preventing free inquiry to which we now refer has prevailed chiefly in theology, or on subjects that could be intimately connected with theology. It is itself the noblest science that has ever been presented to the mind of man. It does more to enlarge and liberalize thought than all other sciences. It is itself the patron and friend of freedom every where. Yet, there has been, and is, no other science that has been cramped and fettered like this from the quarter which we are now considering. Almost all the efforts which have been made to fetter the mind have been inventions in the schools, or in the councils of the theological world. No other department of science has ever had a creed that was designed to limit inquiry, or to brand with infamy if the limits were traversed. There have been no councils, of which we are aware, that have been called to determine what should, and what should not be believed in regard to mathematics, chemistry, or mineralogy. There has been no effort made in the sciences to obtain a decision from a self-constituted tribunal claiming divine authority, to overwhelm a bold and daring investigator of the works of nature because he has discovered a new planet, or described a new mineral, or described a new plant. There has been, certainly not since the time of Bacon,

* Advancement of Learning, Works, Vol. II. p. 432.

an attempt to bring down on a man disposed to free inquiry in science the whole colluvies of antiquity, and to bury the individual and his name in the mighty avalanche. If there has been a difference of opinion about a planet, or a star, or a comet, the obvious way has been to direct the telescope to the heavens, and gaze there with patient eye; if a dispute about a mineral, or a muscle, the direct course is to resort to the crucible, or the scalpel. What is the authority of Galen and Hippocrates in regard to the anatomy of the human frame now?- Just as much as they have, should be conceded, we hold, to the names that are blazoned on the pages of ecclesiastical history.

And yet, it is well known, that the immense papal power is sustained solely by appeals that are in their nature just the same as if the physiologist should appeal to the venerable names of Galen and Hippocrates; or such as should denounce as worthy of lasting infamy the hapless man who in his inquiries had presumed to differ from the decisions of a council of such men. Nor is this feeling unknown in Protestant lands. It has not been a prominent fault to be too well acquainted with the fathers; nor perhaps a common fault to show too much regard to their authority. Yet there are doctrines in the church which rest on no better support. And there are arrangements like this to perpetuate the peculiar views which have been held in past times, and to transmit those views as containing the very essence of wisdom.

Free discussion is prevented by the art of holding up the notion that there are some points too sacred to be approached. On religious subjects this is one of the most effectual modes which has ever been resorted to; and it may be regarded as a mode peculiar to religion. It is not easy, perhaps not possible, to produce the impression, even in men, under the influence of superstition, that there is any point of science so sacred that it may not be examined. And yet, all experience shows, that there are points of theology which may be invested with a sacredness that shall be urged as a reason why they should be exempted from investigation. Ages, it is said, have given them their sanction. They have never been called in question in the church. They have been the support of piety in all times. The glory of the church has brightened when they have been held; it has been dimmed in its lustre when they have been called in question. To examine them, it is alleged, is evidence. of a presumptuous, daring, unsubdued, unsanctified spirit; and is VOL. IX. No. 26.

52

an indication of a state of mind that has no proper feelings of piety. And though there may be no open and professed opposition to free discussion; though the teachers of theology may be avowedly friendly to it, yet no one who has ever observed the course of events in a system of theological training can have failed to remark how easy it is to accomplish the object without seeming to contradict the principle that all things may be examined. Let the notion be sedulously inculcated, that there is a sacredness in religious doctrines which appertains to no other subject; that piety in all ages has been evinced just as men have received the doctrine which it is proposed to subject to examination; that a disposition to examine those doctrines with freedom has been the starting point of heresy, the first manifestation of feeling evinced by those who have ultimately become the arch-heretics of the world, and the work is accomplished. What young man can bear the idea of pursuing a course which infringes on the precincts of piety; and which is the course that the disturbers of the world, and the fathers of error have pursued? And how easy is it to restrain, in this way, the whole spirit of investigation, and to secure the passive reception of dogmas which it was the wish to inculcate and perpetuate. We have seen it done; and we know that an accomplished and skilful theologian can soon learn the art in this manner of securing in an institution, the entire acquiescence of the great mass of minds that are subjected to his teachings.

We

We are not advocates of a reckless, and presumptuous application of the mind to the subjects of theology. We are not friends of innovation and change, for the sake of innovation and change. We would not denounce past ages; nor deem an opinion less valuable because it has been held in former times. claim that the subjects of theology should be approached always with a serious, and humble mind. Nor do we doubt that the fact that a doctrine has been held " time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary," affords presumptive evidence that it is true. But against the art to which we now refer, if there is a voice of strength in the land, it should be lifted up. If there is any where an effort made covertly or openly to keep up the notion that there is one doctrine that is too sacred to be examined; and if freedom of investigation to the utmost limit, which any mind may be disposed to pursue it, be repressed, we maintain that the school where such a position is held is a dishonor to the age. The great principle is to go forth in all honesty and sincerity,

that ALL subjects are to be examined in the lecture-room of the theological professor as freely as in the laboratory of the chemist. Nor can theology ever be placed among the sciences adapted to expand and liberalize the human mind until it shall be admitted to this elevated rank in the departments of learning. It is with the deepest shame and pain that we now express the conviction that it has not yet reached that standing; and that there are influences abroad to prevent this freedom of inquiry which do not exist in any other of the subjects which occupy public attention in our country.

Allied to this is another art which has been known at all times, but which it seems to us is becoming one of the theological characteristics of this age. It consists in the effort to stifle an inquiry, and to arrest a spirit of bold investigation by the magic power of a bad name. "I will not harm thee," said the meek disciple of Fox, "but I will give thee a bad name;" and the name mad-dog accomplished all that the repressed feelings of the Quaker desired. To meet a doctrine by argument is one thing; to meet it by calling it Pelagianism or Socinianism is another. And yet there are many obvious and decided advantages in the latter course. It is much easier. It saves time, investigation, and thought. It can be resorted to by those whose minds are very imperfectly disciplined, and who are very imperfectly qualified to examine the subject. It can be used by the tyro as well as by the veteran in divinity. It requires little talent and little learning. It answers, also, when argument fails; and it will often accomplish what argument would not do. There are many minds which would be influenced by such a name that would be little moved by an argument; and there are in all communities multitudes to whom such a name would be a demonstration of heresy stronger than

"Proof of holy writ."

It has this further advantage. It creates a mist and fog around a man that shall envelope him in suspicion, and blast his name at once. And perhaps in this respect there was never any name more convenient than that which has become the talisman of these times, the name of Pelagian. To those who have looked carefully into history it is by no means an easy matter to tell what Pelagius believed; and perhaps of all the names that are used in these times there is no one that is more indefinite, and less understood by those who use it, than the

It is none the worse for

name Pelagianism. But no matter. the purposes contemplated. It creates a fog of suspicion that a man cannot meet; and it excites in the minds of persons who are easily alarmed the impression of something that is monstrous and horrible. It has shown itself, therefore, to be a name admirably adapted to many minds in these times; and nothing has been used more freely; perhaps nothing more successfully.

Yet such a resort is always an evidence of a weak, and badly disciplined mind. It is an acknowledgment of an inability to meet a doctrine by open and manly argument. It is an indication of a want of nobleness, and manliness of spirit that would not be tolerated any where except in theology. And on no other subject has the art ever been resorted to so frequently, or with so much success, as in theological discussion. In the other sciences the artifice would be branded at once as unworthy a mind that had any claims to liberality of thinking, or to independence. And we have been not a little amazed that so many in our own times have felt themselves satisfied that a doctrine was heretical, and have advanced this as full proof, if it could be demonstrated to be an opinion that was held by Pelagius, or Socinus. It is obvious to ask whether the fact that an opinion was held by these men demonstrates that it is false; or whether truth is dimmed in its lustre by the fact that such men may have held it. A coin is not proved to be counterfeit, or to be valueless, because it may have been in the possession of some man of bad reputation; nor can it be readily conceived how the fact that an ancient heretic held a doctrine is demonstration that it must be false. And yet, unless we have wholly mistaken a leading feature of these times, and a leading effort among many who seek to direct public opinion, there are not a few men who set down an opinion as false, or unworthy of examination provided some theological teacher sagely remarks that this opinion was held by a celebrated heresiarch of ancient or modern times. Forthwith the whole matter is at an end.That is sufficient. And no matter how much Scripture there may be for it; no matter how much it may commend itself to the sober judgment of thinking men, it is enough that the sentiment, or something like it, was held by a man whose name has been consigned to infamy. And in all the records of antiquity, no name has been furnished so convenient, and so adapted to the purpose as the name Pelagius. It matters not whether the aspiring theologian can tell who he was, or when he was