Page images
PDF
EPUB

THEODORE PARKER AND LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY.

OUR readers will remember, that in the last number of the New Englander we gave them some account of the opinions of Theodore Parker as advanced in his "Discourse of Religion." In the conclusion of our article we proposed to resume the discussion, and to inquire, what is the relation of his opinions to those commonly held by Unitarians, and what is his present position in the denomination. Our former discussion concerned Mr. Parker as a religious philosopher. The present one relates to Mr. Parker as a Unitarian or liberal Christian.

When a close and consistent thinker comes to unusual conclusions in respect either to religion or philosophy, it is always fair and often in teresting to ask, "What was the process by which he was led to these results?" The answer to such a question is always curious, and not unfrequently instructive. detect and bring out the processes through which the individual mind has been led, to trace the work ings of one or more master-principles of error or truth, of evil or good, though a difficult task, is still not without its reward.

To

In the present instance, the inquiry possesses more than usual interest. We see not here the movements of an individual, but also those of the public mind. We trace not the capricious windings of a streamlet, that has made its little channel for itself, but we mark the movement of a mighty stream, that has cut its way across the ordinary landmarks of opinion, and made the traces of its course both wide and deep, and seen from afar. Mr. Parker is not a solitary student, nor a recluse philosopher. He is known to the public as connected with an important movement among a distinguished sect of religionists. He

is not alone. Though he may stand by himself, in the length to which he has pushed his speculations and the boldness with which he has avowed them, he is but one of many in the same school of philosophizing. Hence when he came before the public, he found listeners and admirers, defenders and friends. Crowds came together to hear him, not only, as we are well advised, because as in the other Athens they would hear the last new thing, but because he struck, strong and sure, a chord of sympathy that was waiting to be played upon. Whence this preparation? How happened it, that he was thus heard and admired? How has it come to pass, that at this moment there are in New England hundreds and it may be thousands of minds who have gone far in the same directionwho, it may be, know not what to think and believe, but who yet, as far as they do think and believe, hold with Mr. Parker in his conclusions ?

These are questions which it is wise and profitable to think of. They are questions which we can not but attempt to answer, not, as we believe, with reference to the interests of any party or sect, but to gather profitable conclusions in respect to the interests of science, religion, and the social welfare.

With many it will doubtless be a sufficient answer to say, "Oh, he is a Unitarian, and that is enough." Those to whom the word Unitarian is a synonym for every thing that is bad, and Unitarianism is the fermenting chaos from which proceed "all monstrous, all prodigious things," will not care to know the principles from which these results have grown, nor the processes by which they have issued forth. Such are not all, such are not any of our readers. At all events, we write for none such.

We care not to deserve the odium of adding reproach to a name by a name; or of fastening upon a set of men the errors or caprices of one who happens to be found in their ranks. Besides, we have always found it a somewhat difficult matter to discover what Unitarianism is. We shrink from hastily associating any result with a cause so indefinite and vague, as alike unphilosophical and dishonest. Our concern is with principles, and with principles alone. Without farther preamble, we propose to ourselves the following inquiry: What are the principles and modes of thinking peculiar to liberal Christians, which have led to these conclusions by an obvious tendency? We use the term liberal Christians rather than Unitarians because it is preferred by themselves, and because the principles which we propose to discuss, though they involve, do not directly concern the doctrine of the Trinity, or of the divinity of our Lord.

Here we may be met by the plea, 'What do you mean by the tendency to such conclusions as Mr. Parker's? Surely you must be aware that the mass of liberal Christians reject these conclusions with abhorrence. It is bad enough to condemn men for what they avow, without adding the reproach of constructive heresy.' To this we reply, the inferences which are involved in principles, or which may be logically derived from them, are those to which they tend. These are always fair subjects of discussion. Nay, often they are the most important tests by which their truth or falsehood, their harm or usefulness, are most obviously discerned. While therefore we allow to the men themselves, all to which they are entitled from their own avowals in respect to such inferences, if the inferences are logically made and truthfully derived, they illustrate the principles of their system. Those principles, also, which do not logically tend to given con

clusions, but which practically justify them as indifferent or harmless, may be tested by their consequen

ces.

One word more of preamble, and we will proceed. The principles which we discuss, we suppose to be peculiarly and distinctively those held by liberal Christians, if they have any such. But we do not suppose that they are held by none beside. Some or all of them are held by those without their ranks, and they are the same principles wherever they are held, whether they are corrected and held back by others of better influence, or carried fearlessly out to all their legitimate conclusions. On the other hand, they are not the principles of all who are called liberal Christians. We know that some hold the contrary views with earnestness and honesty, who, for reasons which concern themselves alone, are found in their ranks.

6

First of all we notice the fundamental principle of liberal Christians, of opposition to creeds. In a few words it is this: No man and no number of men can be so certain in regard to any religious doctrine, as rightfully to hold their views of it as essential to orthodoxy.' For themselves they may be entirely confident that God has revealed it to man, but for others, they have no right to make it the basis of Christian fellowship, or hold it essential to the Gospel. In accordance with these principles, they call themselves liberal Christians. They reject creeds both written and spo ken, in form and substance of doctrine, as tests of piety or of soundness in the faith. In every form they regard them as invasions upon the right of private judgment, and the freedom of individual inquiry. On the broad basis of bondage to no creed, do they invite Christians of every name to meet in mutual charity in the name of a common Lord. This principle, if any, they would

claim as distinctive and peculiar. By this would they be known as the only denomination which is truly liberal and Protestant. "Unitarians," says Dr. Ware, "have always claimed the right of every individual to have his own creed. What they have sometimes had occasion to object to is, that any, whether an individual or a body of Christians, should insist on their creed being the creed of others, either as a title to the Christian name, or as the condition of their being admitted to the participation of any Christian privileges.

[ocr errors]

Exclusive

is its utter aversion.
Christianity is its unspeakable won-
der. It regards exclusive religion
as quite as great a contradiction as
an exclusive God."

If these statements mean any thing, it is this, that liberal Christians are opposed to creeds not from expediency, but from principle; not because actual creeds may be and have been abused, which would only prove the need of those which are different; but because they are wrong in theory. They do not reject them because they are too extended, or too metaphysical, but because they are creeds. The argument against them is not their perversion, but the principles involved in their use at all. These principles must be some or all of the following. 1. God has revealed himself so indistinctly, that no man can be so certain in regard to what he would say, as to hold his fellow man in the wrong. 2. Man through moral deficiency is not to be trusted to interpret his will for others. 3. Religion, or the possession of a right character, does not depend on what a man believes. 4. There must be provision made for human progress. 5. The spirit of Christianity is enough, and is the most important thing to be secured.

"We have now come to learn," says Channing," that Christianity is not a dogma, but a spirit; that its essence is the spirit of its divine founder; that it is of little consequence what church a man belongs to, or what formula of doctrine he subscribes ; that nothing is important but the supreme love, choice, pursuit of moral perfection, shining forth in the life and teachings of Christ." So again-"I can not but look on creeds with feelings approaching contempt. When I bring them into contrast with the New Testament, into what insignificance do they sink." "Christian truth is infinite. Who can think of shutting it up in a few lines of an abstract creed? You might as well The opinions of Mr. Parker on compress the boundless atmosphere, this point are in no respect different the fire, the all-pervading light, the from those of the liberal school. free winds of the universe, into sep- He has only sought to find for them arate parcels, and weigh and label a philosophical basis, in the propothem, as break up Christianity into sition that "religion is one and the a few propositions. Christianity is same." Christianity is same." He would show that on freer, more illimitable than the light this subject the conceptions of men or the winds. It is too mighty to be not only do differ, but must differ. bound down by man's puny hands. He takes the somewhat indefinite It is a spirit rather than a rigid doc- language of Dr. Channing which trine, the spirit of boundless love. we have quoted above, and crystalThe infinite can not be defined and lizes it into the following beautiful measured out like a human manu- system, and attempts by arguments facture. It can not be reduced to a to show it true. The reason alone system. It can not be comprehend- reveals and discerns God in his ed in a set of precise ideas. It is idea. This idea is inconceivable, to be felt rather than described." yet seen and felt; ineffable, yet Says Greenwood-" Exclusiveness known to all. But the conception

of God is and must be imperfect. It can never do justice to the truth. It must also continually change. With the enlargement of man's knowledge and the elevation of his desires, so will his views of the Deity be more and more just, and his theology more and more perfect. But however gross and debasing it may be, it will still represent the divine. "Religion in all its forms is one and the same. He that wor. ships truly, by whatever form, worships the only God. He hears the prayer whether called Brahma, Jehovah, Pan, or Lord, or called by no name at all." So far Mr. P. and his brethren are all one. If he had remained on the right side of his. torical Christianity, he would have been honored as not only truly liberal, but as having discovered a philosophical argument for the unity of all religions. But when Mr. Parker's conceptions of the divine are so enlarged and elevated, that he discovers that Christianity in no sense depends on the facts recorded in the gospels, or on the belief that Jesus wrought miracles, when he teaches that this pertains to the transient, and has passed away, while the permanent, or its principles of absolute religion, is all that remains, and claims that he is still a Christian, and should be received as a Christian, they know not what to do. They are taken all aback. On the one hand, they are posed with the fact that there is a Christian teacher among them with whom the supernatural and miraculous Moses and Jesus are but the heroes of wondrous legends; and the Bible, as a book of facts and history, is but little better than moonshine. On the other hand, they are driven to the wall, by the unquestioned fact that he claims to preach a high and pure Christianity in its principles and spirit; and the fact is unquestioned that his views of sin and holiness, of regeneration and spiritual influence, are higher and better than

those of many who would call him an infidel, did they dare to use a term so uncourteous. But yet to refuse him fellowship as a Christian would be to adopt a creed. Thus the religious community of Boston are agitated and brought to a stand. The question is gravely argued, and it is time that it were" Who has a right to call himself a Christian ?" And with this inquiry the fellowship of liberal Christians is greatly moved. At last an anonymous note is addressed to Rev. Mr. Lothrop, requesting him "to define his position and opinions as to two points. First, as to the measure of faith that constitutes a man a Christian—that is, gives him a claim to the Christian name and privileges. Secondly, as to the principles of Christian liberty, What are they? How to be applied?" The answer of Mr. L. was given in a sermon, and is in substance as follows. He is a Christian "who receives the Gospel as historically true." "This I conceive to be the broad and distinctive foundation of Christian faith. All who stand on this foundation I am ready to acknowledge as Christians. Let their creed be what it may, if they go to the teachings of Christ, to the New Testament as a record of facts for authority and proof to establish and sustain that creed, I call them Christians, embraced among the disciples of Christ. More than this I am not disposed to demand; less than this I dare not concede as sufficient. If a man merely bow to Christ as an extraordinary religious genius, whose character, though distinguished for its moral elevation and purity, was yet marked, he thinks, by some inconsistencies and imperfections, which, however, he is willing to overlook, as, considering the youth of the man, very venial errors, if he does not regard him as invested with any direct divine authority, as no more inspired than we may all be, if we will pay the price; if this is the

extent of his faith and acknowledgments, I am not prepared to give such latitude to the appellation of Christian, so to destroy all meaning and force in it as to apply it to him." 66 My brief answer to the question, what is Christian liberty? is, it is liberty to be a Christian. It is liberty to go to the New Testament as a genuine and authentic history of the teachings, conduct, and character of Christ, and accord ing to the best lights of reason, his tory, and criticism, interpret that record, and gather and deduce from it such truths and doctrines as such interpretation seems to the individual to sustain and establish." In these conclusions we suppose the general opinion of the denomination to be expressed.

So at last liberal Christianity has a creed ;* rather short, indeed, but very good so far as it goes. In vain does Mr. Parker ask his teachers who gave them authority thus to fet ter the soul of man? In vain does he, as it were, retort upon them"You have permitted us to doubt and deny every thing beside. You have suffered us to plow, and sow, and reap, all within the enclosure, so long that it is a field outworn as a field for speculation and inquiry. Why stop us by this limit? Why hinder from taking a loftier flight and rising to nobler results in reli

* It will not be inferred that this creed has been executed in the ordinary way of social bodies, whether clubs, debating societies, or churches; for a late writer says on this point, "Great use has been made of the fact that no censure has ever been passed upon Mr. Parker by any act of our whole body, or of the association of ministers to which he belongs. That this fact should have been turned to the discredit of Unitarianism by those whose difference from us in theological opinion seems to render them incapable of understanding the principles of our union, is what we were prepared to witness." Of this we say, that the fact in the case has demonstrated the impropriety of such "principles of union.' It has enabled us and some Unitarians to understand them too well.

gious speculation?" He puts to them, as it were, the following inquiries based upon their common principles. 1. If God has given us such a word, that a man in no sense can judge for his brother what that word contains, by what right do you assert for me, that that word asserts that he has revealed himself by mir. acles? 2. If man may not be trusted to interpret this word for his brother, who committed to you the trust, of judging for me that God spoke from Sinai, or enabled Jesus to raise the dead? 3. If you object to creeds that they make the belief of a dog. ma, and not character a test, and if you yet believe me to be a good and pious man, why in this instance make belief a test, and that in a dry historical fact; a test too, by which I may not assert the name of a Chris tian, and must be denied the tokens of Christian fellowship? 4. If a creed is not to be allowed lest the progress of man should be hindered, why do you limit that progress of free inquiry by making it essential to Christianity, to believe that Christ wrought miracles? 5. If the most important element in Christianity is its spirit rather than its doctrines, if its "love to God and love to man," are of higher moment than its facts of history; and I by your admission teach with energy and truth, the spirit and the life, why deserve not I the appellation of a Christian, when others receive it, who seem only to bow to the name of Jesus?

Their only reply to these inquiries is this. The very name Christianity shuts you out, and has always shut indeed, a liberty to be of what reliyou out. You have religious liberty gion you please, but not liberty to call yourself a Christian. This is perfectly correct and obvious to us, but not so to Mr. Parker, who may at once retort, Who gave you liberty to define Christianity for me? In doing it you abandon every argu ment urged against a creed, and used to sustain us in free inquiry.

« PreviousContinue »