considered a sin by public opinion, and as a crime by the law." And to issue throughout the Christian church, therefore, inflammatory appeals to incite the clergy to a free discussion of modern religious difficulties, despite, and even to the denunciation of, the determined Christian dogmas, is, all the conditions of the problem duly borne in mind, as heartless as it is thoughtless.

Besides, in putting forth his celebrated "Plea for the Free Discussion of Theological Difficulties," by the professional theologians, very little did Froude himself suspect how almost fearfully free that discussion would require to be, in order to probe the requisitions of the present religious epoch to the very bottom. For example, take the vital question of the modern views of Scripture. On this subject we have already, in a former paper, heard our brilliant author bravely calling for "an edition of the gospels in which the difficulties will neither be slurred over with convenient neglect, or noticed with affected indifference." And just before saying this, he had likewise quite as bravely said: "Every thinking person who has been brought up a Christian, and desires to remain a Christian, yet who knows anything of what is passing in the world, is looking to be told on what evidence the New Testament claims to be received. . . . Every other miraculous history is discredited as legend. . . . We crave to have good reason shown us for maintain ing still the one great exception."

Manifestly, however, as Renan remarked above, concerning Channing, that, "if he bids men search for themselves, it does not enter his imagination that independent search can carry anybody outside of Christianity;" so we must here aver, concerning Froude, that, while he so courageously calls for a full and fearless investigation of the modern gospel question, it does not once enter his imagination that such an investigation might possibly result in the conviction that, if every other miraculous history is to be discredited as legend, so the gospels are to this doubtless not the least exception. Having "been brought up a Christian," he "desires to remain a Christian," in his views of Scripture. Or, as he elsewhere says: "The inspiration of the Bible is the foundation of our whole belief, and it is a grave matter if we are uncertain to what extent it reaches, or what and how much it guarantees as true." That is to say, while he demands that the clergy shall plumply speak their mind about the difficulties connected with the modern Bible controversy, he wishes and expects

them to encounter these perplexities not only "honorably," but "successfully." With any less decided result in the direction of his Christian desires than at least the establishment of "the truth of the main facts of the gospel history," he would not have the slightest patience. But suppose that the free discussion of the difficulties in question should, in the estimation of certain of the clergy, conversely eventuate in the conclusion that, even in regard to its principal recitals of a supernatural order, the gospel history is but a tissue of unhistoric falsehood. Plain speaking on the part "of those other clergy whose love of truth is unconnected with their prospects in life," having been demanded, those other clergy must, of course, be as free to say the Bible abounds with myths and legends, as to say the Bible is the very Word of God,-if only such should chance to be the honest final outcome of their free discussion of the Bible question, as that issue is now fairly up before the world of scholars for discussion and decision.

Or take the still more fundamental question of the person of our Lord. Here "regardless of the faith of eighteen centuries," the modern investigator now asserts the right, as Renan says, "to cite before his tribunal the man whose brow seems to us always surrounded with the halo of divinity." And not only so, but here also the modern requisition is that "the historian of Jesus shall be as free in his judg ments as the historian of Bouddha or of Mahomet." But what if, as the net result of a free discussion of the question now before us, a clergyman concludes that the traditional dogma of our Lord's divinity is not only "uncertain," but palpably "mistaken," and that the view advanced by Renan that Jesus was but a divine pretender, supporting his claims. by common tricks of thaumaturgy, is doubtless the view yet to be adopted. Plain speaking before his parishioners can be truthful only when the aforesaid clergyman mounts the pulpit and frankly tells precisely the results which he has reached on this question of the person of our Lord.

Or let it be instead conceived that the subject of the very existence and personality of the Deity himself is to be taken up for a full and fair inspection. If, despite all the determined religious dogmas, the Christian clergyman is indeed to be free to say how much of the doctrines popularly current are either uncertain or mistaken, he then must be placed not merely at that most limited liberty which will answer for a Christian Froude among his parishioners, but he must be placed also at

that most absolute liberty which will alone respond to the widest modern latitude of doubt and skepticism among his parishioners, and thereby be precisely as open to say that he has concluded his full and free inspection of this special topic as the honest and open pantheist, materialist, or even atheist, as he is to say that he has concluded the same as the honest Christian theist.

"Let us declare it distinctly," says Renan : "The critical studies relating to the origin of Christianity will only speak their deepest utterances when they shall be cultivated in a purely secular and non-religious spirit, according to the method of the Hellenists, the Moslems, the Hindoos, men strangers to all theology, who dream neither to applaud nor to defame, neither to defend nor to overthrow the dogmas."

Here, then, we have a requisition made by one of the most leading minds, and one of the most influential scholars of the present generation, for a discussion of the most fundamental questions in religion, not merely in a non-theological, but also in a non-religious, purely secular and scientific spirit.

"The whole system of modern education," moreover, says the Duke of Somerset, "tends toward the same result. Men who have been carefully trained to distrust authority, and to rely for the acquisition of knowledge upon experiment, analysis and patient research, cannot subsequently divest themselves of a habit of mind which has become a part of their nature. They must either suppress and relinquish all religious thought, or they must apply to the records of revealed religion the same spirit of investigation which has reopened the sources of history and extended the domain of science."

A few words just here are accordingly in place, as it concerns the purely secular and non-religious spirit of the scientist, as distinguished from the counter-spirit of the theologian, when the subject-matter of investigation partakes of a distinctively religious char

acter.

The scientist, then, according to Renan's remark above, is, first of all, "a stranger to all theology, who dreams neither to applaud nor to defame, neither to defend nor to overthrow the dogmas." And from this very fact he is of course utterly unfettered in connection with those dogmatically determined views of religious faith which are current in the Christian churches, but in connection with which we have already seen that the theologian, on the contrary, has voluntarily placed it beyond both his option and his

sense of right and wrong to be an independ ent searcher after truth. Neither pledged nor paid to preach or defend any given view of Christian faith, he, the scientist, is equally free to reach and teach either this or that conclusion precisely as he pleases. If he chooses, in view of all the light he has upon the subject, to say that the Bible is inspired, that Jesus is divine, and that a personal God exists, well. If otherwise, he still violates no vow; he insults and outrages no patron.

But the theologian, as compared with the scientist, is bound hand and foot within himself, as well as without himself, before the question of a fearless scientific scrutiny of his own religious faith and system.

And first: "To men or women," says Froude, "of tender and sensitive piety, . . an inquiry into the ground of its faith appears shocking and profane, ... And yet this devotedness of devotion... is but one element of excellence. To reverence is good, but on the one condition that the object of it be a thing that deserves reverence." "Religion," says Max Müller, "is a sacred subject, and has a right to our highest rev

erence.

But true reverence does not consist in declaring a subject, because it is dear to us, to be unfit for free and honest inquiry. True reverence is shown in treating every subject, however sacred, however dear to us, with perfect confidence; without fear and without favor, with. . . . an unflinching and uncompromising loyalty to truth."

But suppose that the spirit of religion becomes, for reasons such as these, so far undevout as seriously to contemplate a formal inquiry into the why and wherefore of its belief, as, for example, on the subject of the Godhead of our Lord. Still, from the strictly religious point of view, devout believers "are not," says Liddon, "seeking truth; they are enjoying it. . . . It is even painful to them to think of 'proving' a truth which is now the very life of their souls. In their whole spiritual activity, in their prayers, in their regular meditations, in their study of Holy Scripture, in their habitual thoughts respecting the eternal future, they take Christ's Divinity for granted; and it never occurs to them to question a reality from which they know themselves to be continually gaining new streams of light and warmth and power."

Not all implicit Christian believers, however, herein possess the pure religious spirit. By all their innate tendencies of mind they are the rather placed under a sort of mental necessity to be more or less inquirers,

doubters, disbelievers, unless they know the basis of their faiths.

These latter Christians are accordingly impeded from being scientific investigators into the fundamentals of their own religious belief-neither because they regard it too sacred for inspection, nor because their pietistic enjoyment of it is too excessive for them seriously to think of its deliberate analysis and demonstration. At the same time, these persons do not doubt any vital Christian dogma, but they even stand prepared not only to proclaim the full Christian faith in the face of all the world, but also to defend it, if needs be, in the midst of every peril.

And thus we have attained to-what? Not by any means to the independent and scientific searcher after religious truth. Conversely, we have still to do merely with a man who most unquestionably believes that he is already in the full possession of all religious truth, and who, in his lowest form, is the mere religious controversialist, and even in his highest form is nothing beyond the mere dogmatical theologian. So long as this sort of a religious investigator can proceed upon the supposition that a free and fearless inspection of the basis of his religious belief will undoubtedly result in his being able more and more clearly to demonstrate how very valid are his dogmas, he is the bravest of the brave. Reverse the matter, and you have at once quite another sort of hero. Merely the well-defined suspicion that a free and fearless search for religious truth might possibly convert him into a skeptic concerning even minor points of Christian doctrine, would in itself suffice to make him quake and tremble. But let him once be fairly confronted with the distinct preconception that such a search for truth might possibly, in its final outcome, result in his turning an infidel in his views of Scripture, a scoffer in his views of Christ, a pantheist, materialist, or even atheist in his views of God, and then his heart would in an instant altogether fail him, in the presence of the undertaking instanced. Indeed, the most valiant defenders of the Christian religion very little suspect how almost entirely their valor is dependent upon this single thing, namely, the implicit confidence with which they undertake and prosecute their boldest researches into the why and wherefore of the current Christian dogmas. that confidence shall only once fairly begin to waver, forthwith signs of giving way, of rout and of panic would overspread their pallid faces.

If

But suppose that, overcoming the internal impediments of devout reverence, and pietistic enjoyment, and implicit confidence, the Christian theologian begins to say to himself: So many of the most candid and the most capable of men are now so deeply unsettled in their religious views, so many of the most thorough scholars and the most profound and careful thinkers are to-day openly hostile to the Christian faith and system, it is high time to see precisely what is true and what is false about the current Christian dogmas. Still, even then, it is inherent to the very nature of the case that the theologian should always conduct his whole inquiry into the validity of any given Christian view of truth, with the entire bias of his education, all his prejudices, all his prepossessions, all his prejudgments, and the like, sweeping him forever, as by an almost irresistible tide, solely in the direction of his own religious standpoint. "To say that the clergy," says Froude, "who are set apart to study a particular subject, are to be the only persons unpermitted to have an independent opinion upon it, is like saying that lawyers must take no part in the amendment of the statute-book; that engineers must be silent upon mechanism; and, if improvement is wanted in the art of medicine, physicians may have nothing to say about it."

But by this time it must be patent enough, we answer, how utterly impossible it is that the professional theologian either can be free, or can be made free, to discuss the fundamental religious questions now fairly up before the thinking world for inspection and decision, as the requisitions of the age most palpably require. Released though he should be from every formal pledge to preach and defend the current Christian dogmas, expressly salaried though he should become to pronounce a perfectly fearless verdict on the question how many of these dogmas are uncertain and how many are mistaken, the Christian clergyman would even then require to habituate himself for many a long year to a free and fearless private study of these matters, before he could become internally liberated from a thousand mental habitudes and feelings which utterly unfit him to fulfill the task supposed. If, as the Duke of Somerset above substantially observes, the whole system of modern secular education tends to make it a sort of mental necessity that the laity must either suppress and relinquish all religious thought, or else they must apply to the records of revealed religion the same free and fearless spirit of experiment, analysis,

and patient research, which appertains to all investigations in the field of science; if this be true, we say, equally true is it that the traditional theological education tends to make it a sort of counter mental necessity that the clergy must either suppress and relinquish all proclivities and habits of religious thought to which they have been accustomed, or else they must not apply to the fundamental questions connected with the Christian faith and system any such spirit of investigation as the one suggested.

But, in addition to "the internal liberation of the feelings and intellect for certain religious and dogmatical presuppositions," the modern investigator of great religious questions ought also to possess, according to Strauss, a "scientific indifference to results and consequences."

Not every one is slow to speak about the lowest aspect of the interest which the regular professional theologians have in proclaiming and defending the current Christian views. Froude, for instance, taunts them above with having "a strong temporal interest in the defense of the institutions which they represent ;" and then forthwith demands to "know what those of the clergy think whose love of truth is unconnected with their prospects in life."

Now there doubtless are, and especially in the Church of England, many theologians who look upon their profession almost exclusively from the single stand-point of its perquisites. To be maintained in well-paid leisure, to be advanced from position to position, and the like, constitutes with them the summum bonum of their being clergymen at all.

But the men of culture ought to know that it is precisely from this class of professional theologians that, in the long run, no difficulty whatever will be experienced, in case a perfectly outspoken denunciation of the current Christian dogmas ever comes in fashion. Only let that style of being a Christian clergyman become remunerative and popular, and they will not for an instant hesitate to adopt it. In fact, these mere camp-followers of Christ and Christianity, these mere time-servers in the Christian ministry, these are the very theological recreants and renegades who are already beginning to yield to the taunt and pressure of the modern anti-dogma movement, and deliberately to mount the pulpit, fairly to tell "how much of the doctrines popularly taught they conceive to be uncertain and how much to be mistaken."

But precisely those other professional the

ologians who are most steadily refusing to enter upon a "free discussion of theological difficulties," wholly irrespective of their formal pledges in connection with determined Christian dogmas,—these latter are the very clergymen who are at bottom the least of all affected, whether by their present maintenance, or by their future prospects, in the ministry of Jesus Christ. To be sure they may just now chance, in many instances, to be in the chief positions of honor and emolument throughout the Christian church, and to be in those positions mainly because of their loyalty and zeal in connection with the current Christian views. But let times change, let this same loyalty and zeal come to cost them not only the loss of all things that they now secure thereby, but the loss of all things that they have and hope and are beside, and still they would all the same adhere to every view in question. Here are, in fact, if need should ever be, your future sufferers and martyrs for the doctrines popularly taught throughout the Christian church to-day. They do not defend these doctrines merely, mainly, or any otherwise than almost accidentally, because they have a strong temporal interest in doing so. They would defend these doctrines with an equal zeal, even if they had a most overwhelming temporal interest not to do so, but rather to denounce them. They have the most absolute conviction, not merely of the entire truthfulness of all these doctrines, but also of their life-anddeath importance to all the human race. To expect these theologians, when it comes to speak of fundamentals and essentials, to admit the to them monstrous proposition that this Christian dogma is uncertain, and that Christian dogma is mistaken, is like asking them, from their own point of view, to plunge the whole Christian world backward again into pre-Christian darkness, and so to destroy the light and hope eternal of all the family of man.

66

It is, accordingly, a simple impossibility for the true professional theologian to discuss the Christian faith and system with anything even approximating to a scientific indifference to results and consequences." He could with a thousandfold more impartial composure sit in deliberate judginent in the case of a trial where his own life and fortune were at issue.

But with the mere scientific searcher after religious truth, all here again at once is changed. He has no absolute conviction, either of the truthfulness of the current Christian views, or of their practical importance to any one at all. Conversely, merely whether