Philosophy of skepticism and ultraism, wherein the opinions of Rev. Theodore Parker, and other writers are shown to be inconsistent with sound reason and the Christian religion

Front matter

O PRINCETON, N. J. <ff

BX 9869 .P3 W3 i Walker, James Barr, 1805-

^^^^ Philosophy of skepticism ai i

Letter I. Paok

The Nonsense of Theodore Parker's Theological Philosophy 11

LETTER n.

Variations and Incongruities in the Theological Opinions OF Me. Parker and other Transcendentalists 23

LETTER in.

Misstatements op Orthodox Opinions 31

LETTER IT.

The Personality op God 41

LETTER Y.

The Tei-tjkity of the Ditine Mind 61

LETTER VL Human Depravity i 80

LETTER VII.

At-one-ment ; OR, Reconciliation with God 99

VI CONTENTS.

LETTER Vin.

TAOS.

FUTUEE ReTEEBUTICN 119

LETTER IX.

Rational Exposition op Probation and Reteibution 140

LETTER X.

Eefutation of Cosimox Fallacies on the StrBJECT of Fu-

TUEE ReTKIBDTION 161

LETTER XL Refobiieks and their Relation to Christianttt 175

LETTER XIL A Discrimination between the Good and Evil in Modern

REFORilERS 188

LETTER XIIL

Written Revelation a Necessity in order to the Moral Development and Moral Progress of Mankind 213

LETTER XIV.

Revelation the Mottve-potiveb in Human Progress 234

Preface

In the following pages the author has endeavored to meet, in a popular form, some of the prevailing moral fallacies of the times.

It is admitted by every one who has observed the Btate of public opinion in relation to moral and religious questions, that no inconsiderable portion of the business men of our cities and villages — especially the young men — are influenced by opinions which are inconsistent both with sound reason and with revelation. This little volume is an endeavor to bring back some who have wandered, to a rational apprehension of religious doctrine and duty.

It asks the forbearance of the dogmatic theologian. The efibrt of the author is to give the rationale of the Christian doctrines which he discusses. Those for whom these letters are mostly designed have chosen reason, rather than revelation, as arbiter in matters of faith. We have, therefore, permitted reason to speak freely in behalf of revealed truth, and to speak sometimes in

Vm PREFACE.

forms of language that we would not use with those who are believers in divine revelation.

We have, in the discussion, waived all questions not involved in the main issues, and have granted to the opposers and accusers of the evangelical ministry all that a fair mind can ask ; and as the- skei)tics of our day claim a philosophical basis for many of their opinions, we have endeavored to meet them on their o^ii ground.

One of the volumes of Rev. Theodore Parker (Discourses of Religion) was put into our hands by a friend. We read it, and were surprised to find a book strong in phrase and assuming m rhetoric ; but without congruity, and, as it seemed to us, out of harmony both with reason and revelation.

With this view of the book, we commenced a series of letters to a friend, one of which was published in a religious journal. Other letters were written, but not published. In those letters we referred, in two or three instances, to j)ortions of two volumes previously published, and to which our respondent had access. For the benefit of those who may possess these volumes, we have given references, or condensed the thought and put it into another form.

These letters, with some additional matter and a few notes, are now submitted to tlie })ublic. They are respectfully commended to the consideration of those

PREFACE. IX

who desire to act sincerely and intelligently in relation to the matters in question. " Prove all things : hold fast that which is good," is a Scripture precept.

The matter of some of the letters has been prepared in haste. The discussion covers the Hving issues of our times between the friends and opponents of evangelical Christianity. The style is as popular as the character of the subjects would permit. If it shall answer the ends of a hand-book on the subject of heterodoxy in religion and reform, the author's aim will be accomphshed.

LETTER I.

NONSENSE OF THEODORE PARKER'S THEOLOGICAL PHHiOSOPHT.

I learned to respect you for your learning and talents in by-gone years. When I first knew you I doubted concerning the divine legation of Moses and the manifestation of God in Christ. Since then you have departed in some measure from the faith which you then commended to me.

It has been matter of sincere regret to myself and others that a friend, who we believe possesses one of the best minds in the land, should no longer act with us in advancing the plan of Christ in the world. But whatever may be your convictions in relation to the divine nature of Jesus, it surprises me most of all to be informed that you listen with apparent complacency to the teachings of Theodore Parker on the subject of Theism. Whatever regard you may have for Mr. Parker as a man and a reformer — a regard which I likewise cherish — still I am sure jou can see little "but a verbiage, something like Carlyleism diluted, in the style and matter of Mr. Parker's teaching. I confess that I can not see how any one who prizes the logical faculty so highly as you do, should have any respect for such a book as the " Discourses of Eeligion," which has scarcely a reliable logical process from its beginning to its close.

I think you injure the character of your countrymen in the estimation of thinking men, both at home and abroad, by the sanction which a discriminating American scholar may seem to give to the vagaries of such a writer as Mr. Parker.

The course pursued by other gentlemen in relation to Mr. Parker as a public teacher, differs, in my opinion, morally, from the same course when pursued by yourself Men who have little or no knowledge of the Scriptures, and who af&liate mostly with those who reject the authority of God in Christ, if they have sagacity to see the defection from Christian principle which exists about them, may be expected to swell the psean which hails the anti-scriptural reformer.

But should any apparent defections in some portions of the Christian church lead such men as you to reject Christian principle ?

paeker's theological philosophy. 13

You answer bj saying that, " When Parker has the courage to denounce statesmen who prostitute their great talents, and become recreant to the principles of freedom and humanity ; and when Greeley has the courage to sustain the denouncement, although it is against his own party— or rather against a self- degraded man who was the Magnus Apollo of his own party — the man," you say, "whose tetter nature does not sympathize with such devotion to principle, while it reluctates against those venal ministers and presses that are silent, or become the apologists for theological or political sinners, has no better nature.^''

I have, you know, no desire to abate any thing from the homage which you pay to the moral courage of reformers. I only regret that the class of men to whom you refer should reject the faith which alone can give a right spirit and final success to their efforts. So long as they reject Christ as the model and motive, they will themselves grow more selfish, and their constant failures will make them misanthropes in the end.

So far, then, as Mr. Parker and other teachers and lecturers of his class get indorsement from 2/ow, there is ground for that blame which always attaches to those wlio hnow when they sanction the transfer of a valueless or injurious article to those who do not know.

There are many men — ^young men especially — who have paid little or no attention to the grave matters which Mr. Parker " talks about," and who no doubt suppose that his scholastic words and phrases upon theological subjects have profound truth and significance in them. You know better, and should not therefore give, even by silent acquiescence, countenance to teachings which must be an offense to your intelligence if not to your conscience.

Allow me here to note for you some passages in Mr. Parker's " Discourses of Keligion." They will sufficiently indicate the character of his theologizing, and warrant any language which may seem to you or others to be severe in the foregoing paragraphs :

1. THE " sentiment" OF GOD.

Mr. Parker says (p. 18), " The religious sentiment does not disclose the character, and much less the nature and object, on which it depends." ■

Again (p. 27), " The sentiment of God, though vague and mysterious, is always the same in itself."

2. THE "idea" of god.

On page 24 we are told that " the idea of God comes of the joint and spontaneous action of reason and the religious sentiment."

Again (p. 27), " The idea of God as a fact given in man's nature, and affording a consistent representation of its object, is permanent and alike in all."

But (p. 24) we are told that " The idea of God is perfect only when the condition^ are complied with" — ^but, in a majority of cases, " the conditions are not complied with."

3. THE " conception" OF GOD.

Page 24. "The conception of God, as man expresses it, is always imperfect."

Page 27. " The conception of God is of the most various and evanescent character, and is not the same in any two ages or men."

Page 95. " The conception which man forms of God depends on his character."

In the above passages the italics are our own, introduced to note the points which we shall notice. The sense is fairly and fully quoted. They are " uttered" mostly in the same chapter, and near the beginning of the book. Taken together, their absurdity is equaled only by other " intuitions" of like character which follow them in the same volume.

First, we are told that the mind of man has three different apprehensions of God, which are spoken of: SENTIMENT, IDEA, and conception. Now, if we suppose all these to exist at the same time, as Mr. Parker evidently does, the notion is a positive absurdity. They might exist consecutively, combined with a doubt which were right ; but that they should exist simultaneously as separate apprehensions, is contrary to the laws of mind.

If they could exist simultaneously, the one apprehension would nullify the other. One would be various and false, the other permanent and true ; while a third would be mysterious and always the same.

But if these succeed each other — which is first, and which is most influential ? Mr. Parker tells us that the conception of God is different in all men, and always imperfect. Does this " conception" obliterate the idea which is given as a fact in man's nature ? Of what benefit is a true idea if it be obliterated in all men (except a few such men as Mr. Parker) by a conception which is utterly false ? Beside, how can a sentiment — tlie same in all — and an idea wliicli is a fact given in man's nature, ever be varied or perverted by a conception wbich is different in all men ?

This SENTIMENT, IDEA, and CONCEPTION is a

sort of trinity never before thought of — not a trinity in unity, but a trinity in antagonism existing in the same mind.

If man is conscious of these three different apprehensions of God, either in connection or in succession, why does he not choose one of them ? But if the idea is a fact given in his nature, then he can not obliterate from his mind a true knowledge of God. And again, would not the " vagueness" of the sentiment be dissipated by the definiteness of the idea, or the force of the conception ?

We are told, on page 24, that the idea of God comes of the joint and spontaneous action of reason and the religious sentiment {action of a sentiment ?), but we are informed, on page 125, that this vague and Indefinite sentiment, combined with ignorance and fear, leads to superstition. And then, on page 188, et seq., man can by reason get but an imperfect knowledge from nature : yet from a vague and mysterious sentiment and imperfect data, a Being of wisdom, power, and love, is derived by tlie reason.

But strange enough, in immediate connection with this, the idea of God is said to be "a FACT given in man's nature, which affords a consistent representation of its object, PERMANENT AND ALIKE IN ALL," Thus it is at the same time an intuition, given as a fact in man's nature, permanent and alike in all, while yet it is the result of a rational process, predicated upon a vague sentiment and imperfect data.

But strange again, we are told in the same chapter that this idea, which is permanent and alike in all, " depends upon conditions which, in a majority of cases, are not complied with."

How can a fact which is the same in all, depend upon conditions ? Or, if the fact be unknown until the conditions are complied with, how can any man rationally comply with the conditions of the unknown ? Mr. Parker must solve such difficulties for his friends by intuition. They are without the limits of reason.

But the conception of God, as we have been informed, is very different from either the sentiment or the idea. " It is (p. 27) of the most various and evanescent character, and is not the same in any -two paeker's theological philosophy. 19

ages or meny This conception of God, we are told, " depends on a man's character;" that it is bad or good as a man is bad or good ; and. that it is '^always imperfecV But subsequently we hear something very different of this conception. On pp. 156-7, Mr. Parker analyzes it, and finds in the evanescent and imperfect conception, which is never the same in any two men, what he denominates the perfect character of God, He says : " At the end of the analysis what is left? — Being — Cause — Knowledge — Love — each, with no conceivable limitations. To express it in a word^ a Being of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness. Thus, by an analysis of the conception of God, we find in fact, or by implication, just what was given synthetically by the intuition of the reason."

Now, as we were taught that the character of the conception depends on the character of the man, and that it is never the same in any age or in any two men, whose conception has Mr, Parker analyzed ? And if he finds this result in one case, according to his own authority, he will certainly find a different one in every other case. And as conceptions have an objective origin, how can an analysis of a conception give an intuition as its result ?

But this is not all that Mr. Parker has to teacb his hearers on the subject of the divine nature and the divine character. Such vagaries as the follovsring occur farther on in the same volume :

Page 151. " God can not be personal and conscious as Joseph and Peter, and yet impersonal and unconscious as moss," etc.

Page 159. " God is the substantiality of matter I" Page 170. " God is the materiality of matter." Page 156. " God is universal being." This is pantheism run mad. If God is substantial, and material, and universal being, he must be developed into all specialities, such as doves and snakes, eagles and alligators, porcupines and pumpkins.

Again, page 149. " God is infinite motherliness," and " is immanent in all things."

Page 163. " The things of nature reflect his image, and make real the conceptions^ Yet the conception, we are told, is of the most various and evanescent character.

On page 377, we are told that '^ we can only know God through self;" but, strange to say, the contrary of tLis is likewise true, for on page 392 we arc informed that " there is nothing but self between us and God."

Even these are not the worst passages as specimens of Parkerism. There are otliers in wliicli transcendental verbiage becomes worse than ridiculous. As that on page 140, where it is written, " Nature, which is the outness of God, favors religion, which is the inness of man ; and so God works with us. Heathens knew it many centuries ago."

Now, we affirm that this is not true, and we postulate its antagonism thus : " Theodore Parker, who is the upness of materialism, favors diluted moonshine, which is the inness of transcendentalism ; thus mental charlatanism works with us, and men of discernment knew it years ago."

In all the attributes of nonsense, the first paragraph is more than a match for the second one. I am almost ashamed to put such rhodomontade upon paper, but I am more ashamed of my countrymen, who hear and laud it.

There are, likewise, in this book evidences of malignity toward the sacred writel's and the orthodox faith, which I am sorry to see, and which give a darker hue to its spirit than that given by conceited or erratic intellect. On page 275 Mr. Parker speaks of the Evangelists as " dull evangelists,^^ who may have thrust their own fancies into the mouth of Jesus ; and on page 277 he says Christ did not call Peter " a false liar, as he was^

Now that a man can write in this way concerning those whom Jesus called as his friends and disciples, and commissioned to be the founders of the Christian Church, and concerning one who willingly atoned for an error by penitence and martyrdom, is an indication of malignity so distinct that it is painful. It may not seem so to Mr. Parker, but it will seem so to every one who is in sympathy with the spirit and principles of Christ and his apostles. It may be said that Christ spoke of Peter as a tempter, and admonished him of his errors. But the language of admonition and rebuke serves a purpose. The language of malignity, when no good end can be subserved by it, is a different thing.

I have written these paragraphs to establish a principle. I have used Mr. Parker's name and his book, rather as the representatives of a class. If Mr. Parker would accept revelation as a guide to his reason, and the example and spirit of Christ as model and impulse in the achievement of all real good for humanity, he would be a wiser and a better man. The man who rejects these, and yet professes to teach of God and duty, is necessarily a

BLIND leader of the BLIND.

LETTER II. YARIATIONS AND INCONaRUITIES

My Deae Sir : —

How is it that sucli men as you tolerate dogmatic assertion and crude philosopliisms in such writers as Carljle, Emerson, and Parker, while on the same subject you require in others mature and accurate thought ? It is possible that in relation to some things the teachings of Christ may not be fully nor clearly apprehended, even by those who receive and obey his instruction ; thoughtfully to examine those teachings is therefore lawful and proper. If there be objections to the views of Christians, let them be distinctly and fairly stated, and upright minds will hear and weigh the reasons alleged by objectors. If men have a better system to propound, let them show it, and old errors will vanish in the light of a newly-developed truth. Let those who do not discriminate between good sense and pompous pretense stand agape in the presence of theological bravado and assertion ; but will you, and the

24 VAEIATIONS AND INCONGRUITIES.

intelligent class of men to whicli you belong, accept crude dicta from any man, on a subject of serious moment, and accept it, as I am sorry to believe, ■with little or no examination.

We do not design, in thus writing, to disparage the conceded ability of the authors to whom we have alluded. In some respects they are learned and able men ; and Mr. Parker, esj)ecially, seems to me to be sincerely engaged in some of the reform efforts of our time. But any mind — even that of Laplace or Bishop Butler — were it afloat on the sea of skeptical conjecture, without the pole-star by which reason might direct her course, would become perplexed, and would perplex others, by its erratic wanderings on a starless sea.

Notice, with me, whether there be any evidence of crude and contradictory thought in the teachings of the popular skeptic already named : —

Mr. Parker affirms that " Christianity is the absolute religion," and that Jesus taught absolute religion to men. Now, this is obviously true, and when rightly considered, it is absolute evidence, not only of the divine origin, but of the divine nature of Christianity. Christianity teaches absolute obedience to God. It reveals infinite love in Christ. Love can reach an expression no higher than is given in the crucifixion. It is in Christ stronger than death • — hence it is absolute. The Fatherhood of God — the brotherhood of men are taught in ultimate and absolute terms. Filial obedience becomes absolute when we love God with all our heart ; and righteousness is absolute when we love our neighbor as ourself. There can be nothing different — nothing better — nothing further in morals and piety than the example and teachings of Christ : hence Christianity, as expressed by the life and teachings of Jesus, is absolute and ultimate religion.

We may affirm that Christianity is absolute in another sense. It is perfectly and alone adapted to promote the highest good of men. If received and obeyed in the spirit of its Author, it combines as much of happiness and active usefulness in the life of its recipient as his constitution will permit.

Let it be allowed, then, in the accepted sense, that Jesus taught the absolute religion. In this the true Christian rejoices. This Mr. Parker afiirms ; but yet, as we shall see, he makes his own statement both nugatory and ridiculous.

Mr. Parker says, in the beginning of his book, p. 18, that " the religious sentiment does not itself disclose the character, and still less the nature and essence, of the object on which it depends."

Again, p. 27 — "The sentiment of God, tliougli vague and mysterious, is always the same in itself."

Further, on p. 226, we are told that " Christianity can be no greater than the religious sentiment, though it may be less."

The absolute religion of Mr. Parker, then, is no greater than a vague sentiment, that does not itself disclose the character of God — ■" and it may be less." Yerily, Mr. P.'s disciples are in the way of getting a queer idea of "the absolute religion" taught by Jesus.

But furthermore, there is not only one, but there are several judges to aid in deciding that " Christianity is the absolute religion." On p. 22, we are informed that " Christianity is to be judged of by the religious sentiment — by other forms of religion, and by reason." Strange enough, this — a religion to be judged by a vague sentiment that does not give the character of God ! Christianity does give the character of God. How shall it be judged by a sentiment that does not ? How shall facts be judged by a sentiment 1 But Mr. P.'s absolute religion is not only to be judged by reason, which is Tvell enough (if he means enlightened reason), but it is to be judged by other religions. We supposed the absolute was tlie judge of all else ; but Mr. P. makes all else judge the absolute.

We are told, on p. 269, of a peculiarity of the absolute religion whicli Mr. P. teacbes, and tells bis readers Jesus of Nazareth taught. He says :

" It is not a system of theological or moral doctiines, but a method of religion and life. It lays down no positive creed to he helieved in — -commands no positive action to he done. It would make man perfectly obedient to Grod, leaving his thoughts and actions for reason and conscience to govern."

We have, then, an absolute Christianity which is a method without theological or moral doctrines. What does Mr. P. intend to do with his theological doctrine of the religious sentiment? He tells us, too, at the close of his book, that he wants " real Christianity — the absolute religion — preached with faith, and applied to life." Faith in what? A doctrine is a rule of faith and practice ; but if " Christianity has neither theological or moral doctrine" in it, and requires neither faith nor practice, how can it be preached with faith? — ^how applied to life? Does not Mr. P. mean a transcendental rather than an absolute religion. We think this must be so, as the same author teaches in another volume (Ten

Sermons, p. 12), that a man may be religious and not know it.

Mr. P. tells us that liis absolute religion is a " method of life according to conscience and reason." But a man's conscience is as his faith ; and we are told that the absolute religion of Mr. Parker prescribes no creed to be believed. The method, then, must be very various ; and it can not be a method of any particular value, for our philosopher tells us, in another place (p. 104), that '' many a savage — his hands smeared all over with human sacrifices — shall come from the east and the west, and sit down in the kingdom of God, with Moses and Zoroaster, with Socrates and Jesus." The worst method in the world, then, will answer the same end as Mr. Parker's Christian method. And then Mr. Parker tells us, that method is all there is of Christianity I 0 transcendentalism !

Mr. Parker's " absolute Christianity," then, is a religion no greater, but which may be less, than a vague religious sentiment. It offers nothing to be believed. It commands nothing to be done. It is a method of life ; but any other method — even a human sacrifice — will answer the same end !

There are other definitions of " absolute Christianity," some of which are better than the foregoing.

VAEIATIONS AND INCONGEUITIES. 29

It would be wrong to pass them without notice. In one place we are told, religion is '' perfect obedience to the law of God, revealed in instinct^ reason, conscience^ and the religious sentimentj'' The Mormons have this phase of the absolute, putting instinct first, as Mr. Parker does.

There is another definition on page 226, whicb approaches the circle of sense, and if the author would admit that "faith which works bj love," his definition on this page might be accepted. He says, " Absolute religion is perfect obedience to the law of God" — "perfect love toward God and man exhibited in a life allowing and demanding a harmonious action of all man's faculties so far as thej act at all."

This, although a little blind as to its import, is a very difierent thing from the absolute religion on another page, which proposes nothing to be believed, and requires nothing to be done.

Then, on page 271, we have something just the opposite of what is said before. We are told that "Christianity differs from other religions in its emmQnXX J practical character J^ Agreed, Mr. Parker ! Eminently practical, certainlj^, if we take the life and teachings of the Christ as its exponent. Let us forget the falsehood and folly of " nothing to be believed and notliing commanded," and listen to the voice of the Master calling us to faith and duty — ■ " Go ye, therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST— teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have COMMANDED you, and lo I I am with jou always, even to the end of the world. Amen."

There, my dear sir ! How different the intent, the thought, and the spirit of this commission from the theological vagaries over which we have passed ! The doctrine of the Trinity — one name, 3^et three persons ; men to be baptized into that three persons in one name ; taught to " observe all things that Christ had commanded," with the blessed promise annexed of the spiritual presence of Jesus: "Lo! I am with you always unto the end of the world."

What is this? Christ a man like his disciples, and yet to be with them, everywhere and always, unto the end of the world !

Pausing and thoughtful — your friend as ever.

Letter III

misstatements.

My Dear Sir: —

Men wlio are sincere and interested inquirers in relation to religious truth, will not commit themselves to a guide who, by any subterfuge, exhibits part of the truth as the whole — certainly not to one who makes exaggerated and erroneous statements in relation to the facts in the case. Honest men sometimes misrepresent the opinions of others because they are not fnlly informed upon the subject of discussion ; but erroneous statements are inexcusable when they are made by those who seek to gain an end by perverting, or keeping out of sight, a correct view of the subject which they are opposing. This bad men, who are political or religious partisans, will do ; but this a man who honestly seeks to discover and establish truth will not do.