LIBERTY OF THOUGHT. 63 



as accepted and very important truth, and so she objects to every one 

 reading what she considers to be infidel books. 



But, again, portions of the Christian Church have opposed inquiry 

 because it made true statements which contradicted certain wrong 

 interpretations and inferences that the Church had made from Script- 

 ure, and so, in undermining the errors of theology and the Church, 

 seemed to be undermining the important truth, and, while in reality 

 doing a good service, seemed to be doing harm. For instance, inves- 

 tigation of the laws of nature has ever been supposed by many " to be 

 doing away with the being or the perfections or the providence of 

 God ; the discovery of second causes has been thought to detract from 

 the glory of the Great First Cause." The discovery that God works 

 by law, or with regularity, has been supposed to interfere with the 

 faith that he is personal, has a choice to do this or that, and inter- 

 feres among men for or against. A class of thinkers have assumed 

 that, at least in some spheres, God acts without the aid of second 

 causes, and frequently without regard to uniform laws acts irregu- 

 larly. Science has been steadily reducing the extent and the number 

 of such spheres, but in the case of every one there has been a battle 

 offered by those who believed that in that sphere God operated with- 

 out regard to law ; that there man should not look for regular laws or 

 for secondary causes, and that to do so is presumptuous if not irrever- 

 ent and impious. In this way good men and great men have shown 

 themselves opponents of real science ; have made the mistake of assum- 

 ing that their prejudices and views were in harmony with the spirit 

 and the views of the Bible, or of true religion. These men have 

 supposed that they and the Bible were at one, and have been mistaken. 

 They have undertaken contests in which they were defeated, and in 

 which it became afterward apparent to the Church at large that they 

 were mistaken. 



This opposition of portions of the Church to mental liberty is con- 

 trary to the original views and practices of the Church. And the right 

 has also been disputed by worthy men, such as Ambrose, Hilary, and 

 Martin, within the Church. The Christian religion is not accountable 

 for this false position of the Church toward freedom of thought. 



Let us now look at the mental enslavement in Western Christendom. 

 Strange to say, that great Christian Church which has played such 

 an important part here, has, as before intimated, been guilty of such 

 enslavement ; has, with all its illumination on many subjects and its 

 great power, been an opponent of freedom of thought ; has been hos- 

 tile to views of Scripture and doctrine different from the accepted 

 views of the day ; has considered all expression of divergent views as 

 exceedingly bold, if not irreverent and heretical. For centuries the 

 clergy and the monks directed the whole current of European affairs, 

 personal, family, community, or national ; scientific, literary, philoso- 

 phical, or theoretical. The clergy and monks were a body by them- 



