1879.] *-^' [Chase. 



rights of critical investigation, is unphilosophical and suicidal. The 

 nescient or "agnostic" philosopher has the same right to approach any 

 truth whatsoever from his side, as the Christian has from his. The dis- 

 coveries of each may become greatly helpful to the other, and by joint co- 

 operation they may both, at last, attain to a broader generality of appre- 

 hension than either could have gained alone. The Christian's start, from 

 positive knowledge and justifiable assertion, has, however, an immense 

 advantage over his opponent's ignorant groping in the dark and despair of 

 satisfactory attainment. 



The dogmatism of science involves greater inconsistencies and is, there- 

 fore, more unreasonable than the dogmatism of religion. The modest 

 positivist, when he stigmatizes the popular faith as an outgrown and worth- 

 less garment, a " caput mortuum," is urged by a spirit of the same kind 

 as the bigot, when he bespeaks, for any form of truth loving research, the 

 ban of fanatical outlawry, the "odium theologicum." But the modesty 

 which doubts its own capability of attaining any higher assurance than 

 that of sense, has no excuse for theorizing, or for claiming assent to any- 

 thing which is not attested by undoubted sensible evidence. The bigoted 

 enthusiasm, on the other hand, which rests in a blind unreasoning faith 

 and believes that any contravention of its prejudices may be followed by 

 endless misery, is impelled, as if by a natural instinct, to the immediate 

 adoption of such measures as seem most likely to avert a calamity which 

 it so greatly dreads. 



Notwithstanding all the teleological consequences which are implied in 

 the admission, probably there are few, perhaps there are none, who would 

 be unwilling to grant that the forces, which man uses for accomplishing 

 his limited purposes, are the same as God uses for accomplishing His un- 

 limited purposes. The Christian philosopher finds it no less evident that 

 the knowledge and designs of the Creator, however much they may differ 

 in degree, do not differ in their essential characteristics from the knowledge 

 and designs of intelligent creatures ; he is, therefore, at a loss to under 

 stand the difficulties which many persons honestly avow, in recognizing 

 the manifold evidences of an All-wise, as well as Almighty Ruler, who is 

 always "upholding all things by the word of his power." 



May not a principal source of those difficulties be found in the hesitancy 

 of a too skeptical spirit ? Doubt is very good in its proper place and within 

 proper bounds ; obvious errors should certainly be avoided ; novel and 

 startling theories should not be accepted until they have been tested by the 

 most searching and conclusive scrutiny ; it may even be well to indulge in 

 an occasional exercise of critical acumen upon possible mistakes, which 

 may have crept into popular creeds, either through the supposed teaching 

 of a popular leader, or through some enigmatical and perhaps accidental 

 inadvertence. But the detection of a petty error is of far less consequence, 

 while it may require a much greater outlay of time and ingenuity, than the 

 grasp of an important truth. The philosopher may safely presume that 

 any belief, which has withstood, for ages, the attacks of cavilers, must 



