53 
Christianity, that it contains no new discovery in morals. If 
this can be established, I admit that it is fatal to its preten- 
sions as a revelation. The idea of a moral and spiritual 
revelation which contains nothing new, is self- contradictory. 
To the premises, however, I put in the strongest demurrer. 
It is also objected that it is not a perfect moral revelation. 
Relatively to man and his condition, I think that philosophy 
must admit that it is an adequate one. But even if the objec- 
tion were admitted to be true, the denial that it is a revela- 
tion at all is not a legitimate conclusion from the premiss. 
God's revelations may be no less progressive than his works, and 
be made in reference to special conditions of human progress. 
23. We must inquire what philosophy actually effected, and 
into the nature of the forces at her command. It is impossible 
to deny that between the time of Socrates and the Christian 
era no subject of philosophic thought was more earnestly 
discussed than the principles of morality and its obligations. 
They were handled with the utmost freedom of thought. 
However philosophers may have been hindered by prejudice 
from making progress in other departments of science, it had no 
influence here. There was no moral position, not even the 
most fundamental, even those lying at the very roots of human 
society, which philosophy did not call in question, and ask to 
show a rational ground for their existence. The results stand 
out conspicuous. I have already alluded to their general 
character. They were imperfect; but, as far as they went, 
are confirmatory of the moral law as enunciated by Chris- 
tianity. The progress which was made in the discovery of a 
moral power, which could be brought to bear either on the 
individual or the masses, was almost nil. Traces were dis- 
covered of the manner in which such a force must act, if it 
could be brought to light; but the force itself evaded the 
powers of research which philosophy had at her command. 
24. The limits within which the philosopher thought that 
he could exert a beneficial influence were narrow, and proclaim 
the imperfection of the instrumentality at his command. He 
required a large substratum of goodness to begin with. He 
could only act on those whose habits were comparatively un- 
formed. He desiderated more than average intellectual 
power. The moral forces at his command were much weaker 
than, with our modern habits of thought, we should have 
expected. The whole course of philosophic inquiry had opened 
a wide gulf between morality and religion. The result of the 
application of rational principles to the popular religions con- 
vinced him that they rested on no foundation of evidence. 
He might occasionally vouchsafe them a kind of patronage ; 
