309 
(and not Strauss’s only) should be so popular in these days ; and we ought to 
ask ourselves how it happens that Christianity, having had possession in the 
world, having had the field greatly in its own hands for so long a time, should 
have admitted such an intellectual development as that which we notice in 
the present day. Surely there must be some grave blot among us, that such 
a thing could be possible. Is it not that we have been content to soften down 
the distinctive philosophy of our religion, and accept a very vague and thin 
theism, instead of the doctrines of Christian theology ; and that that has led 
men to stray into those indistinct shallows, where the faith of many young and 
untaught persons will unfortunately be lost ? The fault is clearly our own ; 
and it can only be removed by our endeavouring, hereafter, not to be so much 
afraid of deep inquiries* as some people are. Even the conception of a per- 
sonal God— the idea of Him in whom we live, and move, and have our being 
— has been so vaguely contemplated among us for several generations, and 
especially in our own time, that I can scarcely wonder that things have come 
to this pass. For the whole of the work of the Christian Church for the first 
500 years was intended to clear in the mind of Christians the truth of the Trinity 
and, in some degree, even the ontology of that awful Being with whom we have 
to do. The true doctrine of the Godhead, as the very fountain and object of our 
worship, was proclaimed, as far as human language and thought will admit 
definition. But after Athanasius lived, and his great work was done, there 
was an intellectual pause ; and as we, in our days, have fallen back on 
anthropology, and have rather dimmed our theology, we must take the 
consequences. Some of these consequences are to be seen in the writings 
of Strauss and his followers. If we look back, and contemplate the time 
when this creation was hot, we come at once to the greatest difficulty of all 
theology, the fact that He, who had not created us, began to create. W e have 
to conceive, as St. Athanasius pointed out, how it was possible for the infinite 
God to begin that form of action for the first time, which we call creation, 
without any change in Himself ; for we hold Him to be unchangeable. M e 
cannot struggle through this problem without » thoughtful ontology ; and that 
at the present day is despised as too dogmatic. But people must come 
back to dogma, and to the conclusions of the Christian schools,— if they do 
not wish to end with such men as Strauss and Mill. 
The Rev. Hr. Currey. — I do not feel equal to entering upon a discussion of 
a paper that contains so much matter for thought as this one, for which we are 
deeply indebted to Mr. Row. I merely rise to call attention to an occurence 
which took place in Germany some thirty-three years ago, which shows 
how the natural instincts of men speak in favour of the existence of a God. 
The account is to be found in Hundeshagen’s Deutsche Protestantismus, who 
quotes from a report, given by an unbeliever, of a meeting which was held by 
* Lord Bacon has remarked that “ a smattering of philosophy leads to 
atheism ; whereas a thorough acquaintance with it, brings him back again 
to religion.” — Ed. 
