It has been shown that the Augustinian dogma of a depraved nature is the
foundation of all the large sectarian organizations in this country, and
of the contentions, evil passions and waste of property resulting from
such divisions among Christians.
It has been shown that the leading theologians have ceased to defend this
dogma, that the pastors of churches are practically evading it, that the
educators of the young are throwing it aside, and that the people in all
directions are rejecting it.
This process of eliminating the Augustinian system from the system of
common sense and the Bible, with which, for ages, it has been entwined,
thus far has gone on as the result chiefly of the development of the
intellectual and moral nature of all classes, but especially of the
_common people_. A period has now arrived in which the question has become
so far an intelligible and a _practical_ one, that the two great
principles of society indicated by the words _conservatism_ and _progress_
are arranging and accumulating antagonistic forces for an open and decided
manifestation on this great question. What will be the precise nature of
this manifestation no human mind can predict. But the distinctive
principles of the two parties furnish some data for anticipating some
future results, as they may occur in the several classes referred to in
preceding chapters under the following heads:
What Theologians will do?
In attempting to indicate the probable future course of theologians, it is
important to notice the relative positions of persons trained to sustain a
_system_ of doctrines, and of those who seek for truth and duty without
any such commitment.
Most theologians grow up from infancy under a system of doctrines
inculcated both from the pulpit and in the family. This enlists all the
strong and inveterate influences of early education in its favor. Next,
the collegiate pulpit instructions and associations all favor the same
system. Next, the theological school brings the young under the direct
training of the most acute minds, whose express business it is to teach
all methods of supporting and defending that _system_. Here the young
minister is taught how to construct his sermons so as most effectually to
bring the popular mind under its control, and so as to most effectively
oppose all antagonistic sects and teachings.
Finally, the office of a clergyman involves such ecclesiastical relations
as subjects a man to constant espionage, and to ecclesiastical discipline
and ejection if he adopts any views that would essentially modify the
_system_ in which he is trained.
If, therefore, any theologian or pastor finds himself doubting as to any
doctrine, he perceives that it is so interlocked with the _system_ of
which it is a part that he is at once brought face to face with the
question, Shall I give up _the whole system_ in which I was educated, all
the lectures and sermons framed on that system, all my ecclesiastical
connections, my professional character and my salary?
It is as if a man should find himself in some emergency upholding by a
single timber a portion of a building which so interlocks with every other
portion that he can not let it go without throwing down the only house
that can shelter himself and all he holds dear. In such a case a man must
come to a decision as to whether the piece of timber _ought_ to be
removed, and _when_ and _how_ it should be done, with an anxiety,
deliberation and forecast that would be inappropriate to a man who finds
only a disconnected stick of timber in his way. This illustrates the
relative position and difficulties of theologians in contrast with those
which impede the common people in the search after truth and duty.
In this view of the case it would be unreasonable to expect that
theologians _as a class_, though among the wisest and best of men, are to
be leaders in any great or sudden change in religious opinions. On the
contrary, it is to be anticipated that they will be the most earnest,
energetic, and at the same time honest, defenders of time‐honored
religious dogmas, which it is their professional business to uphold. Nor
is it any implication of their talents, learning, honesty or piety to
suppose that they will be among the last to perceive the fallacies and
evils involved in whatever _system_ they defend.
Yet there are considerations which indicate that the experience of the
past is not to be the exact image of the future. The progress of mind is
as distinctly marked among theologians as it is among any class of
society, and this being toward the system of common sense, involves the
waning of the dogmatic spirit of infallibility and the increase of that
humble and teachable spirit, which is alike the mark of true philosophy
and of Christianity.
In the infantile development of our race mere physical prowess was deemed
the chief virtue and was the grand aim of all manly culture.
In the next higher stage of development _intellectual power_ became the
object of highest veneration and assiduous cultivation.
The advent of a still higher stage of development is now dawning, which is
best illustrated by the docile spirit of a little child, which feels
exalted by taking a low place, which understands that true dignity and
magnanimity consists, not in assumed infallibility, but in a modest and
humble acknowledgment of ignorance, of mistakes, and of the need of
knowledge and guidance, not only from God but from men.
It is believed that it is not too much to expect that this stage of high
development is to be found even among that class most unfavorably placed
for the attainment of it.
Should this be the case, there will soon be the _conservative_ and the
_progressive_ parties among theologians; the one holding on to both of the
contradictory systems, and maintaining their infallibility; the other,
openly cutting loose from all that conflicts with their common sense and
moral sense, will manfully and honestly confess their fallibility and past
mistakes.
Between these two parties will be a third class, who either from policy or
from timidity, or from inability to form decided opinions, will maintain
entire silence as to any thing involving entire commitment to either
party.
What the Pastors will do?
The pastors of the people are that class in which the division of
_conservatism_ and _progress_ must most immediately and most distinctly
appear. And the reason is, that the question to them is a _practical_ one,
more so than it can be to any other class of men.
It is their business and calling to teach men what they must do to be
saved, and every week they must appear before the public to give their
opinions on this very question.
In this situation, the conservative class will include all who have taken
the opinions of their theological teachers as an act of memory, with very
little original thought or investigation. These, being helpless as to any
ability to investigate or to reason independently, will continue to preach
and teach in the same round as was given them in their course of
theological study. Such will be alarmed and distressed at the changes in
opinion all around them, and will mourn over them as departures from the
good old paths of truth and safely. Such will be sustained chiefly by the
old and conservative portion of their parishes, while the most active
minds, both young and old, will become more and more restless and
dissatisfied, or forsake entirely such ministrations.
In the progressive class of pastors, there will be a marked division. The
first will include those who have clear and decided perceptions of truth
and duty, and at the same time a full conviction that outspoken frankness
and honesty is not only a duty, but the best policy.
Thus, when they find their minds perplexed and doubtful as to the system
in which they have been trained, they will, if called to speak, frankly
say so. If they advance to a new position, and yet are not clear in regard
to certain connected topics, they will say so. If they are clear that the
system of Augustine is false, root and branch, they will say so, and carry
out all the results involved in this position. In short, they will go
forward in a perfect faith in truth, honesty and freedom of speech.
Nor will they consult “expediency,” except as to the _time_ and the
_manner_ of making known their change of opinion.
The other portion will adopt the policy which assumes that peace and quiet
in holding error is more important than truth which involves trouble and
contention. Such will conceal their real opinions under forms of
expression that will deceive the conservative portion of their people, by
making the impression that they hold to old creeds and formularies, in the
sense in which they formerly did, when they do not. They will use the
stereotyped forms of orthodoxy, knowing that those of their people who are
alarmed at supposed changes, will be quieted by impressions which are
false. And they will do this, believing it to be Christian expediency,
although it is a course exactly opposite to that pursued by Christ and his
disciples.
What the Church will do?
In regard to church organizations, it has been shown that there are two
diverse principles on which these organizations may be perpetuated. The
first is the Augustinian, in which the principle of union is a supposed
change of the nature transmitted from Adam, enabling a man to perform
truly virtuous acts, as none ever do who are not thus re‐created. The
second is that of common sense, in which the principle of union is the
acknowledgment of Jesus Christ as Lord and Master, and the purpose to obey
him in all things; or, in the words of the Episcopal formula, “a church is
a _congregation_ of faithful men, in which the pure word is preached and
the sacraments duly administered according to Christ’s ordinances.” This
definition, in order to represent the common‐sense view, assumes that
“faithful men” are persons who believe in Christ’s authority, as the Lord
of all, and who purpose to obey him.
It has been also shown, in a previous chapter, that the church
organizations based on the Augustinian theory, are gradually modifying
their practice so as more and more to recognize the common‐sense
principle.
It is believed that this process of quiet change is to be greatly
accelerated by _discussion_. The people are not aware that the mode of
church organization and discipline now most prevalent is an _innovation_,
which has existed less than two centuries, and chiefly in this country,
and that there can be found no authority for it, either in the Bible or
church history. The word “church,” as used in the New Testament, in the
original Greek means _congregation_, and includes all who unite in one
assembly to worship.
No case can be found in the Bible of any such organization as corresponds
with that which is now called by the name of “church,” as distinct from
the “congregation.”
These being facts, the whole matter of church organization and discipline
is soon to become a matter of general discussion, the result of which, of
course, can not be predicted in any details. But it is certain that the
more discussion there is, the more the common‐sense system will become
dominant. And it is certain that the portion of the people connected with
churches will more and more demand discussion. They will assume that their
pastors are not to be their authoritative, dogmatic teachers; but their
leaders in worship and ordinances; their presiding officers in
discussions, and the administers of much of that kind of knowledge needed
by the people, to enable them to act independently in interpreting the
Bible for themselves.
What Women will do?
The great principle of Protestantism, in distinction from Catholicism, is,
that every person is to be an independent interpreter of the Bible,
responsible to no man or body of men; and that every person is to
_protest_ against all that conflicts with this right.
This principle carried out consistently, makes theologians and pastors a
class sustained by the people, not as dogmatic teachers of their own
opinions, but as persons set apart for the purpose of gaining and of
communicating to the people all the knowledge needful to fit them to use
their rights as _authorized interpreters of the Bible_.
But though all Protestants hold this principle theoretically, by far the
larger portion have never practically adopted it, but, as a matter of
fact, go to theologians and pastors for their _opinions_, and not for the
_knowledge_ on which opinions are to rest. Thus it is that ecclesiastics
control the faith of a large portion of the Protestant churches, as
authoritatively as do the pope and priests control that of the Catholic
church.
We have seen, in the case of Isabella of Spain, one of the most
benevolent, conscientious and lovely of women led on to the most unjust
and cruel deeds, simply from practically adopting the principle, that her
religious teachers must be authoritative guides of her opinions, and that
her own common sense and moral sense must bow to ecclesiastical dictation.
The present time is one in which the women of this country must decide in
regard to this same principle and on practical questions of the deepest
moment.
It has been shown, that with small exceptions, the Catholic and Protestant
theologians and clergy unite in teaching a depravity of _nature_ in every
human being, involving these questions:
Are we so depraved as to be incapacitated to interpret the Bible, and made
dependent on ecclesiastical and regenerated persons to interpret for us?
Does the _invisible true church_ consist only of those whose _nature_ has
been re‐created, or of those who, without any newly‐created nature, truly
desire and purpose to use all their natural powers according to the
teachings of Christ?
Does a “_visible church of Christ_” consist of persons possessing a newly‐
created nature, by which alone any truly virtuous acts can be performed,
or does it consist of persons who unite to sustain the public worship,
ordinances and teachings of Jesus Christ?
Are children to be trained to believe that all their feelings and actions
are “sin and only sin,” till they receive a new nature from God, or be
taught that whenever they choose what is _right_, with the _intention_ to
do right, they act virtuously and please God?
Are children to be allowed to come to the table of their Lord and Saviour
as soon as they can understand the nature of the ordinance, and wish and
intend to obey Jesus Christ in all things, or are they to be excluded
until church officers decide whether the signs of a _new nature_ are to be
found?
Are women and children to be excluded from the Lord’s table because they
interpret the Bible diversely from the church with which they worship?
These are the practical questions involved in the doctrine of the depraved
nature of man, as taught by the clergy of the great Christian sects.
It has been stated that many intelligent and pious women in various parts
of our country have already quietly assumed their rights as authorized
interpreters of the Bible on all these questions, have cast off the
Augustinian theory, and thus, in fret, have set themselves in opposition
to the clergy, except so far as the clergy themselves have come to the
same results. The writer, in this work, has done little more than has also
been done by many pious and intelligent mothers and teachers, except to
define, methodize and publicly express opinions which other women have
_practically_ adopted in training children, as the result of their own
experience, common sense and study of the Bible.
Some of the leading organs of the High Church party in the Episcopal
church, and thus the most strenuous defenders of ecclesiastical
infallibility and authority, in noticing the writer’s volume, _Common
Sense Applied to Religion_, previously referred to, ask with _naive_
simplicity, what right has a woman to apply common sense to religion, or
to have any opinions except as she is taught them by the church, at the
same time sneering at the idea, that “the dear people” are competent to
understand and interpret the Bible for themselves.
This shows that the issue is now fairly presented and understood. The
ecclesiastical party, more or less, openly claim that the only authorized
interpreters of the Bible are the ordained priesthood, or the regenerated
church. On the other hand, the people, and women, as that half of the
people to whom the training of the human mind is especially committed,
maintain that they are ordained to this office by a Higher Power and by
the imposition of a nobler hand than any who boast an uninterrupted
apostolical succession.
Moreover, it is claimed that every well‐educated, pious woman of good
common sense, who has trained young children, is _better_ qualified to
interpret the Bible correctly, on all points pertaining to such practical
duties, than most theologians possibly can be. And the reasons are, that
she is free from those biasing difficulties which have been pointed out as
embarrassing theologians, while all her employments and all her culture
eminently tend to aid rather than to embarrass her judgment on such
subjects.
Add, also, that the Bible was written for common people, and not for
metaphysicians, and in the language of common life, and not in theological
terms, and that if it teaches the system of common sense, it is better
fitted to the apprehension of those whose training has been practical
rather than scholastic.
Finally, the promises of aid from the Author of the Bible, is to the meek
and lowly of heart. “_The meek_ will he guide in judgment; _the meek_ will
he teach his way.” That the position of those accustomed to rule and teach
is as favorable to the cultivation of a meek, humble and teachable spirit
as that of those trained to learn and to obey, few will maintain.
These facts being so, it is believed that ere long the greater portion of
the most intelligent and conscientious women in this country, will
gradually and quietly take this course. They will perceive that they are
bound, not only to assume and exercise the distinctive rights of
Protestantism, as authorized interpreters of the Bible, but to _protest_,
by word and deed, against all that opposes the exercise of these rights.
In accordance with this, they will respectfully and privately express to
their pastor and fellow‐Christians their _protest_ against the Augustinian
system, as involving a dreadful slander on their Lord and Saviour, vailing
in mystery and gloom his lovely character, which is the light and life of
the soul; they will protest against every creed or confession or church
ordinance that is based on this system, as an indorsement of this fatal
slander; they will protest against being regarded as members of a church
in any other sense than as persons united with a _congregation_ to sustain
the worship and ordinances instituted by Christ, and to aid each other in
obeying his word; they will make it clear to all concerned, that they do
not claim to possess any other _nature_ than that received from God at
birth, nor to be regenerated in any other sense than that they now desire
and sincerely purpose to obey Christ in all things.
They will, moreover, protest against the exclusion of themselves or their
children from the Lord’s table, for interpreting the Bible diversely from
the church with which they worship, and against the interference of church
officers to examine them or their children in order to ascertain their
mode of interpreting the Bible or the any other signs of regeneration,
than the expressed desire to unite with the congregation in the worship
and ordinances appointed by Christ.
Should such a course as this result in exclusion from the Lord’s table,
those thus protesting can depart peaceably to some church which could
conscientiously receive them on such terms. And if no such church is to be
found, they can quietly relinquish the privilege, until such time as it
can be enjoyed without a sacrifice of principle and religious liberty.
If those thus protesting act consistently, they will accord to the church
excluding them the same liberty to interpret the Bible, in regard to duty
on this subject, as they claim for themselves. The church in cutting them
off may feel as conscientiously bound to the course they adopt, according
to their way of understanding the Bible, as those do who protest and
withdraw. And if the true spirit of Christ, the spirit of humility,
meekness and love prevails, such disruptions will occur without
contentions or ill feelings on either side.
But in churches embracing many who possess very little of this spirit and
cherishing the claim of infallibility,—first in deciding which is the true
church and next in maintaining its dogmas,—there would result a mode of
dealing with such _Protestants_ very similar to that of former ages. This
would lead to agitation and discussion. But even on this trying
alternative more good than evil might be hoped, especially if those who
protest and withdraw, maintain the meek, peaceable and quiet spirit
required and exhibited by their Master.
What Young America will do?
The higher the development of humanity, the more the capacities for
enjoyment and suffering are increased, and the more civilization
multiplies the means and modes of gratifying increasing desires, the
stronger becomes the deep‐felt anxiety in regard to the invisible future.
Are all these capacities, so infinite in their tendencies, to expand for
ever, only to be wrenched and crossed and baffled as they are in this
life? What are our dangers? What are we to do to escape them? This is more
and more the agonizing demand of humanity.
It has been shown that a system of doctrine has been forced upon
Christendom which has shrouded this great question in mysterious gloom. It
has been shown also that the great _organizations_ of the religious world
are so vitally based on this system that its renunciation involves their
certain dissolution. And though the advance of humanity has, more or less,
modified the opinions and practice of the individuals embraced in such
organizations, still the _principle_ remains unchanged. Consequently any
formal, open attack on this principle involves the combined antagonism of
all the most powerful religious organizations of society.
_Free_ discussion is not to be expected in our theological schools, where
the young men know that they can not be recommended for license if they
fail to adopt the creed of their sect. Nor can it be found in our
colleges, most of which depend for patronage on, or are pledged to the
interests of a sect. Nor can it be expected in our pulpits, where the
minister teaches and the people have no chance of rejoinder or
disputation. Nor can it be expected of the religious press, which is also
bound to sustain sectarian interests. What power is there then which can
contend against such portentous combinations, sustained not only by the
prestige of ages and all the innate forces of long‐drilled organizations,
but by the honest and conscientious convictions of the great majorities
thus enrolled?
It is _the power of truth evolved by free discussion_, and mainly as it is
and will be administered in the hands of _Young America_ and _the secular
press_.
The young men of the nation have the control of their literary societies
in our colleges and seminaries, and of the popular lyceums and other
associations, where every member has a vote in deciding what shall be
discussed; and here the battle will be fought for religious liberty and
the Bible.
In this conflict there will appear two distinct classes. The first will be
those of shallow capacity and acquirements, who, perceiving themselves to
be in the party of reason and common sense, will imagine that they have
acquired this position, not by the progress of the age, brought about to a
great extent by the discussions, the labors and sufferings of wise and
good men, many of them distinguished as metaphysicians and theologians,
but that it is all owing to their own remarkable genius and independent
thought. Thus they will become “heady, high‐minded,” rash and
contemptuous. Of these, some will be borne away to utter skepticism,
immorality and final ruin. Others, unable to reason correctly, and
bewildered by the conflict, will swing around to the opposite extreme, and
enter a church where they can rest their faith on a priesthood claiming to
be heaven‐inspired, which shall decide all questions of faith and practice
for them.
But the nobler portion of Young America will understand truly their great
mission, and, taught by the mistakes and darkness of the past, with a
modest and humble sense of their own inability to go forward without help,
both from God and their fellow‐men, will seek for truth, duty and
happiness in the appropriate path of _calm_, _honest_, _fair_ and _free
discussion_. And their generous hearts and strong arms will be shield and
buckler even to the feeblest who may enter the lists.
What the Religious Press will do?
This question is the most perplexing of all, at least to those who have
attentively marked the recent developments in the religious world.
What is there that more clearly defies at once the moral sense, the common
sense and the teachings of the Bible, than the system of slavery as it now
exists in this country, and yet a majority of not only editors, but of the
ministers of Christ, in some of our most intelligent and large
denominations, openly refuse freedom of discourse on this subject; nay,
more, some of the religious papers are openly justifying the slave trade,
which politicians, even those without any pretensions to religious
principle, have placed as piracy, the highest civil crime.
And the last year has witnessed the deliberate crushing of free debate on
this subject, in one of our largest and most effective benevolent
associations. And some of those whose whole lives have exhibited them
among the most amiable, conscientious and exemplary men, are to be found
upholding such a course.
Who then can predict what will be the course of the religious press, when
every editor must maintain the distinctive tenets of a sect, or at once
lose his professional character and his income?
It is very easy to predict what will be the course of those who will make
no sacrifice for truth. A large portion will neither read, or think or
discuss, or, so far as they have power to prevent, allow others to do so.
Some will take this course in the satisfied belief that they, and the
church which they have infallibly decided to be infallible, can never err.
Others will avoid all discussion for fear of being convinced of mistakes,
obliging them, if acknowledged, to sacrifices of pride, character and
income.
Others will make some show of discussion, so far as to use the disgraceful
arts sometimes resorted to, in order to satisfy and blind ignorant and
unreflecting readers. Unfair and garbled quotations, misstatement of
facts, depreciating implications of character and motives, invidious
allusions to family or party connections, the use of unpopular terms,
which humbler minds have been trained to regard as designating the most
dangerous and destructive heresies, these, and many other discreditable
methods, will probably be employed to stave off discussion, or to nullify
its power.
But there is a class of minds who have access to the religious press, and
can more or less control its action, who are far above such humiliating
littleness and dishonesty. In regard to these, such are the influence of
education and long‐trained habits of thought, that an entire change of a
_whole system_ must be a gradual process. And when sermons, lectures,
books and pulpit ministries have all been in accordance with one system,
they can not be modified to meet another without many practical
difficulties. Nor can men, whose professional associations with
ecclesiastical bodies and with parishes impede them, settle many practical
questions involved in any change of views, without demanding _time_ for
reflection, examination and consultation.
In this position of affairs in the religious world, a measure of
retention, and even of protracted silence, in many cases, may be wise and
justifiable. And charges of compromise, or of cowardice, or of
intellectual deficiency, in such cases, would be false, ungenerous and
unjust. All this should be taken into account in judging of the future
action of those who control the religious periodicals and literature.
What the Secular Press will do?
The answer to this question is much more clear than the preceding one,
inasmuch as the secular press, to a great extent, is free from the
embarrassments that restrain the religious press.
It has become so manifest that the great body of the people are determined
to enjoy perfect liberty of conscience, and to defend the right of free
discussion in religion and morals, as well as in politics, that it is
clearly for the interests of editors, not committed to sectarianism, to
uphold these rights.
The distinguished popularity and success of that Daily which now boasts
the largest circulation in the nation, is a most significant fact. Its
career began long before the religious world had its distinctive tenets
rudely assailed by any but ecclesiastical hands, and long before the
secular press ventured to bring its common‐sense maxims to bear on
religious topics.
Single‐handed, it fearlessly opened its columns to discussions on
Fourierism, women’s rights, intemperance, slavery, religious doctrines,
and all other matters that concerned the public weal, giving every party a
fair chance to speak for itself. The religious world took the lead in the
outcry and alarm against this course. But _the people_, and even a large
proportion of the _religious people_, sustained this attempt at fair and
free discussion, so honestly and fearlessly pursued, until the battle was
fairly won. And now it is probable that the larger proportion of the most
candid and intelligent editors of the secular press perceive that their
pecuniary interests, in regard to free religious discussion, are in the
same direction as their reason and conscience.
This being so, it is probable that the most powerful, fair and effective
discussions of the grand question of life hereafter, will be found more in
the secular than in the religious press, at least for a considerable
period of time.
Should this be so, there would probably be an improvement in _modes_ of
discussion in several respects.
Among these may be anticipated an advance in a spirit of Christian
humility, charity and of gentlemanly courtesy in dealing with the
character and motives of those whose opinions, either in religion or
morals, are discussed. The true spirit of Christian charity demands that
we endeavor to present the best rather than the _worst_ construction of
our opponent’s character, motives and arguments.
A true humility implies such a self‐distrust, and such a sense of our need
of aid in discovering truth, not only from God but from our fellow‐men, as
will be indicated in a modest and unimpassioned exhibition of opinions and
arguments, and a courteous reception of all criticisms and counter
arguments. With this spirit the weakness or mistakes, or sophistries of an
opponent would be exhibited more in sorrow than in triumph or scorn.
A true gentlemanly courtesy would enforce the same rules of delicacy and
good breeding in public encounters as are regarded by well‐bred persons in
the drawing room. This would necessarily banish all allusion to personal
or family failings, and all invidious or disrespectful modes of address or
language.
No one who is familiar with the controversies on doctrine and morals, as
conducted in the religious papers, can doubt that there is room for
improvement in all these particulars.
Such improvement is to be anticipated, not on account of any mental or
moral superiority of the conductors of the secular press, but rather from
the fact that they are free from many of the embarrassments and exciting
influences already pointed out as surrounding those who conduct the
religious periodicals.
Another improvement to be anticipated is the withdrawal of the great
questions in debate from the mists of metaphysical and theological
technics to the clear, popular language of common life.
In the preceding pages it is shown that the most important questions of
religious truth and duty can be discussed in the language of common life,
so as to be made intelligible to all persons of ordinary education, who
are sufficiently interested to give their attention to matters which
demand intellectual exertion. Men will find that they must “_labor_ to
enter into the strait gate,” intellectually as well as morally, and that
they are to “_work_ out their own salvation with fear and trembling,”
while thus they will learn to understand the nature of the encouraging
assurance that “it is God that worketh in us _to will and to do_ of his
own good pleasure.”
When, therefore, the secular press and the popular lyceum take up these
great questions they will insist that the discussions shall be carried on
in popular language, so that the labor demanded shall not be increased by
the unknown tongue of theological and metaphysical science.
Again, there will be an improvement in the mode of conducting such
discussions, by the banishment of all adventitious topics and the firm
grasping of the one great fundamental point in debate. It will be insisted
that the question is not at all whether Arminians or Universalists, or
Unitarians hold this or that opinion, nor whether advocating such and such
views would injure the cause of this or that institution, or sect or
individual; nor whether this or that person has certain faults, or is a
proper advocate of some innovations; nor whether undesirable results would
follow from expressing certain views, but simply _what is the truth_, so
far as it can be discovered by honest statements and fair discussion.
The grand question in debate is not whether men are _depraved_ in
_character and action_ as they appear in the history of the world. All
parties agree in the _fact_ of such dreadful depravity. The question is in
regard to the _philosophy_ of this fact, that is to say, What is the
_cause_ or reason of this depravity?
Here it will be found that two classes exist in all the great Protestant
sects, viz.:
Those who hold that the cause is a depraved _nature_, [signifying what men
mean when in common life they use the terms, _nature_, _organization_,
_construction_ or _constitution_,] and those who deny that any such
depraved nature exists. These two opposite opinions, ever since the third
century, have been expressed by the terms, _Augustinian_ and _Pelagian_.
The case is now so fairly and clearly before _the people_, that every
theologian who has capacity and training sufficient to understand an
argument must knowingly do one of these things:
1. Deny depravity of _nature_ and allow that he is a Pelagian; or
2. Affirm such depravity, take rank as an Augustinian and then meet the
argument which, on this assumption, destroys all evidence of the
benevolence of God, and renders a _reliable_ revelation from him
impossible.
3. Withdraw from all discussion either by entire silence, or by hiding in
the fogs of metaphysical and theological technics, or by the disgraceful
arts of debate practiced to alarm and delude the ignorant.
Heretofore the editors of secular papers have practically conceded that
the religious disputes and conflicts that agitated the churches were
matters out of their province and to be turned over to the clergy and
religious editors. And inasmuch as most of these contentions have related
to matters of rites and forms, or to abstract doctrinal points having
little _practical_ bearings on the daily life, such abstinence seemed
appropriate. But the progress of the age has at last fairly brought the
organized church front to front with the unregenerate world on the
greatest of all _practical_ questions‐a question with which every editor
of every secular paper has as deep a personal and family interest as has
any religious editor, or any doctor of theology, or any parochial pastor.
Is it _a fact_, or is it not, that every man at birth is so depraved in
_nature_ that every one of his moral acts is _sin_, _and sin only_, until
a change in this _nature_ is wrought by the creative power of God, and
must all young children be educated on this assumption?
The training of the family, our institutions of education, the church
organizations of the great religious sects, all depend on this question.
The answer to it must be _yes_ or _no_, for no third supposition is
possible. Every _intelligent_ man then must speak out in the affirmative,
or in the negative, or else hide in silence or in the mists of deceit.
In this view of the case, it is believed that the educated class of
powerful and cultivated minds, who are, by their position and talents, the
leaders of the secular press, will not turn this matter over to their
theological contributors, but will take the case into their own hands, and
fearlessly and earnestly meet their high responsibilities.
Thus they may prove not only the most effective leaders in the
intellectual and moral advance of humanity, but the protectors of many
suffering, struggling minds, who unaided would sink in the conflict before
them.
In this exhibition of the position of the religious world, the attitude of
this work is very remarkable. It is in open and direct antagonism with
_all_ the religious _organizations_ of the Christian world, and that too
in regard to the very fundamentals on which each of these organizations
depends for its existence. All the Augustinian sects are against the
position of this work, that the mind of man is _perfect in nature_, and
should they adopt the Pelagian ground _consistently_, every one of them
would either come to an end, or change the very basis of its organization.
The only sect that openly and consistently avows the Pelagian view, is the
Unitarian; but this organization is founded on the distinctive tenet of
such a unity in God as forbids the idea of a plurality of eternal, self‐
existent Persons, having the highest attributes of God. This is contrary
to the system of common sense, as exhibited in this work, page 100. The
Universalist organization is based on the doctrine that none of the human
race will continue sinful for ever, and thus insure the natural
consequences of sin. This also is shown to be contrary to the system of
common sense, as presented in this work, page 177.
The great body of persons, as yet unorganized, who agree in resisting the
claims of the Bible as containing reliable revelations from the Creator,
and thus _authoritative_ rules of faith and practice, will be arrayed
against such claims maintained in this work, as one of the inevitable
results of the application of the principles of common sense.
Consequently, the whole religious organizations of the world, who rest
their faith on the Bible, are antagonistic to this work, while those who
repudiate the authority of the Bible are equally so.
Still more remarkable is the fact exhibited in this volume, that the
writer, in a family circle embracing so many theologians and pastors,
appears before the public as antagonistic to most, and supported openly by
not one of them.
What then is the foundation of that confiding and cheerful equanimity with
which all this imposing array of organizations and individual talents,
learning and influence is regarded? It is, first, confidence in truth and
the God of truth, and next, the intimate knowledge gained by the writer,
of the _characters_ and the _mental experiences_ of some of the most
powerful minds that are leaders of this host, and at the same time a
similar knowledge of some of the noblest minds, who are most effectively
influencing that great portion of the popular mind which is not embraced
in these organizations. Whatever may be the opinions of these powerful
classes, who may in form and position appear antagonistic, they will never
be leaders in any attempt to crush perfect freedom of thought and
expression, or to restrain that free and earnest discussion which is
impending.
Nay more, if the distinctive feature of a follower of Christ is to be
humble and teachable in spirit, “meek and lowly of heart,” and if that
highest form of human development is dawning, when moral magnanimity shall
take precedence of intellectual power in human estimation, then the world
will soon behold what as yet has been deemed impossible, great and learned
men, even doctors in theology, nay more, even men that have written books,
resigning the claim of infallibility, and confessing that they have made
mistakes.
The hope of this, moreover, is sustained by the character and position of
some, who not only stand high in the theological world, but are among the
most revered and beloved in that family circle, where the golden chain of
perfect love has never for a moment been sundered by the widest
diversities of opinion or the freest discussion of differences. What has
transpired in one Christian family, it is believed, may be but the emblem
of what is yet to prevail among the true children of Him, “of whom the
whole family in heaven and on earth is named.”(22)
NOTE.
The work often referred to in the preceding pages, was written, at
first, on a more limited plan than now appears. After a portion
was printed, it was perceived that the discussion contained in
this volume was indispensable, and the title at first designed for
the _whole_ work, became inappropriate to the first portion when
issued alone. In making a change, the result has been, that the
work has sometimes been advertised by its first name, the BIBLE
AND THE PEOPLE, and sometimes by its second name, COMMON SENSE
APPLIED TO RELIGION, and sometimes by both together.
Hereafter, the title of the first volume will be COMMON SENSE
APPLIED TO RELIGION. This volume is the second portion. The final
portion, not yet published, will be entitled THE BIBLE INTERPRETED
BY COMMON SENSE.
NOTES.
Note A.
The new school divines agree with the old school in teaching that previous
to regeneration every moral act is _sin and only sin_, and that God has
made no promises to unregenerate doings, which would obligate him to re‐
create the soul, in return for such performances.
On the contrary, they urge man himself to change his own heart, as that
which is possible without any aid from God. And the interference of God to
regenerate is represented by them as an act of sovereign, elective mercy,
unbought by any labor or striving on the part of man.
Still, they encourage the use of the means of grace as the way in which
God ordinarily meets the sinner, in bestowing this gift. They urge that
_experience_ proves, that though regeneration is not _promised_ to the use
of the means of grace, it is more frequently bestowed on those who use
them than on those who neglect them.
Note B.
There are three points on the subject of the future state, which need to
be discussed separately.
The first is, will there be an eventual separation of the human race, at
some final consummation, so that from that point, through all eternity,
there will be two separate communities, the good being perfect in
character and happiness, and the bad reaping the natural results of their
evil tempers and conduct _for ever_?
The second is, does our conduct in this life have an influence in deciding
our _degrees_ of happiness or misery in a future state, so that we reap
the natural good or evil consequences of all we do here _for ever_?
The third is entirely independent of the other two, and is this: Is the
_eternal_ condition of _every_ human being fixed _at the hour of death_;
or is there with _some_ a continued process of culture and discipline, and
of upward and downward progress in a future state, extending to the day of
final separation and consummation?
That _some_ may become so good in this life as to insure an eternal upward
progress, and that _some_ may become so bad as to insure a perpetual
downward progress, may be true, and yet, to others new opportunities may
be given.
It is by _revelations from the Creator_ alone that these points can be
effectually settled. It is shown in chapter 27, that every system of
religion or morals must be decided by these questions. Therefore, these
questions, and the authority of the Bible on these points, must become the
subject of renewed and earnest discussion.
Note C.
The doctrine of the Atonement can be regarded simply as a fact without any
reference to the philosophy of it, _i.e._, the mode or _cause_ of this
fact. _Jesus Christ came into this world to save men from sin and its
inevitable penalties, by his teachings, sufferings and death._ This fact
may be received without any attempt to explain the _why_ or the _how_ it
came to pass, or how it is made efficacious, which are the _philosophy_ of
this fact.
In regard to this philosophy, various theories have been incorporated into
creeds and theological systems.
The most common theory at the present time, in this country, is, that the
sufferings and the death of Christ avail to sustain the justice and the
laws of God as effectually as would the infliction of eternal misery on
all who are regenerated. That is to say, if by repentance and reformation,
without an atonement, men should escape all the penalties for past sin,
the result would be that God’s justice would be impeached and his laws be
nullified, just as human lawgivers become unjust and their laws are made
void when all penalties are remitted. This difficulty, it is supposed, on
the common theory, was met by the sufferings and the death of Jesus
Christ, as a _vicarious substitute_ in behalf of those saved. That is to
say, this atoning sacrifice operates to preserve the justice of God and
the efficiency of laws, as effectually as would the eternal punishment,
from which all regenerated persons are thus rescued.
This mode of explaining the _why_ and the _how_ may be relinquished and
another mode adopted, or no theory at all may be deemed needful, while
belief may remain in the great _fact_, that Jesus Christ wrought out the
salvation of those who are saved, by his advent, sufferings and death, and
that they could be saved by no other mode.
It is very important to recognize this distinction between the _fact_ and
the _philosophical theories_ invented to explain the fact; because it is
frequently the case that the denial of a theory is regarded as a denial of
the great fact, when such is not the case. All may agree in the fact when
very diverse theories are held to explain it.
Whether our Creator actually has come in human form into this world, and
exhibited an example of _self‐sacrifice_ and _suffering_ for the general
good, is what we may infer as _probable_ by the light of nature, but which
we can _fully prove_ only by revelation.
Note D.
Whether the Creator ever communes with the human spirit except through the
material organizations, is one on which reason and experience furnish no
intimations.
No record is to be found of any communications from the Creator to mankind
that were not made either by visible forms or intelligible sounds, or by
visions and dreams in sleep. All the revelations recorded in the Bible
were by some one of these methods.
This being so, the system of common sense neither affirms or denies the
direct access of the creative mind to the minds of his creatures. It is a
question to be settled solely by revelation.
Note E.
This mode of explaining the depravity of mind is to be found in the
_Conflict of Ages_. On page 90 the following passage exhibits the author’s
idea, both of a _perfectly constructed mind_, and of a _depraved mind_:
“So there is a _life of the mind_. It involves an original and designed
correlation to God, and such a state of the affections, passions,
emotions, intellect and will, that communion with God shall be _natural_,
habitual, and the life of the soul. He who has been so far healed by
divine grace as to reach this state, has a true idea of the _normal_ and
_healthy state_ of the soul. And if he finds that there is that _in the
state of his moral constitution and emotions_ which seems to lie beneath
his will and undermine its energy to follow the convictions of reason and
conscience, and that by divine grace _this has been changed_, and an
energy not only to will but to do good is supplied, is it to be wondered
at that, in some way, he should come to the conclusion that there is in
_his nature_ or _moral constitution_, _depravity_ or _pollution_, anterior
to the action of the will?”
The theory which this author adopts is, that the “normal” state of man’s
“_nature_ or moral _constitution_” was created in man by God in a
preëxistent state, and that man’s “_depravity_ or pollution anterior to
the action of the will” consists in “a habit of sinning,” generated in
this preëxistent state.
This habit of sinning was not a part of the perfectly‐constructed nature
made by God. Man himself introduced it into his own mind, thus rendering
it so depraved that every moral act is sin, and only sin.
_Regeneration_, according to this theory, consists in a change of the
“state of the moral constitution,” whereby “an energy not only _to will_
but _to do good_ is supplied.” That is to say, the “habit of sinning” can
be lessened or removed by some supernatural change of the “moral
constitution” by God. And yet all men are born with this depravity which
God _can_ remedy, and _will not_, except for a select few.
It is manifest, therefore, that this writer holds to a depravity of
_nature_ in the true and proper sense of the term, signifying constitution
or _construction_.
This being so, his theory puts it out of his power to prove the
benevolence of the Creator, or to establish any revelation from him as a
_reliable_ guide to truth and happiness.
For it is the _nature_ of any created thing which proves the character and
intentions of its creator. If then all human minds are depraved in
_nature_ or “constitution,” the Creator of these minds is thus proved to
be depraved, and no revelations from him can be _reliable_. He prefers sin
and evil to virtue and happiness, and of course his teachings can be no
guide to truth, virtue and happiness. Thus, by his own theory, this author
is debarred from any proof of a preëxistent state by revelation.
On page 20 it is further stated that “inasmuch _as the mind of man is
depraved_, and there may be _danger in trusting_ its unrevised,
uncorrected decisions as to these principles [of honor and right], it is
of great importance, for purposes of revision, carefully to study those
developments of benevolent, honorable and just feelings, towards which the
human mind, _after regeneration_, and under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit, is found most directly to tend.”
This passage shows that this depravity of the “moral constitution,”
generated in a preëxistent state, in the view of this author, is such that
there is danger in trusting our mental decisions as to the principles of
honor and right at first implanted by God, but vitiated and impaired by
the “habit of sinning.” This danger, it is suggested, is lessened “after
regeneration,” so that regenerated persons are thus entitled to guide
their unregenerate fellow‐men in matters of truth and duty. This lays the
foundation for the claims of a regenerate church and clergy to superior
authority in deciding on the interpretations of the Bible. The tendencies
of such claims to pride, dogmatism and persecution, are pointed out in
chapter 41.
Note F.
The following extract from the _Views and Experiences of Religion_, _by
Henry Ward Beecher_, is an example of the vagueness and uncertainty
referred to. It is part of an article entitled _How to Become a
Christian_.
“The moment you realize this goodness of Christ, his helpfulness to you,
his lenient, forgiving, sympathizing spirit, then you know what _faith in
Christ_ means. If such a Saviour attracts you, and you strive all the more
ardently, from love toward him and trust in him, then you are a Christian:
_not a religious man_, but _a Christian_.
“A man may worship through awe, or through a sense of duty, and I think
there are hundreds of men in the churches who are _only religious men_,
and _not Christians_. A man who feels toward God only awe or fear, who
obeys merely from a _sense of duty_, who is under the dominion of
_conscience_ rather than of love, may be religious, but he is _not a
Christian_.”
There is nothing said in this article of any need of any new creation of
_the nature_ of the mind; nor is this Augustinian dogma to be found in any
of this author’s published works.
In this article, written expressly to give clear views of what it is to
become a Christian, and _how_ to do it, we find it taught “a man who feels
toward God only awe or fear, who obeys merely from a sense of duty, who is
_under the dominion of conscience_ rather than of love, may be
_religious_, but _he is not a Christian_.”
Suppose, then, a person with a strong sense of justice and great natural
benevolence, is trained to believe the Calvinistic form of the Augustinian
system, so that God appears to him only the awful, incomprehensible author
of this dreadful system, and Jesus Christ, this same God, so united to a
man (as this transaction is usually represented) that the human soul alone
bears all the grief and suffering involved in the expiatory sacrifice
demanded. Suppose, also, that, in this view, unable to feel any emotions
but fear and awe, he says, “_There must be a dreadful mistake somewhere_.
I can not fathom it; but I can and will do this: I will trust the word of
Jesus Christ as to the character of God, and I will _obey his teachings
conscientiously_ in all things, as nearly as I am able;” and this
determination is carried out in his life.
Is such a man a Christian, or is he not? Guided only by the above extract,
it would be very difficult to decide, or to state what is this author’s
view of regeneration; nor is there any thing in his published writings to
remove the vagueness and uncertainty caused by such teachings as are
embraced in the above extract, as to what _change_ makes a man a true
Christian.
According to the system of common sense (as explained chapter 24, and also
on page 258) to form and carry out a ruling purpose to obey the laws of
God, as made known by Jesus Christ, is loving God and Christ in the only
way in which love can justly be made a subject of command. And when a man
forms and carries out such a purpose, he is “under the dominion of
conscience,” and is a true Christian.
The point where this writer seems to fail, in this extract, is, in a want
of the distinction, pointed out in the chapter above mentioned, between
_voluntary_ and _involuntary_ love. A person may be “under the dominion of
conscience,” by a purpose to obey all the laws of God, and for want of the
true view of God’s character, as exhibited in Jesus Christ, may experience
only emotions of fear and awe in performing such obedience.
It is the true, _efficient_ purpose to obey Christ which constitutes a man
a Christian. It is right views of God’s character, as seen in Jesus
Christ, that gives new _strength_ to carry out such a purpose.
“When we were yet _without strength_, in due time Christ died for the
ungodly,” thus giving new motives of love and gratitude, in addition to
those of fear and awe. Not until all the false theories that hitherto have
vailed the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ are cast away, will the full
meaning of the above text be fully understood.
Note G.
Among theologians and pastors there are two classes now existing, in all
the great Protestant sects, the one holding to a _real_ depravity of
_nature_, and striving to make such a fact consistent with common sense
and with the ideas of benevolence and justice in the Creator; the other,
holding only to a depravity of _action_ and of character, resulting from
such action in this life, are striving to evade open antagonism with the
Augustinian theory.
No third position being possible, every man is necessarily Augustinian or
Pelagian; either holding that man _is_ depraved _in nature_, or that he is
_not_.
In the first class, is one whom, above all others, the writer would prefer
to meet in a discussion on this great question. It is one who is
remembered in early life as the honest, serious, book‐loving boy; next as
the earnest Christian and faithful student, winning the highest honors of
a collegiate course; next as a student of theology called to several of
the highest city pulpits, even before finishing his preparatory course;
next, even in youth, the president of a flourishing western college,
taking a decided stand on the slavery question, defending the _freedom of
the press_ with its first martyr, and very nearly sharing his fate; next
resuming the pastor’s office, mainly to gain more freedom to write and
publish his peculiar views, which he well understood would encounter all
the organized interests of Christendom, and place a drag‐chain on all his
personal and professional interests; finally, one who, as scholar,
metaphysician and theologian, in the writer’s view, has never been
surpassed, while he never has, and never will, resort to a cowardly or
unfair mode to weaken or escape an argument. Thus much, if not allowable
toward a brother, may be permitted toward an antagonist.
It is this brother who for years has been laboring to sustain the
Augustinian dogma by a theory which—could it be proved—is the only one yet
devised that is at once rational, intelligible and actually secures the
end designed. For if it were a fact that the _nature_ of mind is depraved,
and if it were possible to prove that our race originally, in a
preëxistent state, were created with a perfect nature, ruined themselves,
and were born into this world for purposes of pardon and redemption, the
grand difficulty _would_ all be remedied, and God _could_ be exhibited as
wise, just and good in spite of this mournful fact.
But it is _the fact_ of the _depraved nature_ of the human mind, where the
writer and this brother are at issue, and not on any theory to relieve the
difficulties incident to that fact.
The argument of this work, to prove that there is no possible mode of
proving the benevolence of God, or of proving that the Bible is a reliable
revelation from him, to any man who teaches that the _nature_ of the human
mind is depraved in _any_ sense that can be made intelligible by human
language, _this_ is the place where the author of the Conflict of Ages, in
due time, will meet this discussion fairly, openly and honorably.
In the second class, mentioned above, is another brother, whom the writer
believes to be as decidedly on the Pelagian ground. Whether he yet fully
understands his position, is not affirmed by one, who has, for so short a
time, fully understood her own bearings in this matter. But ere long, the
only question remaining for him will be, whether he shall openly attack
this strongly‐entrenched error, this wholesale slander on his Lord and
Master, or take the Tract Society mode of evading discussion. All who best
know the writer of the _Star Papers_, best understand that any question of
_expediency_ will relate, not to the fearless, outspoken exhibition of his
opinions, but only to the _time_ and _manner_ in which it shall be done.
He must soon perceive that it is as much his duty openly to attack the
_African_[A] enslavement of Anglo‐Saxon _minds_, as it ever was to combat
the Anglo‐Saxon enslavement of African _bodies_.
It will be noticed that this public appeal to family friends was not made
until all other theologians, especially obligated to meet this discussion,
had evaded it, and some of them by unfair, ungentlemanly and unchristian
methods.
[Transcriber’s Note: Obvious printer’s errors have been corrected.]
FOOTNOTES
1 Note A.
2 The theory of Dr. E. Beecher, as it has not been accepted by any
denomination, is not referred to here.
3 Most of the extracts in this and the preceding chapter are furnished
by Dr. E. Beecher in his Conflict of Ages.
4 In scientific language, the _object_ of desire is called the
_objective motive_, and the _desire_ itself is called the
_subjective motive_.
5 These references are to portions of the volume before mentioned
which are not introduced into this work.
6 Metaphysicians have mystified this subject thus:—They say “the will”
(or choice) _invariably_, “is as is the greatest apparent good.” But
when it is inquired, does “greatest good,” as here used, signify
that which the intellect decides to be _best far all concerned_, and
thus _right_, or does it signify that which causes the _strongest
desire_ as measured by our own consciousness? It will be found that,
in this metaphysical statement above, it means _both_. This leads to
the same sort of confusion as would result from using the word
_straight_ to include the two ideas of both _straight_ and
_crooked_. With such an enlarged, but improper, definition, it could
truly be said that men _invariably_ go _straight_, and as truly that
they also _invariably go crooked_.
The only way in which the expression, “the will is as is _the
greatest apparent good_,” can be true, is to use the term to include
both what is the greatest good as judged by the intellect, and also
the greatest good as causing the strongest desire, thus making one
word express two _diverse_ ideas.
It is this want of discrimination in the use of the term “greatest
apparent good,” by President Edwards, which accounts for the fact
that one class of the most acute metaphysicians regard him as the
defender of free agency, and another class, equally acute, maintain
that he teaches the exactly opposite doctrine of fatalism. It is by
this deceptive use of the words _greatest apparent good_, and
_strongest motive_, that such _invariableness of antecedence_ and
_consequents_ is made out, as is the proof of _producing causes_ and
_necessary effects_ in the material world. Thus results the idea of
_irrational free agency_, making the mind of man like irrational
brutes, inevitably and necessarily controlled by the strongest
desire, (or strongest motive) and destroying all idea of _rational
free agency_.
7 This is a very important point in regard to the question of a
_depraved nature_.
8 This refers to those theologians who teach that regeneration
consists not in a change of _nature_ but of _purpose_.
9 In the Greek, the word in the New Testament translated
“peacemakers,” is more correctly rendered “happiness‐makers.”
10 Note B.
11 Note C.
12 Note D.
13 This account is taken from Rev. Howard Malcom’s _Travels in Asia_.
14 The Arminians hold that Christ’s death has purchased the return of
God’s Spirit withdrawn for Adam’s sin, and that owing to this aid,
man has some power to obey God previous to regeneration, so that all
the doings of the unregenerate are not sin.
15 Those new school Calvinists, who teach that regeneration consists in
the formation of a ruling purpose by man himself, hold that this
never takes place until the Spirit of God more or less rectifies the
depraved nature consequent on Adam’s sin, and that previous to
regeneration every moral act of every mind is “sin, and only sin.”
16 Note E.
17 “State of the Impenitent Dead,” by Alvah Hovey, D.D.
18 From the article on Sanctification, in the magazine _Beauty of
Holiness_, January, 1859.
19 Note F.
20 In regard to the author of the _Conflict of Ages_, the writer is
still uncertain whether he would or would not assent to the common‐
sense view of regeneration, here stated, as exact and complete, or
whether he supposes that the “habit of sinning, generated in a
preëxistent state,” is changed by some direct operation of the
Spirit of God on the “nature” or faculties of the human mind, which
is antecedent to any right voluntary action on the part of man, and
without which, every moral act of every unregenerated mind is “sin,
and only sin.”
These personal references are introduced to illustrate more
effectively the vague and diversified teachings of theologians and
religious teachers in answer to the great question, on which they
claim that an eternity of blessedness or misery is depending.
21 The extent to which Judaism had spread among the upper ranks is
strikingly shown by the fact that one of the first inquisitors,
Peter Arbues, was assassinated by a conspiracy formed of the chief
officers of the Arragonese government, who were most of them,
according to Llorente, of Jewish blood or connections. The
Inquisition, however, was odious on other grounds, as a royalist
institution, like our Star Chamber.—See Llorente’s _History of
Inquisition_.
22 Note G.