ARTICLE XV.

Christ's Authority as a Teacher.

Christianity the Religion of Nature. Lecture, before the Lowell Institute. By A. P. PEABODY, D.D., LL.D., &c. Boston: Gould & Lincoln.

THIS Book was very favorably noticed, editorially, in our last issue. But it seems to us so important and so excellent, dealing with its great theme in a spirit so catholic, and in a manner so able, that we desire still further to commend it to public attention. It is seldom that the press gives us a book so learned and yet so popular, so brief and yet so exhaustive, so deserving a place in the library of the student, and yet so suited to meet the wants and engage the interest of the miscellaneous reader. Dr. Peabody is not wont to put pen to paper without writing what is worth reading; but he has never written anything stronger or better than these "Lectures." We thank him heartily, in behalf of the whole church, for the work he has done so well, and feel that we have fresh occasion to remember gratefully the generous donor of the bequest that gives such instruction to the people. The first four lectures have especially pleased us, as a comprehensive and yet thorough resumé of the Christian argument in opposition especially to the fashionable unbelief of the time; and we have placed the title of the book at the head of our article, less for the purpose of passing it under formal review than of making it the occasion of some remarks upon Christianity as an infallible religion.

The infallibility of Christianity depends, of course, upon the infallibility of its author, or rather of the agent through whom it has been communicated. We shall assume that Christ was this agent, and that the New Testament histories of his life are substantially correct. We shall take it for granted, therefore, that we have his own estimate of himself and his own primary work, in the words John has put into his mouth:

"To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth."' Our concern is with the question, To what purpose was this witness borne? Was it only to the same general purpose as every speculatist and philosopher has in turn borne his witness, -as giving us the opinions of another thinker, to help us toward a probable solution of the questions of being? Or was it to the far higher purpose of giving us a positive answer to these questions, definitely settling for us what is the truth in morals and religion? In other words, is the authority of Christ, as a teacher, ordinary or extraordinary? Is it the result of our conviction that what he says is true, or the ground on which this conviction is to rest? Is it found in the reasonableness and intrinsie credibility of his message, and thus conditional? Or, inhering in the fact that he is God's messenger, sent on purpose to teach the truth, does it give certainty to his message, and is it, therefore, absolute?

These are important and, in respect to Christianity, vital questions. As they are answered, Christianity is a Religion, or only a Philosophy; God's voice in the world potent and commanding, with a right to give law to conscience and to master souls, or a mere outgrowth of human thought, standing on the same general level as all other human speculations. Really, therefore, these questions cover all that is in controversy between naturalism and supernaturalism, and, broadly considered, would lead us into a treatment of all that is thus involved. But no such breadth of discussion is now intended. It is proposed simply to offer some suggestions touching the single point indicated by our title and this with sole reference to the position of those who dispute the absolute authority of Christ, and still claim to be Christians.

It is a singular and an anomalous question that we have thus to debate, in these latter days. Formerly, the line of separation between Christians and infidels was, by common consent, very simply and sharply drawn. The single issue was, Does Christ represent God? Was he attested as, in any sense, ap

1 John xviii. 37.

pointed to a special office as the teacher and Saviour of the world? Professing to regard the affirmative of this inquiry as proved, men therefore, and of course, accepted the testimony of Christ as final, because accepting it as the testimony of God himself. They were-necessarily, it was thought—thus committed to say, If I understand him, there is no room for further inquiry; having what he taught, I am sure I have the truth, because he taught it. Those who said this were accounted Christians. Those who could not say it frankly avowed themselves, and were universally reckoned by others, unbelievers. No matter how amiable, devout, or morally blameless, one might be. No matter what admissions one might be ready to make concerning Christ as a good man, or concerning Christianity as a useful exposition of duty. If he could not say, I believe Christ's word to be decisive, because the word of one specially sent of God, he renounced all claim to be considered a Christian, and accepted his place, as a matter of course, in the ranks of infidelity. Now, all this is changed. There are no longer any "Deists." This old distinction is pronounced invidious and unkind. By some necromancy of "Broad Church "-ism, belief and unbelief have come to be indifferent factors of the same product; and at the word of "liberal" conjurers, presto! "deism" is but the "critical" and "scholarly "phasis of gospel faith! Any good man who claims to be a Christian, we are told is a Christian. Herbert, Tyndall; Woolston, and their whole class of old English deists were Christians, as really as Butler, Watson, or Paley, if they had but known it, and had bethought themselves to assume the title. The denials one may make with respect to Christ are of no importance. He is none the less a Christian, if he but duly insists that he is one, though he may strip Christianity of every sanction and attribute of a God-given religion, and leave us nothing but the name of Christianity and the mere opinions of fallible men.

Hence, the number of such who are demanding recognition as Christians, although they are saying precisely the things, and doing the identical work, heretofore thought to be ex

They are more religious sincerely so, we will not

clusively characteristic of infidels. than some of their predecessors, doubt. This it is that makes their infidelity the more dangerous. With only this difference, however: while protesting against what they are pleased to call the narrowness and bigotry of those who will not fellowship them, they are pretentiously reproducing the oft-exploded arguments and objections of Voltaire, Paine, et id omne genus, falsely labelled as "new thought." Under the plea of serving Christianity by their "reverent criticism" and "Christian Scholarship," they are ridiculing and rejecting every supernatural element in the life of Christ, and sedulously laboring to undermine the whole system of revealed religion. There is odium attached to the name of deist, or infidel, and something of position and prestige must be lost, especially to a public teacher who honestly wears it so, using the Christian name as a covert behind which to obtain possession of Christian pulpits and gain the ears of Christian congregations, they strategetically occupy the vantage-ground thus secured, the more fatally to bombard the citadel of Christian faith:- professing a desire to promote, that they may the more effectually destroy, confidence in Christ. We have no words to express our sense of the disingenuousness of such a course. We believe it has never been considered particularly honorable to sail under "false colors." Why should such a game in religion be deemed an exception? While abhorring his opinions, we honor the manliness of the avowed unbeliever, honestly hoisting the flag of his class. But we can only confess our utter disgust at this policy of double-entendre and decoy, which puts on the dress and runs up the flag of loyalty to Christ, and uses his watchwords only to sap and stab and destroy; nor can we withhold the further confession of our amazement at the confusion of moral ideas, which can alone permit any intelligent or high-minded man to regard this policy as anything but in the lowest degree dishonorable, not to say despicable. The national military authorities down South have recently proclaimed that rebel guerrillas, stealing upon unsuspecting people, in

the Union garb, shall be shot;-what a change of dress and a dropping of false pretences there would be in the sceptical camp, if a like proclamation should be made and enforced in our theological warfare!

But this is not the party with which we now wish to deal. Beside these, there are, even more strangely, those who, avowing themselves shocked by the denials of this class, are still much in sympathy with them, and to no small extent shaped in their beliefs, or non-beliefs, by them. Shrinking as yet from their extreme deistic, or, as the euphemism now is, naturalistic, positions, they nevertheless think it hard and wrong that such should be denied the Christian name and fellowship. Affirming their faith in Christ as a divine messenger, clothed with miraculous power, they are captivated by the talk of such about "intuitions," and "consciousness," and the "sufficiency of reason," and "the authority of truth," and hesitate not to declare that they believe what Christ says only as they believe what any other teacher says, i. e. only because, and so far as, what he says approves itself to their moral and intellectual judgments.

It is with reference to these last named, that this subject of Christ's authority particularly needs to be discussed. The infidel, frankly avowing his infidelity, needs to have the evidences of Christianity exhibited and enforced upon him. The outright and consistent rationalistic thinker, who is just as much an infidel, but who, for the reasons named, prefers not to say so, decrying supernaturalism, and glorifying reason. and conscience and the sufficiency of "intuition and reflection" for all the purposes of religion, needs to have the wind taken out of his self-conceit, needs to be pressed with the demonstrations of the vanity and poverty of all unaided human powers in the realm in which he asserts their sufficiency, and to be plied with the proofs that show supernaturalism to be one of the elements of the divine method, as it is one of the necessities of human souls. In like manner, these now specially in view need to be dealt with according to the peculiarities of their case, and thus to be shown that, except as invested