THE ACADEMICAL. THOUGHTS ON THE SPIRIT OF THE AGE.1 PERHAPS at no previous time was the literary atmosphere so clouded as now with conflicting criticisms regarding the leading tendencies and "Spirit of the Age." These proceed from two opposing parties, which, in forms or positions variously modified, always appear together on the historical arena, whenever in the history of Mankind we arrive at some epoch of transition or crisis. The one, venerating the past and defending antiquity, fondly clings to its usages and traditions, while the other, in its love for progress, would sweep these ruthlessly away. As in Dynamics the resultant lies between two equal opposing forces, true national prosperity and social happiness are probably best promoted by the undisturbed and mutual influence of the two parties described; but not unfrequently the current of innovation proves too strong for the resistance with which it meets, and sooner or later national opinion and policy assume the direction of the greater force. The intelligent reader of history is well aware that every age is characterized by the prevalence of certain opinions and forms of belief, conflicting probably with those of the 1 Read to the Society on the second evening of the present Session, and inserted at the request of the Members. If originally intended for publication the form of the article would have been somewhat different, but for certain considerations it is printed precisely as it was read. B age that preceded it, and which again are superseded in their turn as time advances. He is thus induced to conclude, that the prevalence of belief and opinion depends less upon the amount and value of the evidence by which they are supported, than upon the predisposition of society to receive them. In other words, the general intellectual influences abroad, the state of society, and the diffusion of knowledge, determine to no inconsiderable extent the prevailing opinions of the people. On this principle, the effort to stem the current of free inquiry, or damp the spirit of independence, which are the obvious characteristics of the present time, is clearly abnormal and useless. To revert to the physical analogy I have used, the more powerful of two forces is assuming its directive authority, and, however salutary the influence of opposition, is sufficiently defined and universally operative to merit the designation of the "Spirit of the Age." I begin by remarking, as one of the more prominent features of the times, a growing dislike to creeds and dogmatic teaching. To demonstrate this as among the greatest of modern changes, requires but a retrospective glance at the history of the last three centuries. Anterior to the Reformation, and indeed all through the ages of mediæval darkness, the teaching of the Church was essentially dogmatic. On the strength of an assumed infallibility, her doctrines were enunciated as absolute truth, distinguished only from the absolute and fatal error, of any who ventured to question or oppose them. The unqualified acceptance and belief in these doctrines was further declared to be the sole condition of salvation, and to the universal application of this requisite there was absolutely no exception. The benighted heathen, infants unbaptised, and all without the Church's pale, were doomed to the same eternity of suffering as heretics and apostates from the Church's creed. Το reduce still further the moral influence of so exclusive a theological system, the serene contemplation of suffering error, was represented as one of the saintly exercises upon earth, as it would form one of the unceasing and unsatiable pleasures of eternity. Nor did the Reformation, that brilliant and mighty revolution, which, to the intellectual lethargy and the prostrate morality of Europe, seemed like a second fiat of creative power, bring any immediate revolt from the general tenor of this teaching. The early Reformers and the Puritan clergy continued to cling with unflinching tenacity to the doctrine of exclusive salvation. Hear the words of Calvin, the author of a theology we still profess,-" Beyond the bosom of the Church," says he, "no remission of sins is to be hoped for, nor any salvation." If we would trace the origin of the movement which has so completely revolutionized modern opinion, upon questions such as the guilt of error, the necessity for the acceptance of dogmas conflicting with reason and the moral sense, the intrinsic efficacy of these dogmas apart from their spiritual influence, and the legitimacy of free inquiry, we must pass on a century from the date of the Reformation, to a sphere of intellectual activity without the Church. Perhaps the class of writers who at all times influence most widely the current of national opinion are the philosophers. This does not, indeed, proceed from the subjects with which they are concerned, but is rather attributable to the method of investigation which their writings introduce. And so the rationalistic spirit, which in these times has become so extensively diffused, and is productive of such inestimable benefit in every field of thought, was truly originated by the great secular philosophers of the seventeenth century-by Bacon, Descartes, and Locke. Bacon, the first of the reformers, illustrated by his works the advantages of a method of inductive thought, requiring as a first essential the total abandonment of preconceived opinions and prejudices, of the different Idola he so carefully classified. Descartes followed, dissenting indeed from the empiric - method of the English philosophy, but enunciating as the first requisite to truthful inquiry, that the individual judgment should test the truth of every opinion and the credentials of every system of teaching. The close of the same century was illuminated by the writings of Locke, who did much to elevate the province of reason in the search for truth, and whose letters in favour of toleration, were honoured by the legal acknowledgment, shortly after the Revolution, of the principles they advocated. Meanwhile, the general principles of the new philosophy grew apace, and its consequences were clearly visible in every department of thought. Its evidences may be seen in the theological writings of Chillingworth even previous to the time of Locke. He argued with great force and logical accuracy in favour of the necessity of an appeal to reason in all theological discussions. According to him, the assent of the individual judgment was the necessary condition of belief in every doctrine, as it was essential to the very recognition of authority. "But you," says he, "that would not have men follow their reason, what would you have them follow?— their passions, or pluck out their eyes and go blindfold? No, you say, you would have them follow authority. In God's name let them; we also would have them follow authority; for it is upon the authority of universal tradition that we would have them believe Scripture. But then, as for the authority which you would have them follow, you will let them see reason why they should follow it. And is not this to go a little about, to leave reason for a short time and then to come to it again, and to do that which you condemn in others. It being indeed a plain impossibility for any man to submit his reason but to reason; for he that doth it to authority, must of necessity think himself to have greater reason to believe that authority." Having thus demonstrated the necessary relation that subsists between reason and conviction, Chillingworth proceeds to argue that there is no guilt connected with a reasonable dissent from the teaching of the Church, that honest error is absolutely innocent. These views were espoused and advocated by many of Chillingworth's contemporaries, and we find that the habit of thought which he adopts became universal both in the Church and sects of England during the greater part of two centuries. A modern writer upon the tendency of religious thought during this period, has the following brief but decided statement of the universality of the Rationalistic method; "The churchman," says he, "differed from the Socinian and the Socinian from the Deist as to the number of articles in his creed, but all alike consented to test their belief by the rational evidence for it. The principles and the priority of natural religion formed the common hypothesis on the ground of which the disputants argued, whether anything, and what, had been subsequently communicated to man in a supernatural way." Like almost every episode in the history of thought, the ascendency of this rationalistic tendency was only temporary. An early year of the present century marks its decline, but the part it played in the development of modern opinion will perpetuate its literary importance. Diverting men's minds from a blind credulity, belief was no longer the parasite of authority, but of healthy and independent growth. And while in our own times the facts of Revelation are seldom referred to syllogistic proof, we see in the growing dislike to dogmatic teaching, a corresponding desire to elevate the individual reason and conscience to the place that was so long monopolized by creeds. The great intellectual revolution of the seventeenth century seemed to remind men of the existence of a Divine light, a moral and discerning faculty within themselves, which, educated and elevated to its true position, could in no way conflict with the teaching of a true theology, but should rather be the highest aid to its reception. Just ideas of truth and error seemed now to be more naturally educed from the individual |
