« 이전계속 »
anywhere, or by anybody; Atheism, because it denies the central truth of all science, the truth which alone makes science possible, destroying thus the natural head of the whole hierarchy of sciences; Exotheism, because it steadily puts this central truth of all science out of view, and attempts to degrade theology from its natural position of the head of the sciences, and to place it in a subordinate position among “oldwives' fables.”
It remains, then, to consider whether we should teach Pantheism or Monotheism. Now, to me, Pantheism is, in theology, very much like the doctrine that in geometry we have only logical forms of thought, and are not dealing with entities. To teach such geometry seriously and earnestly, is better than to deride the science altogether; but it does not develop the powers of imagination and conception; it does not link itself with all the higher branches of science so well as the higher doctrine that geometry is the science treating of the real subject-matter – space. So, a reverent and devout Pantheism may be better than Atheism, and even better than the Exotheism of positive science. For, as the language of a devout spirit, even when intellectually misled towards Pantheism, is theistic, the mind of the pupil may receive the higher truth, through the medium intended by the teacher to convey only the lower truth. But Monotheistic views alone give theology its true position in the scale of sciences. With Pantheistic
unjust in compelling them to pay taxes to sustain such schools ? The writer of this
article is a Protestant of the most radical ty does not stop with Martin Luther, but who protests against all obs
views the highest science is lower than one of inferior grade. When on going upward through the sciences we have at last studied in the human mind the laws of thought and feeling and volition, we perceive that this self-conscious mind is the highest object of our thought yet found. But as we have seen, while studying the material universe, innumerable evidences of wisdom, of plan and of purpose, we must suppose an Infinite mind ruling the great mass of matter. But here comes the question, Does this great mind which adapts all organs to their functions, all materials to their uses, all forms to the fulfilment of an ideal plan, do so consciously or unconsciously? In other words, when we rise from the contemplation of our minds to the contemplation of the Infinite mind, do we fall from the consideration of a conscious being, to the consideration of an unconscious being ? To me it seems that this question answers itself by its own absurdity. The modern philosophy 'which regards the universe as an unconscious struggle of non-being to become being, saved only by that struggle from relapsing into the pure zero of non-existence, saved only by the impossibility of succeeding in the struggle, from going over to the pure zero (as they term it) of being, seems to me to be itself the pure zero of irrationality, — which would be shocking to our sentiments of reverence, if it were only sufficiently intelligible to be comprehended. To us who believe in the first article of the creed, that there is one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, that article is by far the most important of all truths; and it is on this account that we insist it should make a fundamental point in the instruction of youth, and cannot concede that on any grounds it should be omitted.
The second article of the creed is also one which must be considered, by those who believe in it, an article of fundamental importance. No man, indeed, can deny that faith in the revelation made through our Lord Jesus Christ, must assume, in the mind of one who holds it, a central position — controlling and modifying all his course of thought. Our entire views of theology and morality are dependent on the views we take of Christ, and we cannot, therefore, put Christianity among the unimportant parts of religious instruction. That some disbelieve in it, and that there is warmth of feeling connected with the discussion of its truth, cannot justify us in omitting the subject, any more than the differences of opinion upon questions of chemistry, physiology, and geology, would justify a teacher of those sciences in omitting all reference to allotropism, to therapeutic agencies, or to glacial and diluvial action. The evidences of Christianity occupy a central position in theology, which is a fundamental science; and those to whom these evidences are sufficient are justified on every conceivable ground in assuming always in their public instruction the authority of the New Testament; and whenever
unjust in compelling them to pay taxes to sustain such 'schools?
The writer of this article is a Protestant of the most radical t does not stop with Martin Luther, but who protests against all ol their school is of such a nature as to permit it, in showing with some minuteness the various branches of evidence that tend to establish the fact that Jesus was proved to be the Son of God with power by his resurrection from the dead, and by wondrous works that no man could have done except God were with him. I am well aware that there are persons at the present day who claim to have outgrown the necessity of attending to this evidence; some by having grown so spiritual that the religious truths proclaimed by our Lord commend themselves directly to their minds and hearts as true, as needing no external proofs of having been uttered by authority; others, by having grown too wise to be convinced by such proofs, who have set up for themselves new canons of criticism that render the falsehood of the gospels demonstrable, and who therefore justify themselves in passing by all the evidences of their truth. well aware of the existence of these persons to whom and for whom the evidences of Christianity are nothing, and who would claim that in consideration of their existence, we should omit all distinctively Christian instruction from our public course of education. But I do not see how their requirements should be granted, any more than I see why the existence of persons incapable of receiving the Newtonian laws of philosophy should cause us to omit the recognition of those laws from our text-books on physics. In order to omit Christianity and the evidences of its truth from our
course of studies, we must show, not that there is not a perfect unanimity of opinion upon the matter, but that it is a question which does not connect itself vitally with our views of history, — which does not throw light upon any physical sciences, — which does not bear directly upon the moral character of the pupil, — which does not affect his religious character, his habitual tone of thought on religious things. Now no sane man, however strong he may feel himself in his rejection of Christ, can deny that the question of the reality of the revelation through Jesus does connect itself, vitally, with all our views of history. According to the believer in revelation, all previous events prepared the way for the coming of Christ, all succeeding events have been modified by it, and Calvary is the central point in the great historic picture of this world. Even the unbeliever in Christ must acknowledge that never man spake like that man; that never did the word of prophet or sage produce so sudden, so extensive, and so lasting an effect upon civilized and enlightened nations as that produced by the preaching of the gospel. What think ye of Christ, is therefore a fundamental question in the survey of human history.
Neither can any sane man deny that our reception or rejection of Christ affects our views of physical science. If we reject Him, then we are naturally led to reject the views which he gives us of the freedom, the sovereignty, and the forgiving love
unjust in compelling them to pay taxes to sustain such schools
The writer of this article is a Protestant of the most radical does not stop with Martin Luther, but who protests against all