theological notions, but this in spite of them, which made him in some respects a leader and guide to other minds.

It is an instructive fact, that the fullest and clearest statements we have of his speculative views are contained in a volume mainly written before he was much known to the public. Had the germs con

tained in that volume been allowed to unfold

The early

statements

of his views

most de

cided.

and mature, he could have hardly failed, even during his not very long ministry, to come out distinctly and avowedly on pantheistic ground. But his speculative tendency, for such reasons as those just named, seems to have been checked. His theological bias was held in suspense. Devotion to reforms, and regard for the feelings. of those who stood by him in adversity, blocked the wheels of his logic, so that he never clearly and openly. reached the goal at which alone he could legitimately stop. It is significant, as showing that I do not misjudge him, that the pantheistic leaning is more apparent in the early treatise to which I have alluded, the Discourse of Religion, than in later works. It was after he had been laboring for years with the earnest New England reformers, that he preached his Sermons of Theism, in which the name Theism is given to his system, and the attempt made to distinguish between himself and pantheists, atheists, and deists. To what shifts of false statement and definition that attempt led, at least in the case of pantheism, we have already seen. It is a fact, of which he was aware all through his ministry, that his preaching was more liked the nearer it came to evangelical ground. However important his peculiar views seemed to himself, he could not

H's most scriptural preaching best liked.

preach them, save negatively and indirectly, with any hope. of persuading the mass of his more intelligent hearers. Hence those views remained in the undeveloped form of the early treatise, to find lodgment here and there in a few scholarly but ill-balanced minds, who, now that he is no more, seem to be completing in themselves the process which was begun in him;- trying, that is, to hold by a position which is not a position, but a tendency; and falling away one after another into pantheism or positivism, according to the original bias of their thinking, where they have not fortunately received divine strength to flee backward, and regain the only sure foundation, which is laid in Jesus Christ.

The fate of

Weightily true, and nobly solemn in counsel to us all, are the words of Tholuck, spoken in view of the fate of all human thinking which is divorced from faith in the Son of God: "Philosophy can never remain stationary. Aristotle expressed the hope, as Cicero says in the Tusculan Questions, that philosophy would be perfected in a short time. Kant also, in modern times, has said, 'My philosophy will bring eternal peace to the world.' And yet the philosophy progress of philosophy is onward, ever onward, without delay. The truths which are recognized by one system are discarded by another. From this mutability of philosophical dogmas, however, is the truly Christian theology exempt. This teaches us to rely on one single MAN, who has laid claim to infallibility. So soon as we acknowledge that the absolute truth is revealed by Jesus, then have we such a ground of confidence as can never be shaken.” 1 In all his efforts to raise up

when be

reft of faith in Christ.

1 Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. I., p. 207.

the fallen, and promote justice between man and man, Parker could draw no inspiration from his peculiar system of religious thought. As his arm is lifted higher to smite down great iniquities, and sympathy for the wretched breathes more tenderly through his words, he draws nearer and nearer to the burden of the teachings of Christ. Eighteen hundred years of human speculation have made no difference. All that is best, even in the utterances of this denier of Christ's lordship, is an unconscious testimony to the wisdom of the fisherman, — who, when others were forsaking his Master, exclaimed only the more ardently, and with an overflowing faith, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life."

The Rock of Ages.

LECTURE IX.

THE STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS OF PANTHEISM.

Recapitula tion.

I HAVE now gone over the ground especially marked out in this course of lectures. The point taken at the beginning of the discussion, and briefly explained and defended, was that all systems of religious error have their genesis in the estrangement of men from God; and that from this original source two main streams of speculation have flowed forth, owing to those opposite mental tendencies, either transcendental or empirical, which characterize all thinkers. It is the errors of religious thought in which the first of these two tendencies may be chiefly traced, that I have thus far considered. The subject, therefore, to which my inquiries have been limited, was the source and development of pantheism; since it is in pantheism, as I endeavored to show, that all a-priori thinking which is not kept by Christian faith must find its legitimate stopping-place. An examination of ancient authors made it appear that pantheism, at least in its clearly defined and more dogmatic forms, is of comparatively modern growth. Historical facts were adduced, which tended to show that man did not ascend first from fetichism to pantheism, but sank to it

1 Introduction.

from pure monotheism, after he had forsaken God. For obvious reasons, Benedict Spinoza was selected as the representative of this system. He had been a pupil of Descartes at the outset; but it was only the philosophical method, not the Christian faith, of his master that he accepted. I undertook to show, so far as required by my more immediate purpose, what the leading doctrine of Spinoza was; as also how that doctrine might be legitimately reached from the premises of Descartes.? The development of pantheism in philosophy was then briefly sketched, especially in the school of German transcendentalism, beginning with Kant and ending with Hegel.3 In immediate connection with this, the Tübingen school of criticism, as represented by Strauss and Baur, was examined with a view to make clear its pantheistic spirit.* Thus the way was open for what seemed to me to enter more directly into my main undertaking; namely, a survey of the development of pantheism in literature, — especially in the widely-read works of Goethe, Carlyle, Emerson, and Theodore Parker. It is in the treatment of these popular authors, whose influence Christianity more manifestly meets in its progress, that I have aimed to be thorough, and at the same time accurate and candid. I have allowed them to state their own views, as far as possible, adding my personal comments mainly to elucidate the current of their thinking.

It would be easy to extend this list of names in the domain of letters; though no others have occurred to me as deserving to be classed with leaders in pantheistic

1 Lecture I.

4 Lecture IV.

2 Lecture II.

3 Lecture III. 5 Lectures V., VI., VII., VIII.