A Discourse on the Latest Form of Infidelity, delivered at the request of the Association of the Alumni of the Cambridge Theological School, on the 19th of July, 1839, with notes. By Andrews Norton. Cambridge: Published by John Owen, 1839. Pp. 64.
A Letter to Mr. Andrews Norton, occasioned by his Discourse before the Association of the Alumni of the Cambridge Theological School, on the 19th of July, 1839. By an Alumnus of that School. Boston: James Munroe & Co., 1839. Pp. 160
Our readers are probably aware that the Unitarian clergymen of Boston and its vicinity, priding themselves in the name of liberal Christians, have never professed to agree entirely among themselves in their doctrinal views. Of late, however, a portion of their number have advanced sentiments which, in the apprehension of the rest, exceed even the limits of the most liberal Christianity. Hence this Discourse on the Latest Form of Infidelity. The pamphlets before us do not enable us to ascertain precisely what this new form of infidelity is, nor how far it is embraced by the Boston clergy. We know, indeed, that it has its origin in German philosophy, and that the Rev. Mr. Emerson delivered an address before the same Association which listened to Mr. Norton’s Discourse, which was a rhapsodical oration in favor of pantheism. We know also that that oration called forth an earnest remonstrance and disclaimer from some of the friends and officers of the Cambridge school of theology. The public papers moreover informed us that Mr. Emerson delivered, with some applause, a series of popular lectures on the new philosophy, to the good people of Boston. We are, however, ignorant both as to the number of those who embrace this new philosophy, and as to the extent to which they carry it. It may be inferred from Mr. Norton’s discourse, that he considered his opponents as denying either the possibility of a miracle, or the truth of the New Testament history in reference to the miracles of Christ. Why else should he make the truth of the evangelical history, and the absolute necessity of a belief in miracles, in order to faith in Christianity, the burden of his discourse? “The latest form of infidelity,” he says, “is distinguished by assuming a Christian name, while it strikes directly at the root of faith in Christianity, and indirectly of all religion, by denying the miracles attesting the divine mission of Christ.”1 On another page, he says, “Christianity claims to reveal facts, a knowledge of which is essential to the moral and spiritual regeneration of men, and to offer, in attestation of those facts, the only satisfactory proof, the authority of God, evidenced by miraculous displays of his power.”2 Again: “If it were not for the abuse of language that has prevailed, it would be idle to say, in denying the miracles of Christianity, the truth of Christianity is denied. It has been vaguely alleged, that the internal evidences of our religion are sufficient, and that the miraculous proof is not wanted; but this can be said by no one who understands what Christianity is, and what its internal evidences are.”3
These quotations are sufficient to exhibit the two prominent doctrines of the discourse, viz: that miracles are the only satisfactory evidence of a divine revelation; and that the denial of the miracles of Christianity, is a denial of Christianity itself. These doctrines are not necessarily connected. For, although it is certain that if the former be true, the latter must be true also; it does not follow that if the former be false, the latter must be false. It may be incorrect, as it doubtless is, to make miracles the only satisfactory proof of Christianity, and yet it may be perfectly correct to say that a denial of the miracles of Christ, is a denial of the gospel, not because the only sufficient proof of the truth of the gospel is denied, but because the miraculous character of the gospel enters into its very essence. The advent, the person, the resurrection of Christ, were all miraculous. He cannot be believed upon, without believing a miracle. Revelation is itself a miracle. All the words of Christ suppose the truth of his miracles. They can, therefore, no more be separated from his religion than the warp and woof can be separated, and yet the cloth remain entire. The apostle expressly teaches us that if the resurrection of Christ be denied, the whole gospel is denied. While, therefore, we dissent from Mr. Norton as to his first proposition, we fully agree with him as to the second.