PRESUMPTION IN THEOLOGICAL METHODS.

on

F the two theological methods known as the dogmatic and the scientific, on which does the charge of presumption fairly rest? The dogmatic method assumes that there may be occasions in which a departure from the laws of nature is necessary on the part of the Creator; and maintains, that in the case of Christianity there has been such a necessary departure. There were extraordinary circumstances in which the established laws of the creation were not competent to fulfill the purposes of him who established them! Is not this presumption?

Nothing but a complete knowledge of the scope and potency of the established laws of the creation could make it less than presumptuous to say that these laws must be, or have been, insufficient to accomplish the purposes of the Creator. Do we understand thoroughly the ordinances of Heaven? can we set the dominion thereof in the earth? "Where" were we "when God laid the foundations " of the order of Nature, that we dare to pronounce them inadequate? Have we "entered into the springs of the sea" of inspiration in the human soul, that we can say it is so shallow as to need an influx which the divine sources in their regular flow do not supply? It is presumption to make our knowledge and our experience of natural laws the criterion of what may be done by divine power working through those laws. That the Christian religion had not come through the divine agency in the laws of the human constitution, was no proof that it could not come thus; and our lack of information concerning the rise and growth of that religion in the Jewish mind makes it in the highest degree presumptuous to assert that Christianity involved a departure from natural law.

Compare with this position that of the scientific method, which simply traces as far as possible the working of divinely established law in all events, and which, when it cannot discern the working of that law in any phenomenon, attributes the failure to its own incapacity, to its lack of information or of skill in the use of information, not to a deficiency in the laws of the universe; which, in a word, attributes the short-coming to itself and not to God?

This method is charged with setting up human experience of law as the limitation of the modes of divine activity; of presuming to deny the ability of the Creator to work in other ways than those which are within the range of human observation. But the scientific method does not make human experience the test of divine ability,

operating through natural law or otherwise. It simply makes human experience of the divine modes of action in general history the test of the probability of events in any special history. It does not say "Such a reported event is contrary to human experience, and therefore is beyond the scope of divine power," but it says, "Such an event is apparently opposed, not merely to ordinary observation, but to the fundamental processes of nature so far as we have knowledge of them in general history, and is therefore highly improbable." The scientific method does not say "impossible," by the mouth of its best advocates; and where it does, it means by the word no limitation of the divine power, but merely the highest degree of historic improbability; it means a possibility not worth much consideration, in the absence of other testimony than that of religious tradition. The scientific method does not therefore assume to comprehend the divine order completely does not presume to say either that there may be a necessity of departure from that order, or that any historical event has been a departure from that order. The dogmatic method does presume thus, and upon it the charge of presumption fairly rests.

Upon the dogmatic method. Not necessarily upon the persons who advocate that method. The presumption we speak of is speculative, not moral, of systems, not of character. Individuals may be presumptuous in their manner of advocating the scientific method, but the fault is in their temperament, not in the method. And on the other hand, persons may be modest in their advocacy of the dogmatic method :— none could hope to be more unassuming than Channing, whose statements we have adopted almost literally in setting forth the main assumption of that method:- but the method involves presumption none the less. Its advocates are unconscious of this. They feel sure that there has been, in the case of Christianity, a departure from the established laws of the creation, and hence they do not feel that there is any presumption in saying that such departure may be, and has been, necessary. But there is: presumption from which the scientific method is free.

HENRY W. BROWN.

Ivo, going upon an embassy for St. Louis, met a woman bearing fire in one hand and water in the other. "What are you going to do," said he, "with the fire?" She answered, "I am going to burn Paradise, and with the water quench the flames of Hell, that men hereafter may serve God without the incentives of hope and fear, and purely from love."-Vaughan.

N

RELIGION IN HARVARD COLLEGE.

OWADAYS young men go to college in order to thoroughly

develop themselves in all natural directions. They go for the most part, in search of a liberal education; not that they may obtain a preparatory course to the study of law, of medicine, or theology. They go with their eyes wide open; they want to take in all that is possible in each single glance, and are even somewhat afraid of hard study, lest by too deep a devotion to one regular routine, they miss more important opportunities, and fail to become acquainted with what they can never find in books. They place great faith in base ball and boating, as fields for the expansion of an enterprise and originality which is carefully repressed in the recitation room; and as soon as an organization of any kind springs up in the class, each fellow turns politician, and canvasses his neighbor as to the best men for the offices. They are eager to search out the hidden causes of whatever comes under their observation; and there are those who, in their hurry to investigate the fundamental laws of mind and matter, often talk over their fires till midnight, handling extravagant generalities with the steadiest composure.

The first view they catch of college life is through poetic lenses. Even being hazed by the Sophomores in their first few weeks, if disagreeable, is romantically so. Is it not the battle of the weak against the strong, and do not the weak' finally conquer, as in the story-books? They have, moreover, their Odin and Thor to help them through, boys older or more experienced than the rest, who become the heroes of the day, even receive heroic honors at the hands of their classmates, as Odin and Thor formerly from our Saxon ancestors. In the end, as always, the demi-gods are found to have their faults and perish. But the boy's reverence, sometimes smothered in the disappointment that ensues, is oftener transferred to another, and, for the time being, more worthy object. Outsiders who hear the wild talk of Freshmen during winter vacation, are astonished, and cannot imagine whence comes such boundless enthusiasm. They do not know that those old musty dormitories are the German forest of the present day, where youth each year fights out anew the primeval contest between barbarism and civilization.

Yet it is generally reported that college students are inclined to be irreligious, and to one who judges, not in the light of human nature, but by forms and prejudices, such indeed seems to be the fact. Here appears a paradox, but it is readily explained.

The boy reaches college, crammed full in most directions with traditionary ideas, which he has learned at home. But college, particularly a large college, like Harvard, is a place most decidedly sui generis; and he finds his old formulas will not solve the new moral and social problem which is there presented to him. He is suddenly thrown into the deeper waters of life, and sinks or swims according to circumstances - circumstances usually being the natural or artificial character of the youth's early training. Then, if ever, he is compelled to think for himself; and the immediate result appears as a loss of faith in whatever he has before placed confidence, and an earnest desire to find somewhat worthy of his holding faith in it anew. This is an intermediate phase and a healthful one, between the childhood's credulity and too cautious manhood. The boy is not wanting in true reverence, if you can find him the proper object, but just at this moment he is hard to humbug. He knows nothing of logic, but unerring intuition carries him straight to his mark. All shams and pretenses are to him mere gossamer veils, which only serve to call attention to the naked reality beneath, and woe to the pretender! I am not certain but that those of our classmates who left us at the end of Freshman year, were greatly the gainers thereby, having learned the larger half of what college had to teach, and escaping all its subsequent temptations. Their danger lies in piercing mannerism to the core, perceiving its utter worthlessness, and then being obliged to adopt it as their own code from fear or inability to appropriate a better. Many may well and earnestly wish in after life, for the pure enthusiasm which filled them in those "days, never to return."

But how is this enthusiasm met and answered by the college government by president, professor, tutor, and proctor? Enthusiasm as "the surest moral safeguard against selfishness," ought to be cultivated, ought to be encouraged. If the enthusiast is in danger of rushing headlong out of sight on the wrong path, it may be well to direct him aright, but never, O august and venerable powers, never violate the first principles of your Natural Philosophy, and attempt to replace a positive force by a negative one!

I

Yet this is precisely the course the college government pursues. know it in Harvard by personal experience, and that it is so in other colleges I have learned by accurate information. "Let us have repression, not expression," they say, and forthwith the whole Freshman Class are snubbed to the last man in the catalogue. The unpretending youths are patronized in the recitation room by dapper-looking tutors of last year's graduation; utterly ignored in the college grounds by more venerable instructors; and thoroughly frozen at the

president's reception. It is truly wonderful that well-educated gentlemen of from thirty to sixty years of age, should need to be constantly on their guard, lest boys of seventeen become too familiar with them. Yet such is evidently the case. Perhaps it happens that one particular innocent little Freshman has been rather too fond of sleeping an hour or more after dinner every day, in the drowsy spring weather, and that his recitations result sadly in consequence. Soon he is summoned before the college officers of justice, his bashful and repentant eye is met by the stony gaze of the preceptor, and he is informed with mathematical accuracy, just how long it will be before his present course must result in expulsion from the seat of learning. After such occasions I have heard many an oath from fellows who did not swear under ordinary provocation. A fine plan for coaxing the lost sheep back into his proper flock, but one which has failed so often, it seems now quite worth while to make trial of some other method.

To those who have ever been young, and who remember anything at all of their youth, it is useless to say that such a course on the part of instructors to their pupils, is in any manner necessary for the good order and well-being of the college. That boys are to be ruled, regulated, and disciplined, en masse, like raw troops just before a battle — surely the idea of the nineteenth century is something far different! What boys want, is sympathy, encouragement in all their undertakings, a broad field for developing their latent energięs in directions of heart as well as of mind, and you should afford it them, O worthy professors, even at the expense of a little of your frosty dignity. Dignity indeed! Is dignity an attribute so noble that it must be cultivated at the expense of humanity?

The answer has always been made on behalf of cold-blooded conservatism, "Indeed sir, we have constantly to be on our guard against the students, else they will impose upon us, and play tricks on us. At times the students behave like perfect little wild beasts, sir."

Does youth with all its generous impulses go to college with the deliberate purpose of imposing upon anybody? Undoubtedly there are to be found in every class such characters as it is customary to term "vicious boys;" a small minority, and detected without much difficulty. Must then the majority also be clothed in straight-jackets on their account? Is universal severity necessary for their control? But they never are controlled in the slightest. Let our "little wild beasts" themselves refute such argument.

In Sophomore year X- died of typhoid fever, brought on by