EDITOR RADICAL.

A LETTER.

INDIANAPOLIS, July 13, 1867.

DEAR SIR.-For two weeks past, a discussion has been in progress between Rev. B. F. Foster, pastor of the 1st Universalist Church of this city, and Rev. J. Hogarth Lozier, pastor of Asbury Chapel (M. E.). Subject: The final destiny of man. Proposition: Do the Bible and Reason teach the Doctrine of the final Holiness and Happiness of the entire Human Family. Mr. Foster affirmed and Mr. Lozier denied. Second, Do the Bible and Reason teach that any part of God's creatures will be punished eternally. Mr. Lozier affirmed and Mr. Foster denied. One week was spent upon each proposition, closing last night. The discussions were held in Morrison's Opera Hall, and were attended each evening by audiences full as large and intellectual as were ever assembled in this city. That the debate has excited great interest, is evidenced by the size and character of the audiences, as well as the general and excited discussion of its merits to be heard in every circle of our society.

I confess to have felt but little interest in it when announced, and predicted but small results. In part, I have been agreeably disappointed. Whatever troubles the waters of religious conservatism, and stirs the stagnant pools of Orthodox thought, must do good.

This the debate has done. A thorough ventilation of the Bible proofs, pro and con, on the subjects discussed, has been had, and the faith of many of the Saints has been shaken in the Scriptural basis of their creeds heretofore thought to be invulnerable. Dr. Foster is one of the ablest classical and biblical scholars in the Universalist connection, and every prominent text in the Bible that proved his doctrine was brought forward and used to the best possible advantage, while the arguments of his opponent were criticized and ventilated in a most able and ingenious manner, forcing the doubt upon the minds of hundreds who thought they had not doubted before. On the other hand, Mr. Lozier fortified his position by such an array of Scriptural testimony as made the very temple of Universalism tremble visibly with the consciousness of those who base their hopes of its truth in the testimony of sacred writers, and they were fain to flee for refuge to the firm pillars of reason. Nothing was more obvious to the thinking, unprejudiced mind than that the antagonistic dogmas of universal salvation and eternal damnation can both be sustained by the Bible, and with about equal weight of testimony.

кад

Herein consists the weakness of Un ance of the Bible as the word of God, on all theological questions. Dr. F laying down three fundamental prop Paternity of God. 2d, The Infinite God. 3d, The Justice and Mercy, God. These he backed up by analog experiences of man, as well as by ph referring to the Bible during his firs speech, Universalism was triumpha nent pronounced the whole speech b and like a skillful tactician, he fla into his Bible defences from which during the contest. In every instan plains of reason, the cry of "Infidel, his ears until he was glad to retreat b where in safety he could apply the m and hurl destruction into the ranks o ploded bomb-shells, filled with foss whole affair the character of a m enough to the combatants and their destinies hung upon the issue, but untramelled truth has made free.

N

BIAS OF THEOLOGICAL METHODS.

EANDER says " It is impossible to proceed at all in historical investigation without some presupposition. We cannot entirely free ourselves from presuppositions which are born with our nature and which attach to the fixed course of progress in which we are ourselves involved. They control our consciousness whether we will or no; and the supposed freedom from them is in fact, nothing else but the exchange of one set for another. Some of these pre-suppositions springing from a higher necessity, founded in the moral order of the universe, and derived from the eternal laws of the Creator, constitute the very ground and support of our nature. From such we must not free ourselves. But we are ever in peril of exchanging these legitimate sovereigns of our Spiritual being for the prepossessions of a self-created or traditional prejudice, which has no other than an arbitrary origin, and which rule us by better title than usurpation. The work of Science can only be to distinguish the prepossessions which an inward necessity constrains us to recognize from such as are purely voluntary."

All theological methods applied to the history of Christianity have then their presuppositions. But whether a theological method involve bias, and be justly chargeable with bias, depends upon the character of its presuppositions. Are they such as "an inward necessity constrains us to recognize," or are they "purely voluntary"? are they universal, employed in historical inquiry in general, or special, used only in a particular province of history.

The method of some scholars employs the presupposition that Jesus is "the son of God," in a sense which cannot be predicated of any human being. This belief is assumed as the right attitude of mind in which to "approach the contemplation of the life of Christ." The presupposition is plainly of the class that springs from "traditional prejudice, which has no other than an arbitrary origin." It does not exist in the mind of man in general, but is found only among the comparatively small portion of men who have been educated as Christians, and it is not universal even among these, but would be rejected, as a presupposition, by the greater number of intelligent students of Christian history. It is worthy of notice because Neander's "Life of Christ" is avowedly based upon it, and because where it is not avowed it is employed, and because it produces a powerful bias towards the supernatural and miraculous view of the origin of Christianity.

A presupposition more common is that miracle is necessary to prove

the divine origin of a religion.. This presupposition is so far from being one of those which an inward necessity constrains us to recognize, that it is not adopted even by all who believe in miracle. There is nothing in the nature of the human mind, which requires the supposition of the necessity of miraculous evidence for the divine origin of a religion; there is nothing in the moral order of the universe which confirms it. On the contrary, the more the intellect of the race is developed, and the better the order of the universe is understood, the less natural does the presupposition become, and the less consistent with the divine modes of operation does it appear. Spiritual evidence becomes more satisfactory, than evidence of the senses. Order is felt to be a better proof of divine agency than disorder.

The presupposition in question produces bias in favor of the Christian record of miracles, and against all other miraculous records. For if miracle be necessary to prove the divine origin of a religion, then unless some miraculous record be true, we have no assumed revelation of divine truth. The mind does not easily resign itself to the loss of divine communications, and is thus exposed to a most powerful bias in favor of the authenticity of some account of miracles. The natural preference being for one's own religion, to believe in any record of miracles is, for the Christian to believe in the Christian record. But in order to be of value as evidence of divine revelation, miracle must belong to one religion exclusively. Admit miracle in other records than the Christian, and it ceases to be a proof of divine revelation in Christianity. The mind is thus biased against other miraculous records than the Christian, and the evidence of miracles in general religious history, is seldom fairly considered.

The presupposition that miracle is necessary to prove the divine origin of a religion being arbitrary, and productive of bias, is not improperly styled dogmatic, and the theological method which employs this presupposition is not unfairly called the dogmatic method.

The main presupposition of other scholors is, that the divine agency in Christian history has probably been exerted in accordance with the divine modes in general history. This presupposition is one of those which an inward necessity constrains us to recognize, and nothing can prevent us from recognizing it but special training in the belief that Christian history is exceptional in character. It is found in all minds which have reached a certain grade of intelligence: for those who believe in the miraculous origin of Christianity, admit for the most part that the fair presupposition in the case of any special history is that the divine agency in it has probably been exerted in accordance with the divine modes in general history. This presuppo

sition is of the same nature with those employed in general science. In Geology, e. g., it is presupposed that special phenomena of the earth's crust have probably been produced, not by forces different from those since and at present in operation, but by the same forces which are now and always at work.

This presupposition has no tendency to produce bias. Under its influence Christian history is investigated according to the same principles which we employed in all other historical study. Christian evidences are judged by the same rules as other evidences; Christian precepts are tried by the same standard as the precepts of other religions.

This, to be sure, appears like bias against Christianity to those who are accustomed to treat Christian history with partiality. Mrs. Childs' " Progress of the Religious Ideas," one of the rare examples of fairness in religious inquiry, was pronounced by a clergyman to have "a great deal of special pleading in it."

The mother who is partial to one of her children thinks people have a spite against her favorite, if they treat him as they do his brothers and sisters.

This presupposition is thought by some to involve bias against records of miracles. But there is no bias in assuming the probability of law. It is simply fair to assume as probable that the events of a special history have been in accordance with the processes of history in general. Bias consists in applying to some special department of history principles and methods not employed elsewhere. Now in all history but that of Christianity, the improbability of miraculous events is a fundamental principle. Bias appears not in applying this principle to Christian history, but in not applying it.

The presupposition now under consideration is of the class of the necessary and universal. It is scientific, and the theological method which employs it is properly called the scientific method. The term involves no boast and admits of no dispute, for the method to which it is applied is simply the method of science applied to Christian history.

It sometimes happens when an important work is to be done, that every individual of a company thinks his own plan of operation to be the best, but that all unite for their second choice upon a plan suggested from without their circle. In this case the plan approved by all apart from personal bias is likely to be the best. The Hindoo, the Mohammedan, the Christian prefers in the investigation of the history of his own religion, the dogmatic method in theology, but in the study of other history, all unite in preference of the scientific methods. HENRY W. BROWN.