« VorigeDoorgaan »
mate and inseparable connection of the divinity of our Lord, this hypostatical union with his person and work, which gave to both that exclusive peculiarity which lays the foundation of our absolute faith. .... It is this which invests his humanity with that divine character; so that by virtue of the personal union, we worship him without idolatry, as God. Thomas touches his very flesh, and yet falls at his feet and cries out, My Lord and my God!"*
To the same point speaks Robert Hall: “There was a mysterious and inconceivable union between the divine nature of the Son of God, and the man Christ Jesus. But when we attempt to develop this mystery, and inquire how this union was effected and maintained without the two natures being identified, or their respective properties being confounded, we are utterly at a loss. ... This, which has been styled the hypostatical union,-in consequence of which, the blood shed upon the cross, being the blood of God's own Son, possesses that marvelous efficacy by which it cleanses from all sin,—will probably remain for ever an impenetrable secret."
It is unfair and uncandid, therefore, in our author so to misrepresent the general creed of the church as to make it ridiculous, in order that he may the more successfully demolish it, and build upon its ruins. He ought to have known that it is not true, that “under the prevalent theory the holy union suffered not.”—P. 75. He did know, that by no evangelical writer of any note, nor yet, as we believe, by any of the humblest followers of the Lamb, is the suffering of Christ ever spoken or thought of, in a way to authorize such language as the following:
“ The theory which holds that the suffering element in the person of Christ was only the little speck of his humanity, with the inference to which it inevitably leads of the minuteness of the subtraction from the bliss of his united person, caused by the suffering of that human speck, cannot but detract immeasurably from the dignity and glory of the atonement. ... The minute atom of his human suffering, compared with the mighty totality of his divine beatitude, was less than the scarcely perceptible speck that often passes over without obscuring the orb of day.”—Pp. 92, 93.
We cannot allow ourselves to think, however, that these and similar perversions and distortions of the Christian faith arose from any more blameworthy source than ignorance on the part of our author. Whatever may be his age or standing in the world, he is evidently but a young Christian. His reading has been directed
Sermons, vol. I, p. 383.
† Works, vol. iii, p. 317.
rather to other sciences than to theology. Hence, when quoting from “ the illustrious Chalmers," and “the distinguished Harris," passages which set forth with clearness and power the truly orthodox sentiments upon this great theme, he tells his readers (p. 52) and repeats the declaration, (p. 209)—"The remarks we are about to quote first reached our knowledge after these sheets were prepared for the press."
In speaking of the limited extent of his theological reading he uses this language :
“ With all the multitudinous volumes of theological lore, the countless progeny of the unceasing travail of eighteen centuries, there is but one created being that can claim universal familiarity. That being is the worm.
It alone, of finite beings, has bibliothecal ubiquity. The hugest tomes appal it not. To fastidiousness of ste it is a stranger. It feeds not on the ambrosia of genius alone. Its never-satiated appetite loathes not even the offals of polemical dullness. To rivalship with the worm, in compass of research, we dare not aspire.”—P. 51.
'Tis a pity to spoil so eloquent a passage; yet in reading it we could not help asking whether it is of one worm or of the entire genus that the author is speaking; and if of the latter, whether it is not just as true that man has also “bibliothecal ubiquity.” Though he dare not aspire in compass of research to rivalship with the worm, yet is our author's misapprehension of the evangelical doctrine of the sufferings of Christ ample evidence that, like a worm, his “feeding" has been confined to a very limited theological library. It is absolutely unpardonable that any man, professing to be an orthodox disciple, should, in these days, when the true faith is assailed on every hand by avowed enemies, allow himself to throw into the church a volume based upon a false assumption, and coolly tell his readers that a knowledge of the evangelical doctrine first reached him “after these sheets were prepared for the press.”
Here we take our leave of “a Layman." To himself, personally unknown as he is, we have, and can have, nothing but kind feelings. The mawkish tenderness and gingerly hesitation with which many of the religious periodicals of the day have expressed their dissent from his doctrines, have induced us to speak of them, and of the arguments by which they are sustained, in a manner, which, perhaps, with all our care, may wound him; and which may induce him to wish, as we certainly do, that instead of rushing half-armed into open hostility with the faith of Christendom, he had continued, in the language quoted by himself in his preface,
" Along the cool sequester'd vale of life,
To keep the noiseless tenor of his way.”
Art. V.-Upham's Psychological and Theological Works. 1. Mental Philosophy; embracing the three Departments of the
Intellect, Sensibilities, and Will. 3 vols., 12mo. 2. A Philosophical and Practical Treatise on the Will. 3. Outlines of Imperfect and Disordered Mental Action. 4. Principles of the Interior or Hidden Life; designed particu
larly for the Consideration of those who are seeking Assurance
of Faith and Perfect Love. Fourth edition. 5. Life of Catharine Adorna, including some leading Facts and
Traits in her Religious Experience, with Explanations, Re
marks, fc. 6. The Life of Faith, in three Parts, embracing some of the Scrip
tural Principles or Doctrines of Faith, the Power or Effects of Faith, in the Regulation of Man's Inward Nature, and the Relation of Faith to the Divine Guidance. Waite, Pierce, & Co., No. 1 Cornhill, Boston.
We hope our readers will not be appalled by the array of metaphysical volumes at the head of this article. We are not about to blind them with subtil dust, or challenge their wonder at our skill in hair splitting. We shall present them merely a dish of olla podrida. It is our wish to submit some rather cursory remarks on the productions of a native and very meritorious author, whom his country should more fully appreciate ; and, availing ourselves, at the same time, of the licensed versatility of the Review, make some devious glances at topics which are related to both our subject and the times.
A review of the first half of these volumes is almost superfluous at this date : they have been our text-books in the United States for years, and the maturest teachers and professors have given them a decisive verdict. Dr. Woods pronounces Upham a “charming writer," and says,—“His views are well expressed and well guarded." He places him “among the best writers on the various subjects which he has treated.” Professor Stuart says,—“I have no hesitation in saying, that I regard Professor Upham's books as giving the best views of the subjects named which we have in the English language.” The New-York Review (a good authority in its day) says,—“Out of all the systematic treatises in use, we consider the volumes of Mr. Upham by far the best that we have.” The Biblical Repository declares,—“His system is not a copy of any other, but without any apparent effort at novelty, is strongly marked with original thought.”
His work on the will is not so generally known. We cannot indorse it fully, nor can we any other author on that insolvable problem; but his Treatise is certainly more satisfactory to the Arminian school than any of its predecessors. It modifies quite away the Cyclopean mound of difficulty reared by Edwards. Dr. Fisk said of the Treatise on the Will,—“I have read it with great satisfaction. It is certainly a better analysis of this difficult subject, in my judgment, than anything I have before seen in relation to it. I might, if this were the proper time, it is true, make some queries on some of the points presented in the work, but on the whole I cannot but believe it will go far toward harmonizing the hitherto discordant views connected with this subject."
The excellences of Dr. Upham's works on Mental Philosophy are manifold.
1. Their arrangement is natural, and consequently simple. It is divided into three departments,—the intellect, the sensibilities, and the will, and thus traces the mental phenomena in their obvious series.
2. They are strictly inductive. No elaborate hypothesis is assumed as a nucleus to which all mental phenomena must bend and adhere. The writer deals in facts, and draws his sober conclu. sions from the common experience of mankind, the evidence of ordinary language, the pathological manifestations of the mind, consciousness, &c.
3. Their style is remarkably clear; in many instances ornate, perhaps in some diffuse.
4. They are eminently Christian in their character. They are evidently the production of a devout mind. The authority of the moral sense is distinctly recognized and defined. We cannot too highly recommend them to all our young preachers. No theologian should be ignorant of the philosophy of the mind; and there are no works extant which can take precedence of these, as a perspicuous and comprehensive introduction to the whole science.
There is one general characteristic of the psychological works of Professor Upham, which we would more strongly emphasize : we refer to their soundly healthful and English character, in contradistinction to the transcendental and hypothetical schools of Germany and France. Professor Stuart has recommended them as especially "adapted to these times, when the public mind is allured by books on these subjects, in many respects dreamy and unintelligible to the great mass of readers."
We must take advantage of the present notice to indulge a few remarks on the prevalent philosophical speculations of the times. Their transcendental extravagances have excited not a little attention and curiosity. They have exerted a serious influence on the religious opinions of many, and have infected, to some extent, the youthful intellects of our learned institutions, especially in NewEngland, where they have been most in vogue. The daring which these speculations assume gives them the high and attractive air of intellectual courage; the unquestionable erudition which has been amassed around them lends them the dignity of authority; while their combination, of late, with a fanciful poetry and an ideal literature, gives them the charms of an effeminate and meretricious taste. They thus appeal at once to the presumptuous, the obsequious, and the sentimental.
We have spent many a late hour (we reproach ourselves by mentioning it) in threading the mazes of this metaphysical labyrinth ; yet if we pretended to comprehend the system, we should certainly be wise above what is written, and equally so above those who have written. We enter here, therefore, into no examination of the logic of this philosophy; it is at once its security and its absurdity, that it is too aerial to be tangible to the grasp of syllogisms. Its only reasoning is revery. It has, however, two or three capital characteristics upon which we must remark briefly.
Its main defect is its hypothetical spirit. Nothing is more insisted upon by Cousin than that his method is inductive. But to our Beotian head the assumption is as vain as it is emphatic. His system is indeed eclectic-it gleans from all others, but his hypothesis is prior to his facts; the latter are subordinate to the former, not the former to the latter. This is the strong distinction between the English and the continental philosophies. The sturdy common sense of the Anglo-Saxon mind has marked the whole progress of our philosophical inquiries, and we are happy to see it still maintaining its old vigor in the works of Dr. Upham. No sweeping hypothesis, comprehending all things, and pronouncing, with imperious dogmatism, its verdicts, has been tolerated in the philosophical inquiries of the English mind. The principles of Bacon are adhered to here as well as in the physical sciences. The desultory and confused conversation of a few friends on metaphysical subjects suggested to Locke his ideas on the limitations of the human understanding ; the origin, nature, and relations of ideas form the scope of his great, though defective, work. Berkeley, seizing on one thought of Locke, that “ideas of sensation are often changed by the judgment,” wrought out his beautiful discovery of the theory of vision, a psychological fact, and lived to see it experimentally demonstrated by the celebrated operation of