LECT. I.

Importance

of the subject

By some of my hearers I may be thought to have drawn this picture strongly. Yet I am not aware of having, in any of its shades, overlaid the colouring, or of having delineated any one of its features in caricature. It is more than my fear, it is my conviction and my knowledge, that with little if any softening, the portrait has had its prototype in fact. And I confess, that, along with the general importance and interesting nature of the discussions themselves, this consideration has contributed not a little to settle my choice of a subject for the proposed series of lectures.

There cannot, certainly, be any subject higher in importance, or deeper in interest, than that ples on which of MORALS. It comprehends in it all the obliga

of morals,

and princi

the following

discussions tions, not of human beings alone, but of intelli

are to be

conducted. gent creatures universally, in all the relations.

they can occupy, whether to their Maker, or to each other; together with the great original principles, so far as they can be ascertained, from which these obligations arise. Such is the enlarged acceptation in which I would be understood as employing the term in those discussions, on which, with all diffidence, I am about to enter. It is my design, to treat of morals in the light of revelation, and to bring to the test of its principles, some of the leading philosophical theories of ancient and modern times. I do not mean that I am to confine myself to the simple state*Notes and Illustrations. Note B.

ments of the Holy Scriptures; but only, that I _LECT. I. would take those statements as "the light of my feet and the lamp of my path," in prosecuting every inquiry that goes at all beyond their range. I would lay it down, with all the certainty of an axiomatic principle, that divine revelation and true philosophy can never be really at variance; that it is only false philosophy that fears revelation, or that revelation needs to fear. Truth is one.

There have been those, in the history of the Christian Church, who have waged the most desperate war against philosophy, as "the mortal enemy of religion." Such, for example, was Daniel Hoffman, in the end of the sixteenth century, professor of divinity at Helmstadt, whom Mosheim represents as maintaining, in the vehemence of his enmity, the singularly absurd position, "that truth was divisible into two branches, the one philosophical, and the other theological; and that what was true in philosophy was false in theology." I need say no more of such a statement than has been already said. But, while we smile at its folly, let us not forget to consider, in mitigation of our scorn, the nature of that multiform and incomprehensible jargon which then passed under the denomination of philosophy, and the serious injury to the cause of divine truth which had arisen from the intermixture with its sublimely simple discoveries of

* Mosheim, Vol. IV. p. 302.

LECT. I. the crude conjectures and mystical speculations

of the schools. When we think of the adulteration, the debasement, the almost extinction of Christianity, whose simple elements were overwhelmed amongst the accumulated rubbish of scholastic science-" science, falsely so called❞— it will not be matter to us of great surprise, that, in their zeal for purifying religion, some of the reformers themselves should have fallen into the extreme of proscribing and discarding philosophy altogether. We ought to recollect, in their behalf, how, in course of time, terms come to change their import. Philosophy then was something very diverse from philosophy now. Since the domination of the Stagyrite was overthrown, and the mystic oracles of the schoolmen, the darkening commentators of Aristotle, were silenced; since Bacon introduced the true principles of scientific investigation; the name of philosophy has been retained, but the thing designated by it has undergone an essential change. Whether it be the philosophy of mind, or of matter, it now proceeds upon facts, as its only admissible data; and with existing facts it is impossible that divine revelation should ever be at variance. In the procedure of philosophers, there may not, on all occasions, be a duly consistent adherence to the inductive principle; but, however it may be departed from in practice, it is by all adopted in profession. He who *Notes and Illustrations. Note C.

would not be satisfied by the passing breath of LECT. I. inconsiderate applause, but would enjoy, among men of sense and reflection, solid and lasting reputation for true science, must neither spin out into theories the materials furnished by his own fancy, nor even, however ingeniously, frame structures of principles, and then set out in quest of facts to support them. To the lover of truth, even the most ingenious conjectures will be the suggestion of previously noticed or recorded facts; and he will immediately reject them, if they are unsupported by subsequent observations and experiments. It had been well if, in certain questions closely connected with the subject of these lectures,-questions relative especially to the present character of human nature, there had been less of plausible and often (it must be admitted) beautiful theorising, and a more rigid observance of the inductive principle. Revelation would have nothing to fear from such a process, but every thing to hope. There would be found a correspondence between its statements and a larger induction of facts than can be brought to bear upon any other point whatever, in the whole range of natural and moral science; an induction, embracing a wider field of experiment, extending through a longer period of time, and yielding a more invariably uniform result. I am aware, indeed, that the very principles of evil existing in human nature in its present state, prevent many from

32

LECT. I.

PROVINCES OF PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY.

admitting the conclusion to which this induction
leads, and which is in harmony with the repre-
sentations of the sacred volume. I refer to the
natural alienation of the heart of man from God,
as constituting the essential element of his moral
corruption. It has long been my painful con-
viction, that many of our theories of morals have
been sadly vitiated, not merely in the way of
defect, but even of radical and mischievous error,
by the non-admission, or by the absence of all
due consideration, of the real character of our
nature, as estranged in its affections from the
government of God, and so in a state of moral
depravity. I avow it to be one of my principal
designs, to call to this subject the attention of
my fellow-christians.
However unsatisfactory
may be my own brief consideration of it, I shall
be happy if the principles that may be laid down
shall be followed out more at large by some
other and abler mind.

To say more at present, would necessarily be to anticipate the ground to be occupied in future lectures. The next in order will have for its object, the exposure of certain mistakes in pursuing our inquiries on the subject of morals; and especially, the attempt to deduce a scheme of virtue from the present character of human nature; and in it, and the one that shall succeed it, the principles laid down will be illustrated by brief comments on various moral systems.