From: The Dial, Vol. I, No. II (Oct. 1840)
Author:
Published: Weeks Jordan and Company 1840 Boston
THE manly and judicious Discourse of Dr. Walker before the Alumni of the Cambridge Theological School, produced a deep impression on the large audience which listened to its delivery. We hoped to have seen it before this time in print. It would afford an interesting subject of discussion. As it has not yet been brought before the public, we must content ourselves with copying a slight sketch of it, which appeared in the “Boston Daily Advertiser,” soon after it was pronounced.
“The Annual Discourse before the Alumni of the Cambridge Theological School” was delivered on Friday last by the Rev. Dr. Walker, Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University. The subject chosen for this occasion was The Connexion between Philosophy and Religion; ‘ and, addressed by a philosophical teacher to an audience of religious teachers, was as appropriate as any that could be presented; while the manner in which it was treated, the vigor and independence of the speaker, his lucid discrimination of thought, his wise insight into the respective claims of philosophy and religion, his just description of the present state of speculation in the scientific world, and its connexion with the practical interests of society, gave it an importance which rarely belongs to our popular Anniversary Addresses. It is certainly a striking feature in our community, that the most abstract subjects are brought before the mass of the people; words of learned length and portentous sound are familiarly heard in the saloons and on Change; systems of philosophy, which in other countries are explained from the chair of the Professor, are here pronounced upon in the Insurance Office, and at the tea table. No true republican will find fault with this, of course; but, as a necessary consequence, we must, now and then, hear the expression of opinions that are more ludicrous than edifying, and characterized rather by vehemence than wisdom. The ears, that have ached uncomplainingly under such inflictions, must have found something healing in the well-weighed words of a man who spoke from knowledge, not from hearsay, and who had taken the pains to comprehend the scientific questions on which he was called to pass judgment.
“The purpose of Dr. Walker was to show the importance of the study of philosophy to the teacher of religion. In introducing the subject, he set forth one or two just distinctions between religion, considered as the subject of philosophical discussion, and the religious character, or the condition of being religious; and between religion, as a system of absolute truths, and the views of religion which are taken by the human mind. Philosophy, he maintained, was by no means essential to a high degree of personal religious experience; a man might be truly devout, who did not understand the meaning of the word; nor was it the foundation of those realities which form the substance of religious faith, under all its various expressions. But it is the province of philosophy to enable us to give an account to ourselves; and, of course, to explain the facts of religion, no less than other facts which come under our cognizance.
“The necessity of an acquaintance with philosophy was argued, from the general tendency of thought at the present day. Men now look into the reason of things on all subjects. They desire to give an account to themselves of whatever engages their attention. The discussion of first principles awakens the deepest interest in the most active and cultivated minds. Hence the tendency of the age to philosophical investigation. This tendency is visible in the popular movements for social reform. They, who go to the greatest length in these attempts, are distinguished from reformers who preceded them, by the fact, that they seek to establish their principles on a philosophical basis, instead of appealing to the authority of the letter. They defend their views by an exposition of human nature, as well as by texts of Scripture. This tendency is also visible in modern literature. The greatest poets have not escaped its influence. Byron and Wordsworth are indebted to it for their popularity, as well as to their unquestioned genius. It is still more distinctly visible in theological literature. It is seen even in the title pages of books which have the widest circulation. Instead of Essays, ‘Treatises,’ ‘Evidences,’ and so forth, we now have ‘The Philosophy of Man’s Moral Nature,’ ‘The Philosophy of the Evidences of Christianity,’ and the like. The taste for works on philology, criticism, the interpretation of the Scriptures, and the external evidences of religion, has yielded to a deeper interest in questions relating to the ultimate foundation of faith, and the testimony to religion presented by the human soul. A few years since, in this community, a valuable work on the Old Testament, on the Gospel history, or an original Commentary, would have produced a sensation; now such works may be published, without any sensation whatever. Men are seeking truth on a different order of questions; questions, which it is the business of philosophy to illustrate and expound.
“It is in vain for men to shut their eyes on the existence and importance of this philosophical movement, or to affect to wink it out of sight. They may correct it, where it is wrong; but they must first study its character. They may endeavor to arrest its progress; but they must first understand its direction. They may put down Trancendentalism, if they can; but they must first deign to comprehend its principles.
“But it may be said, that philosophical systems are temporary, and, therefore, it is not worth while to make them the object of study. Admitting that systems are temporary, the truth which they embody is permanent. The discoveries of philosophy remain, are incorporated with the whole texture of popular thought, act on the institutions of society, long after the person to whom they owe their origin has passed into comparative obscurity, and ceased to number any professed followers. There are no Cartesians now; but the reasonings of Descartes on matter and spirit influence the opinions of every student of human nature. There are no Hartleians now; but the doctrines of Hartley, in regard to the association of ideas, belong to our established science. There are no Kantians now, it is said, in Germany; but it is certain, that the influence of the profound analysis of the mind by the great philosopher of Königsberg is everywhere visible.
“Besides, systems of philosophy are as permanent as any scientific systems, with the exception only of pure mathematics. Geology has experienced changes which well nigh baffle the student; and even now the experiments of Mr. Faraday bid fair to introduce a complete revolution into the science of chemistry.
“But it is said, moreover, that philosophy tends to infidelity, and that its connexion with religion endangers the interests of the latter. It is thought that the only safety for religion consists in never looking philosophy in the face.
“It is not a little remarkable, that this objection has been uniformly brought against the best systems of philosophy on their first promulgation. Their authors have been accused of atheism, decried as dangerous, and exposed to the attacks of popular clamor. Descartes was called an atheist; Locke was called an atheist; Kant was called an atheist; and recently, the eminent French Eclectic, Cousin, has been called an atheist; in the latter case with as much propriety as in the former, and with not a whit more.
“But the objection, that philosophy tends to infidelity, is not sustained by historical facts. The skepticism of the most distinguished English infidel, David Hume, was not founded in philosophy, but in the want of philosophy. He called in question the power of the mind to gain a knowledge of truth; his purpose was to pick everything to pieces; he built up nothing, and argued against philosophy, with as much zeal as his religious opponents have done since. The French philosophy of the last century did not produce the infidelity of the French nation; it had its own origin in the infidelity which had long been prevalent; and the modern philosophical movement in that country, so far from being of an infidel character, exhibits an earnest faith in religion, and is friendly, to say the least, to Christianity. Neither did German infidelity proceed from German philosophy. It commenced with critics and philologists. Semler is usually regarded as at the head of this movement; it was carried on by Michaelis and Eichhorn, philologists both; and the return to a higher order of ideas, to a living faith in God, in Christ, and in the Church, has been promoted by the philosophical labors of such men as Schleiermacher and De Wette. This tribute is due in justice to the last named individuals, ill-adapted as their views may be to meet the popular wants in our own country.
“After noticing some other less important objections to the study of philosophy, Dr. Walker closed his discourse with an admirable description of the spirit with which this study should be carried on, in connexion with religion. The philosopher, when approaching the loftiest themes of human thought, especially when he attempts to investigate the Divine essence and attributes, should be impressed with the solemn nature of his inquiries, should cherish a meek and reverent disposition, like the seraphim, who, when they bow before the presence of God, veil their faces with their wings.
“We trust that this powerful and luminous Discourse will be soon given to the public from the press. It may do much to correct many prevalent, and, at first view, almost hopeless errors with regard to the true nature and purposes of Transcendental inquiry. A religious community has reason to look with distrust and dread on a philosophy, which limits the ideas of the human mind to the information of the senses, and denies the existence of spiritual elements in the nature of man. They will welcome a philosophy of an opposite character, a philosophy which maintains a sublime harmony with the teachings of revelation, which brings home the most vital truths to individual consciousness, and which establishes the reality of freedom and holiness, as the noblest object of human endeavor. Such a philosophy has been taught in Great Britain by Butler, Price, Stewart, Reid, and Coleridge; in Germany by Kant, Jacobi, and Schleiermacher; in France by Cousin, Jouffroy, and De Gerando; and we rejoice to add is now taught with signal ability, in the halls of our venerated University, by the author of this discourse.”
All Sub-Works of The Dial, Vol. I, No. II (Oct. 1840):
PDF Sub-Works open in a new tab. Close the tab when done viewing to return here.
