phases of unbelief which have appeared and disappeared at intervals from the earliest ages of Christianity, but which, thanks be to God, have never yet succeeded in making the Gospel obsolete, and in robbing mankind of the knowledge of salvation. It is, however, fraught with danger, and its power of mischief arises, in no small degree, from its capability of disguise. It can put ' on the semblance of Christian truth ; it can comply with any form of words, even the soundest form, in creeds and confessions drawn up with the greatest fidelity and care." (Comp. Hardwick, Christ and other Masters, i, 5 sq.) See Spiritualism.
(3.) Naturalism. — " The mind that revolts at mys- tery, or religious truth which we cannot know independ- ently of a direct and outward revelation, is also shock- ed and repelled by miracle. Accordingly we find that infidelity sometimes assumes the form of naturalism, or an assaidt upon the Bible chietly with reference to its supernatiu-al historic elements. According to some, the miracles of Scripture were really wrought, and present- ed all the appearances described in the sacred record; but they w-ere miraculous only to the apprehension of ignorant persons, who did not understand how they were performed. Far more elaborate, and perhaps more plau- sible, has been an attempt of recent date to exhibit all the miraculous and supernatural featiures of the Gospel history under the character of an aggregate of myths or legends. Such is the hypothesis of Strauss. See Naturalism.
(4.) Deism. — "This is a class of anti-Christian princi- ples well knowni as having prevailed in England chiefly in the last century." Infidelity in this form no longer ap- pears as mere philosophy, or speaks in the accents of calm or lofty specidation. It includes, indeed, some attempts at historical and verbal criticism, and makes some show of wisdom suited to the age in which it flourished ; but, for the most part, it opens its mouth in blasphemy, and proclaims aloud the sentiments of an evil and migodly heart. For, whether we consider the ignorant misrep- resentations of Paine, the sneers of Gibbon, or the scoff- ings of Voltaire, it is impossible not to perceive that their opposition to the Gospel is founded upon moral re- pugnance and distaste. Their writings are a clear echo of that rebeUious sentiment, 'We wiU not have this man to reign over us' (Luke xix, 14:). And, so far as the school of infidelity continues to subsist, we find its adherents, for the most part, among men of depraved moral habits, of low taste and uncultivated intellect, rev- elling very often in the haunts of profligacy and vice, or fiUed with political rancor, and struggling against the restraints of all laws, human and divine." (Comp. Wa- terland. Worlds, v, 4 sq. ; Hardwick, Christ and other Mas- ters, i, 38 sq.) See Dkism,
(5.) Pantheism. — " Some men there are who, while they reject Christianity, and know not the true God, yet retain the impression of a presiding or universal In- tellect; but, at the same time, that which they thus rec- ognise as mental energy, or the divine essence, or even a divine being, they regard as more or less identical with nature, conceiving that, in some way or other, either God is the universe, or the universe is God. This is Pantheism in its twofold aspect." See Pantheism.
(G.) A theism. — " There appears to be only one step low- er to which even the boldest infidelitj' can descend, and thatis.4/^mw, properly so called. The Atheist is some- times satisfied with taking a merely negative position. Without attempting to prove that there is no God, he simply affirms that, to his apprehension, there is no suf- ficient proof of his existence, or that the evidences of his being and his operation, to which many men appeal, are to his mind no evidence whatever, and therefore he holds himself excused from believing that there is a God, and from accepting the consequences which must follow from such admission, respecting the creation of the world, the responsibility of man, and the prospect of immortality hereaiter. But this position, drearj' as it is, by no means forms a resting-place of this infidel phi-
INFIDELITY
581
INFINITY
losophy. Atlieism, even in the present daj', is positive and dogmatic in its teachings. It proCesses to account for the absence of a Deity, and to prove that there is no God, or, at least, that there is none engaged in present operation on the universe around us." See Athkism.
II. Causes of Injidditij. — The chief source of infidel- ity is undoubtedly a moral one. " It is evident," re- marks Pearson (Modern Infidelity, pt. ii, ch. i), " that luibelief, generally- speaking, can originate in only one of two sources ; either in a deficiency of evidence, or in a state of mind and heart on which the clearest and strongest evidence has no power. Tlie causes of infi- delity, we are persuaded, are more ethical than intellect- ual. This persuasion is greatly strengthened bj^ the perusal of some of the productions of our modern infidel writers." "Nothing can be more contemptible," says professor Garbett (Mod. Philosoph. Infidelity, \>.b), "than the arfjumentative resources of modern infidelity. It does not reasoii, it only postulates ; it dreams and it dog- matizes. Nor can it claim invention." This testimony is true. Indeed, we venture to assert, that the general strain of argument brought to bear against Christianity by its modern assailants would not be tolerated for a moment within the province of purely Uterary criticism. The strong determination to withstand everything in the shape of reasonable evidence contrasts ver^- much with the feeble argumentation by which many of the truths of religion are set aside. Be it atheism or pan- theism, naturalism or spiritualism, indiflFerentism or for- malism, the will has much to do with it. IMoral evi- dence is the appropriate proof of moral truth. All mor- al evidence is cumulative ; but, however strong it may be, it is never irresistible. An indocile mind can ward it off. The existence of God [see God] does not admit of demonstration, but moral certainty. See Evidence. So the personality of God, though much more rational than pantheism, does not admit of mathematical dem- onstration. Christianity is based upon evidence. The reason why evidence is necessary is to be found in our moral constitution as rational, discriminating, account- able agents ; and in the fact that, from the existence of evil in the world, we were otherwise liable to deception in reference to our highest interests. It could never be a man's duty to believe in a revelation claiming to it- self tlie authority of heaven, unless that revelation bore, legibly on its front, heaven's signature, or was in some way attended with heaven's evidencing power. The evidence tliat attests the truth of Christianity, vast, va- ried, and of great cumulative power though it be, is not, however, irresistible. No man is warranted to expe(*t it to be so. Faith is a moral act, and, while resting on a strong groundwork of proof, it must have some difli- culties over which to triumph. Origen, sjieaking of the difficulties in the Bible revelation, and of those in the revelation of nature, says : " In botli we see a self-con- cealing, self-revealing God, who makes himself known only to those who earnestly seek him ; in both are found stimulants to faith, and occasions for unbelief." " There is light enough," says Pascal, " for those wlio sincerely wish to see, and darkness enough for those of an oppo- site description." Mr. Newman tells us it "supersedes the authoritative force of outward miracles entirely" to say that " a really overpowering miraculous (iroof would have destroyed the moral character of faith." This, liowever, is not argument, but a foolish dogmatic asser- tion. The Christian miracles are of " a convincing and stupendous character," and yet not so overpowering as the axiom that a whole is greaterthan its jiart ; and v.e lack sagacity to perceive where lies the contradiction between these statements. Evidence is obligatory on man, not because it is overpowering or irresistible, but because it preponderates.