Review of "The Previous Question"

After Levi Blodgett (a.k.a. Theodore Parker) added his voice to the debate between George Ripley and Andrews Norton and published The Previous Question (April 1840), this uncomplimentary review by Ware appeared in The Christian Examiner and General Review 28.3 (July 1840), pp. 400-402.  

The Previous Question Between Mr. Andrews Norton and his Alumni Moved and Handled in a Letter to All Those Gentlemen. By Levi Blodgett.

This is a pamphlet in the present spirit of the times. We do not say that it is the aim of the author, but it is the effect of what he has written to reduce Christianity to the level of natural religion. His object in the first place is to prove that there are germs of religion in the soul, that religion is natural to man, that man everywhere wants it and everywhere therefore has it, a case which he fully makes out, but which did not need special proof, as we suppose it to be a proposition as universally admitted, as that man needs and will therefore find food. When men agree to reject food or take poisonous substances in its stead, they will reject religion and be atheists. As some have been mad enough to do both these unnatural things, so there are monsters who have denied the being of a God. But they are and will be very few. We have no fears for religion, whatever we may sometimes have for revelation.

But if religion is natural to man—Mr. Blodgett then would have the inference to be drawn—Christianity is not a supernatural religion, seeing it was not needed as such. He does not deny that miracles were wrought; on the contrary he admits their reality, though he does deny that it can be shown that they were. But as he leaves no office for them to perform of any use or dignity, he takes away every sufficient reason for believing that they were wrought. For if their only purpose was to make men wonder, or if they were only a sign of peculiar natural gifts or genius on the part of the worker, if no higher end can be assigned which they were to answer, the presumption against their actual occurrence becomes almost or quite insuperable. It is the end for which Christians suppose them to have been wrought, namely, to prove the divine mission and inspiration of Jesus, not to prove certain moral truths, as Mr. Blodgett thinks, which makes a belief in them reasonable and easy. It is hardly conceivable that one should long continue to admit the reality of miracles as facts—except through the mere force of habit—who does not see them in the character of proofs—proofs of Christ's authority. Christianity accordingly is in the view of this writer only one of the forms in which men arrive at religion by their own unassisted genius. Geniuses arise from time to time, who carry on to a higher point science, and art, and philosophy, and so geniuses arise from time to time, who in the same way carry on religion farther and higher. Jesus was such an one. If he wrought miracles, it cannot be known historically that he wrought them, and they served no purpose that we can understand. Still he carried on Religion to a higher point by his divine instructions and his godlike virtues. The latter part of the pamphlet is taken up with specific considerations to show the incompetency of miracles as evidence, that they are not needed and are of no use, and the all-sufficiency of other kinds of proof. We cannot notice these considerations, but refer the reader to the pamphlet itself, if he is curious in such speculations.

We think such a tract as the one we are noticing injurious to Christianity, so far as its conclusions shall be adopted. Just so far, it appears to us, as the miracles of the New Testament are made out to be myths, fables, exaggerations of natural circumstances and events, the results of mistaken observation on the part of the evangelists, or anything else but what on the face of the thing they claim to be, just so far is the New Testament shown to be comparatively a worthless book; it is of no more value—except as it is a better book of the kind—than any philosophy or fiction which presents to the imagination and the reason excellent characters and doctrine. If now any should ask whether we really think it is for, or through, the miracles most persons believe Christianity, we say no. They do not think much about them one way or another, in becoming Christians. It is the moral and spiritual character of Christ and his teaching that makes them Christians, so far as the New Testament has any share, in addition to education and circumstances, in making them so. But then, but for the miracles, we contend there would have been no Christ, no Christianity. Mr. Blodgett says he deprecates the theology of those who rest Christianity solely, or chiefly, on miracles, and thinks them its true enemies. We in our turn deprecate such a theology as this pamphlet presents, for we are sure it could not be extensively adopted, but at the expense of all that to us is most valuable in Christianity. We had natural religion before Christ came; it is to be had now in Africa and the islands of the Pacific. We value Christianity on the ground that it is something additional to that—and so far better, namely, a revelation—using the word in its common acceptation. But however mistaken we may hold the theology of the pamphlet, we acknowledge with satisfaction the earnest and religious spirit in which it is written.

Read Richard Hildreth's contribution to the debate:

"On Miracles as the Foundation of Religious Faith"