recognized fields of lawful strife-into the arena of literature, where the rights of the flag of truce prevail. A truly knightly soul would scorn under such a flag to ask for any one-sided courtesy. We welcome these writers to the arena of discussion when they present themselves as theologians and philosophers, and concede to them all the rights of toleration which we ask for ourselves; but when they claim the one-sided privilege of proclaiming at our fire-sides, with cold-blooded assurance or sardonic scorn, that the victory is with them, over our cherished faiths, our hallowed worships, and our immortal hopes, we deny that the question is any longer a question of tolerance.

Nor is our position discourteous. It is not discourteous to call certain writers, rejecters of Christ as an object of love and confidence, or to say of them that they make literature a medium by which to express and propagate their private opinions. Whether it is altogether courteous on their part to obtrude these opinions in ways so manifold and unnecessary, is a question which we will not discuss. If it is true, as they insist so often as at least to persuade themselves, that those who adhere to the old faith in Christ's personality, are blind to argument and ignorant of history, that they know nothing of criticism, and are unacquainted with philosophy, it would be a matter of humanity at least to leave such to the quiet enjoyment of their own ignorance and want of thought. If it is not discourteous to dishonor what they revere, and satirize what they respect, it is at least inhuman to make them uncomfortable. If it is not indictable under the statutes of discourtesy, it may at least be condemned under the laws against cruelty to the ignorant and imbecile.

Our position is not proscriptive. We do not contend that these anti-Christian writers are never to be read, admired, and enjoyed by a person who rejects their version of the New Testament history; but only that if they

weaken his faith and disturb his peace by an indirect suggestion of sentiments and opinions that are incongruous with his own, he had better leave them alone, or have to do with them only so far as his taste and conscience will allow. We do not disuse the literature of the old Pagans, nor need we forego the use and enjoyment of the new, provided we recognise them as Pagans.

"No one who acknowledges Christ," writes Dr. Thomas Arnold, "can be indifferent to Him, but stands in such relations to Him that the highest reverence must be predominant in His mind when thinking or writing of Him."

"If I think that Christ was no more than Socrates (I do not mean in degree but in kind,) I can, of course, speak of Him impartially; that is, I assume at once that there are faults and imperfections in His character and on these pass my judgment, but if I believe in Him, I am not His judge, but His servant and creature, and He claims the devotion of my whole nature, because He is identified with goodness, wisdom and holiness.”

We admire all that this literature presents for our admiration of truth in morals and philosophy, and of beauty in imagery and diction; even though we are disturbed at the poverty of its argumentation, the recklessness of its assertions, and the undisguised effrontery of its self-satisfied illumination. But we are not prepared to substitute, at its bidding, the worship of Genius for the worship of a higher Master, least of all, the worship of a genius that in some respects is so superficial, even though in others it is so admirable.

The influence of this anti-Christian literature is far more prevalent in this country, than it is in England. With us the majority of the cultivated men are not authors and critics, but theologians, lawyers, physicians, politicians, and projectors of all types. Of the few who have been the most distinguished in fiction, poetry, and criticism, not a

small party sympathize with a very much smaller party in England in holding what is called a negative or uncertain position in respect to the very grave questions which are now so earnestly agitated concerning Theism and Supernatural Christianity. The readers and students of literature technically so-called, among us, are more impressible in any direction to which their favorite authors and critics may lead them, than are those of a similar class in any other country. Confident assertion in imposing phraseology and under attractive imagery, passes for more with us than with any other cultivated people. The critical journal, whether it be quarterly, monthly, weekly, or daily, insinuates most successfully what it believes, or rather what it fails to believe. While there is no country in which the Christian faith has a stronger hold upon the convictions of earnest and sober thinkers, or upon the feelings of the truehearted, it cannot be denied that among the cultivated classes as such, that is, the classes devoted to literature as a passion and an employment, there prevails a practical, if not an avowed Paganism, in one of the two forms of a philanthropic Stoicism or a refined Epicureanism. We call it Paganism, because, though it accepts the ethical spirit which Christianity has created, it is as far removed from the Christian worship of a personal God and the Christian trust in Christ, as was the cultured but comfortless Philosophy of Athens, which ostentatiously erected manifold altars to the Unknown God-which was always eager to run after any novelty in speculation, but conld make nothing of the teachings of Paul the Apostle.

This literary Paganism with its culture and its confidence, with its positive and not always courteous assertions that science and history are entirely upon its side, has no need to ask for toleration. It has little occasion to complain of social persecution. It is far enough from being in danger of reproach or ostracism, while it has the hearty

sympathy of multitudes who are so ambitious of culture as to be ready to accept any novelty in the form of speculative suggestions or brilliant improvisation.

We do not propose to discuss the influence or the prospects of this Pagan tendency in American or in modern literature. Had we no higher assurance that its influence must be short-lived, history would teach us that its vagueness and barrenness must soon dry up its life. That a vigorous literature cannot be long sustained in an atmosphere of nofaith is demonstrably certain. The creative and fervent periods of English literature have been closely connected with the prevalence of a positive Christian belief, and a fervent Christian feeling. Among the writers of eminent genius now living who are influenced by the Pagan spirit, there is not one who does not give tokens of the blight and depression which the cheerfulness and fervor of a better hope would remove.

But we need not pursue our theme in these new directions. Its practical aspects have already detained us too long.

CHAPTER XI.

HISTORY AND HISTORICAL READING.

WE propose to leave the discussion of books and reading in general, and to proceed to some more particular observations upon different classes of books and different kinds of reading. Perhaps in so doing our thoughts may be less general than they have been; we cannot promise that they will be anything more than useful.

We begin with History. It seems natural to begin at this point, as history is the favorite and the common field of all industrious readers. The bright-minded boy, who is withal a little solid and thoughtful, if he is known among his companions as a great reader, usually takes a special delight in History. If he is merely bright-minded, he may be satisfied with novels or plays, childish or otherwise; but if he is also intelligent and curious, he uniformly takes to History. He usually does this very early, and not rarely he follows this taste so passionately as to seem more at home in the old and the distant than in the new and the near. Such a boy often, in the first gush of his historic enthusiasm, thinks and talks more of Athens and Pericles, of Rome and Julius Cæsar, of Moscow and Napoleon, than he does of the places and the men that are present to his senses. This taste is also conspicuous in the earnest and thoughtful among so-called well-informed men, as the steady and sturdy mechanic or farmer who thinks for himself, who expresses opinions on public affairs to which other men listen in a debating-club or a town-meeting, or when occupied in earnest talk at a shop or grocery.