ART. VI. THE COMPARATIVE VALUE OF NATURAL AND MORAL SCIENCE.

By Tayler Lewis, Prof. of Latin and Greek, in the University of New-York.

THE term science has seldom been applied in such a way as to include a knowledge of our religious relations. That branch which is entitled moral philosophy might seem to claim alliance with them, but an examination of most of the systems of ethics would show a studied exclusion of religious sanctions, as little reference as possible to revelation, and very often a strong disposition to reduce the whole. subject to a mere branch of political economy, deriving its rules alone from the reciprocal advantages of our social or political affinities. Some have risen a few degrees above these low views, and have based their hypotheses on what they are pleased to style the sentiments or feelings of our nature. Yet have they mostly occupied themselves with speculations about the foundation and origin of moral instincts, losing sight almost entirely of those religious relations which connect man as an immortal and accountable being with the perfect and holy law of an unchanging God.

Sciences have been divided into the natural, the mental, the logical, and the ethical. The ancient division of Aristotle, which has formed the basis of subsequent classifications, was into the physical, the metaphysical, and the mathematical. Under the second head he included theology; but by this the Stagyrite, and his followers in ancient and modern times, meant nothing more than the theology of nature-of motion-of a prime mover-of a first cause-a theology removed as far as possible from the conception of a being possessed of moral attributes, and moral affections, a hater of sin and a lover of righteousness, the holy, the just, the uncompromising and yet forgiving God of the Bible.

Another division might be proposed having reference not merely to the nature of the ideas which belong to each department, or the class of mental powers to which they address themselves, but to the relative importance of the

objects presented to the mind's contemplation, viz. the science which relates to this life, and that which relates to the life to come the knowledge of ourselves and the things around us as inhabitants of earth, and the knowledge of ourselves and the things above us as heirs of immortality. This division has been seldom made, and might be scouted by some as wholly destitute of scientific accuracy. Yet would it answer one important end of every just classification by keeping constantly before the mind the relative importance of the objects of its study, and render education, what it ever ought to be, the training of the whole man both for time and eternity. In reference to such a division we would offer a few thoughts on the comparative value of moral or religious science as a branch of education, and the importance of the study of the book which specially contains it, as affording the highest species of knowledge, without which all other knowledge is but as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. We would regard it as the foundation upon which the structure of all education should be built, as that which, according as it is, or is not rightly laid, can alone determine whether education be an evil or a blessing.

By moral or religious science (as the two terms when rightly used ought to be synonymous) we mean the study of the character of the Deity not only in his natural but also in his moral attributes-of ourselves as related to him-of our own souls, not only as intellectual but as religious or moral beings, and the bearing of our present state upon our eternal destinies. There is a fastidiousness in some minds that would be offended at this view of religious truth. They would object to its desecration in being connected with the term science, and would regard its introduction into a course of education with affected alarm for the consequen

But why, it may be asked, should not the highest knowledge for an immortal being be termed a science, and considered a legitimate object of intellectual inquiry? Why should not wisdom in the scriptural sense of the term be regarded as a legitimate branch of education? Shall the attention be confined to what are styled the natural sciences, or in other words the study of the works of God, whilst the moral character of their author, our own failen nature as he has described it to us, and our relation to the only source of all light and true knowledge, challenge no claim to investigation? Why should the youth of our seminaries be

taught the evidences of revealed religion, whilst the system of truth revealed is studiously excluded from consideration, and they are suffered to pass through a course of education as ignorant of the Bible as of the contents of the Alcoran ? Why should moral science derive no sanctions from the word of God? Why should mental philosophy take no cognizance of the religious interests of the immortal spirit, of its deadly disease of sin, of the reality of regeneration, and the solemn truths of experimental religion? Why should nature itself be regarded as a mere system of powers, of necessary laws, whilst the God of nature is carefully kept out of view, and a frigid atheism inculcated under the vague recognition of a first cause, or a primum movens-whilst the personal appellations of the Deity are avoided with an irreligious awe, and names are substituted leading the mind only to the contemplation of a natural power uninfluenced by moral reasons, and having no regard to those moral ends which alone impart any intellectual value to physical laws? Why, in short, should the general course of our systems of education be nearly the same that it would be, were no God acknowledged, no revelation believed, and no future state of retribution the object of either fear or hope? Too long and to too great an extent has it been the case that our courses of instruction have been such as could be cordially followed by the atheist or the infidel, without meeting with much that would disturb his unbelief, or rouse his fears of a personal God of moral and not merely natural attributes.

Semi-atheists have deified nature. They have ever been fond of substituting vague abstractions in place of the personal appellations of the Deity, and under the influence of a feeling deeply seated in the fallen soul, have sought to remove the consideration of God to the farthest possible distance, and to provide a shield against the thoughts of his presence by placing between ourselves and him a long list of second causes. They would give to imaginary personifications the place which is due to that being, who (to separate him on the one hand from the idols of superstition and on the other from the cold abstractions of philosophers) may be styled by way of eminence the God of the Bible. Nature, when rightly understood, is nothing more than a train of phenomena manifesting the natural attributes of the Creator. The study of nature in its highest and purest sense is the study of these natural attributes. Seldom is it regarded in this light and pursued with VOL. VI.

31

reference to this end; yet, even when it is taken in this more elevated sense, there is a higher science still, contained in that word which God has " magnified above all his name,” or above all other methods by which he has made himself known-a science, the principles of which shall abide for ever, when nature and the laws which govern it, existing as they do not necessarily but by arbitrary appointment, shall cease to be entirely, or give place to others.

To stimulate us in the pursuit of the physical sciences we are often told of the treasures of knowledge within our own immediate reach,-of the many interesting phenomena which present themselves to the eye of the observer from the most common and familiar objects around us. The earth, the air, the water, are said to teem with wonders inviting the scrutiny of the studious and inquisitive. To the thoughtful mind the inquiry might at once arise-May not this admit of a still closer application? There is a branch of knowledge in which we have a yet deeper interest, the materials of which are found not in our fields and gardens, not in the chemical elements, not in the earth, or the sea, or the visible heavens, but within our own souls, in each individual's own heart, the guide to which lies too often neglected and despised upon our own tables.

Yes, there is such a science, abundant in its facts, most extensively varied in its phenomena, and rich in its precepts of the highest wisdom--a science not merely speculative, but having a practical application to our dearest interests. It is the knowledge of the nature of the immortal spirit,--that temple not made with hands, belonging equally to the lowest as well as the highest of the human species-a knowledge not merely of its physical and intellectual constitution, but of that higher department to which nature and intellect are both as means to an end-a knowledge of its moral state, its moral destinies, the moral ends of its creation, and those moral ties which connect it with the dread realities of another world. When, however, we speak of studying the constitution of our own souls, we mean neither the lore of the ancient schools nor the more modern systems of metaphysics. These give us but the outlines of human nature, without penetrating its secret depths. The anatomist or physiologist may trace the movements of the complex animal economy when once set in motion, but the mystery even of animal life escapes their keenest investigations. Even so may the metaphysician trace the operations of the soul in action; he may

unfold the laws and the phenonema of intellect; but that deeper and more powerful moral nature which commands the intellect, which forms the essence of the soul, which determines its condition in the scale of being, is left unvisited and unexplored. Notwithstanding the absurd attempts to resolve it into the calculations of the understanding, or into a mere department of sensation, or an unmeaning theory of blind sentiments and instincts-that part of us which lies beneath sensation and reflection and thoughts and feelings and the deductions of the reasoning faculty-that more mysterious essence which controls all their movements, and imparts to all of them their character, has never been fully explored by any who discard from their philosophy an implicit submission to the guidance of revelation. If we would wish to investigate these more hidden recesses of our own souls, we must have recourse to Paul and John, and David and Solomon, and the other writers of the much neglected Bible.

Man, as a being endowed with sensation and intellect, with a moral nature regarded as the offspring of their higher action-a being viewed chiefly in his relations to earth with a studied exclusion of his connection with another world, forms the subject of most metaphysical treatises. Man, as a labor-saving machine, the amasser of the greatest amount of individual or national wealth from the smallest amount of capital, is the subject of the boasted science of political economy. In vain do we look in the pages of professed works on either of these sciences for that which it most concerns us to know, -the nature of man as a moral, or, to speak more correctly, a religious being, bound by moral ties to the throne of God, the subject of a fearful probation, exposed to the retributions of an untried eternity, and having the thrilling interest of his condition, under all these aspects, infinitely enhanced from the consideration that he is a fallen being, and in himself, aside from external aid, irrecoverably lost. Here the schools of moral and mental and political philosophy leave us without a guide. Equal darkness hangs about our path, whether we feel on our cautious way by the inductions of the sensualist, or attempt to soar into the dim and ill-defined regions of transcendental mysticism. These are the sublime and awful subjects to which we are called in the revelation of God. To understand these depths of our souls, we need that word which pierces to the dividing asunder of the joints and the marrow, and is a revealer of the thoughts and intents