disturbs the serenity or fervor of your Christian devotions, then he is not an author whom you should read. If he does not exercise this influence over you, if he casts upon you no spell or blight of evil, you may admire his genius and rejoice in its products, while you are amazed at his presumption and pity his blindness to the light which to

you

is so cheerful and satisfying. As between the ancient and modern Pantheists and anti-Christians, one difference, however, deserves to be noticed. The older writers represent principles and modes of thinking that are more or less effete. Their arguments and images have little force with the present generation, occupied as it is with modern thought and animated by the modern spirit. Their modern followers invest their opinions with the dignity of present science, and make them glow with the interest of current thought, as well as breathe the warmth of men who have the ear and the sympathy of the present generation. The philosopher of ancient times protests against degrading and childish superstitions, and, by contrast, finds an advantage for his deification of nature and his serene and self-relying resignation to fate. The modern rejects the personal care and scorns the personal sympathy of an Infinite Father. The ancient stands with his eye to the east peering-sometimes wistfully-after the faint indications of the dawning twilight; himself a dark and cold shadow against the breaking light of the, as yet, unrisen sun. The modern looks westward with his back proudly turned on its risen splendor, amid a world that from every object reflects its pervading light; himself suffused with that light and glowing with the attractions which it gives, but denying that it proceeds from the sun or that the sun is risen and shines. The Atheist or Pantheist of antiquity is a cold spectre, shivering in the chill morning. His imitator of the nineteenth century, rejoices in the strength and

glows with the beauty of the high noon of the Christian day. While his power to attract and move the men of his time gives plausibility and currency to the little argument which he employs, these very attractions are its most efficient refutation, because they are all derived from the Christian Faith or the civilization which has flowered from its roots.

CHAPTER X.

A CHRISTIAN LITERATURE-HOW CONCEIVED AND DE

FINED.

THESE several inquiries and arguments-these marchings and counter-marchings of thought which we have taken,-force upon us the more general inquiry: Is there anything which can properly be called a Christian literature? If so, what is it? How can it be defined so as to secure, on the one hand, the essential freedom which literature imperatively requires, and on the other, the deference to Christianity which Christianity uncompromisingly exacts? How far can we be tolerant of every variety of sentiment and opinion and yet be just to our allegiance to the great Master of our faith, and indeed, of modern literature?

These questions are very much vexed in modern thinking, and the answers to them are also vexatious to many who strive to adjust the claims of culture and of Christian feeling. They cannot be answered without considering what is the correct conception of literature, as well as what must be taken as essential to Christianity so far as it should be recognized in literature. In respect to both these points, the views of many are diverse and unsettled. Hence the term Christian literature is used by different men in senses which are exceedingly vague, and often plainly contradictory. We shall best explain our own meaning by asking first, What a Christian literature is not, and second, What it is?

A Christian literature is not necessarily Theological in

its matter or form. Theological treatises, however able and convincing, are not therefore works of literature. They may be convincing and exhaustive in argument, and erudite in history, without that perfection of style, that attractiveness of imagery, or that eloquence of feeling which are the requisites of whatever is dignified as literature. While in one sense we include in literature all the products of human thinking which are made permanent in books or pamphlets—and in this sense everything that is printed belongs to the literature of the day, of the week, or of the century-we usually require certain characteristics of form and illustration for that which we call literature in the eminent sense. Theology is not of course included in Christian literature because it is Christian, if it does not possess these special features; nor, again, should it be excluded from its sphere because its themes are both religious and Christian. Some of the finest contributions to modern literature have been works of theology. The writings of Bossuet, Massillon, Hooker, Taylor, Howe, Robert Hall, Mason, Edward Irving, Channing, Coleridge, Robertson, and many others, hold the highest rank as literary compositions.

Not every devotional or practical treatise is a contribution to Christian literature. By the rule already given, many devotional works fall within, but many more fall without this sphere. The Hebrew Psalms; many Christian hymns, as of Milton, Watts, Wesley, Heber, Keble, Faber and J. H. Newman; to say nothing of the Latin and German Lyrists, all give grace and beauty to Christian literature. With them are ranked a few devotional and practical works, such as the De Imitatione Christi, The Holy Living and Dying, The Pilgrim's Progress, etc. But it is no dishonor to say of numerous products of devotional rhyming and meditation, that they belong to literature in no tolerable sense of the word, and therefore not to

Christian literature at all. They may be useful in their sphere, and therefore deserve to be tolerated and even encouraged, but they are not literature. They may be honestly thought and earnestly written, and withal be very useful for the circle of readers for whom they are designed. Perhaps from their plainness and want of formal attractions they are fitted to be more useful than works of greater ability and genius. The man who requires the highest perfection in form and diction may be content with them for their Christian excellence, but he is not therefore obliged to be pleased with what is uncultured in language, mean in illustration, and commonplace in thought. That which is positively offensive in both form and conception may be a positive injury to the cause which it professes to serve. The claim is sometimes set up that Christianity is to be held responsible for the mass of wretched doggerel and drivelling that has been written by its earnest but uncultured disciples, and that every reverent Christian is obliged to treat it with respect and read it with deference. The claim is preposterous, and to seem to allow it by those whose taste it offends or whose intellect it does not instruct, is to sin against both taste and Christianity. Such stuff may be tolerated when it is useful, but is only to be endured as a useful evil. To recommend or to circulate all sorts of goodish writing because of its Christian aims, or to encourage the reading and printing of it, under the title of a Christian literature, is to commit nothing less than a pious fraud, which is as weak as it is dishonest,

A Christian literature is not usually written in the interest or with the spirit of a Christian sect or denomination. While it is the impulse and the duty of every such division of Christian confessors to set forth and to defend its distinctive tenets, and while the champions of each are often most eloquent and able in such vindications, it is to be observed