New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-03-18
a Renlr 70 DR.. Tn,ler Lewis.

n
unfair and unjustifable. The name Of Mr..
James was indeed not mentioned, as would
have been manly and proper in a criticism
of his doctrines. but he was alluded 10 IN
mistakeebIv. To this attack ar. James
has written reply, and, as the Editor Of
The Literary World, though he had pro-
voked the reply by giving prominent
place to DR.. Lewis's article, does not see fr
to DO Mr.. James the justice Of letting him
be heard in the same columns, Mr.. J. has
appealed to us TO print his rejoinder.-
Though we are no parties to the controver-
sy, notwithstanding Or. Lewis, with cha
racteristic perveIseness, would fam have 1t
thought We are, and though we can i'll
afford the space for such discussions, We
do not feel authorized to refuse the re-
quest. The following is Mr.. James's arti-
Gle:
10 THE EDITOR or THE LITERARY WORLD
When a friend told me, about a year since,
that MIR. Tayler Lewis was going TO review my
little book, entitled, "Moraiism and Christian
ty,' in your paper, i merely smiled, remember
ing his moral unftness for any such enterprise. l
said " 1t will be no review, but simple and
angry denuucietion, for the man is pledged body
and soul to Calvinism, as the t0pmost possibility
of human thought in the line Of Divinity, and has
no more procliyity to new ideas, consequently,
than mole has TO astronomy. Thus his threa-
tened review Of my book will no more prove
Just appreciation Of it, than the bark Of queru'
lous cur AZ every person who passes bis masters
gate proves a just appreciation OF the village
morality
God knows, did not then attribute to the man
the qualities which his scurrIous assault uUon
me in your last weeks paper, entitled The
Higher Law now proves him TO pOsSess.
The most curGory reader Of that article perceives
that the great design oft is to igm0lze the practl
cal morality Of the 1crifer il affects to review. Ny
words are not quoted with any view to a candid
estimate Of my philosophic position, bat only as
they lend an apparent support 10 this ruling To-
tention of my assailant-only as they enable him
to insinuste with some piausibility the practical
sensuality of my aims. But he does not con6ns
himself 10 the quotation of my words. Finding
that they do not give him the actual aid be re-
quires he hestates not for moment to lpDe1lt
words, and surround them with quotation marks,
the better to effect his injurious purpose. Let ne
make these charges good
The aim of N uch of my book above mentioned,
was to prove that Astounding crime and vice
referred their origin TO imperfect social organi-
cation, an organization which left the Individual
for the most part in bondage 10 Nature and his
fellow.man and therefore stimulated an lncessant
reaction in his bosom and | showed that when.
ever society should ordsin perfectly just or equal
relations between its subjects, by insuring each
physical subsistence and public respect, that this
reaction would cease, and every man become lm-
mediately interested in the preservation Of the
public order said that A or B, so long as they
were under the unwholesome bondage OF
Nature and Society, must needs act in
q disorderly manner, and added, but this is not
the final and divine Mr.. A. or B. The final and
divine Mr.. A. or B. will have subjected both ma
ture and society to himself and will then exhibit,
by virtue Of that very force in him, which is now
so destructively operative, a personality OF IN,
miZtd benign0y to eyeTy 0Re.'-Morat'Sn0 and
Christianity, y. "a. Now my assailant quotes
this sentence in the following words " Sat this
is not the final and divine Mr.. A. or B.; he be.
comes such divine man by tra1Piin0 nm s0cietB
and all OuttodTd iG1o, and thus giving utterance
to the "voce of God within him. l appeal to
any honest re Ader 20 know whether he ever O0'
served more unprincipled and malicious per
version of a writer's meaningl i said In my
book, page Il4 q" The divine spirit in overJ nan
inceH sntly urges bis unity with nature and bis
ieow.maD, his unity with the universe" Mr..
Lewis garbles the passage in quoting it, as he
has garbled nearly every word he has quoted,
and then proceeds to comment on it, thus:
The divine spirit every incessanty urges his uni,
~ with the universe And how is this to be effected
Only by the universe coming into unity with every man
In no other way his universally and his soyereigun-
dviouRity" be made consistent with each other. Nov,
sacrifice his ndefeasibe prOpum' BY sink
ing into the usyerse and therefore, he must CRAFTY his
divine spirit OF unity by bringing The universe into him
self The rationale OF ihsis clearly tho 10 The fol-
lowing syllogism of which hardly know whethe 10
admire IL s it's profouud augmentation or the deep In
sgh exhibited 10 lie mode Of Interpreting Scriptures THE
child before he becomes morally s9phlscae by society,
views all things as mace for his delight and puts forth
lie a lql
and tHu7I But the child is only the prophecy OF tho
and Christ affirmed hat should enter the Kingdom
OF Heaven only by becoming little children" Therefore,
he that exhibits the most lody disdRn Of nen aud t
is TO The Kir gdom Of Heaven and most in unity
occasion 20 justify The criminal He is sometimes repre-
rented az enoIiug obedience TO positive law and as hav
Ing come for the purpose fulfilling instead Of destroying
but ms was only 50 according 20 the ieHeri rs Only
apparently true OF Christ after the flesh II 10 nothing FOR
who knows Christ more AFTER the esh, bat pianL3
mmseii upon bis representative or humsnl1afy sgnlh'
cHuce'
Now instead of there being any syllogism or at
tempt at a syllogism, as here attributed 10 me- in
what said, the original passage shews plainly
that used the case Of the child only as an Illus
tTatlon precisely as Christ used it, for sup
po n at he meant to enjoin literal infancy upon
his disciples. Let me give the entire passage,
unmutilated:
The divine spirit in every man necessarily urgeS his
unity with and bis fellow man, his unity with the
universe Thus II you regard The child before lie becomes
mOrslv sOphlsucale disciplined by society, You per-
ceiye that lie vie ell things and al persons made for
his delight and puts Orh his hand with lOrdy oisdan Of
every abOrious distinction Of and Now the
child 10 but he prophecy Of The His ignorant innO
cence only typhe ha wiser innocence which 5hAl endOw
syd render beautiful lie ri DE- divine manhood Hence ina
Christ affirmed that should enter the ktngdOm ofhesyen
only by becoming lille children, that s by putting away
hose vain subes OF philosophy which base our present
diseased manhood, AID suhecEg ourselves with the can
cor Of children 10 the iniallib { laws Of God"
Now how infamous and grssuitous peryerson
of my meaning is it 10 represent this passage as
maintaining that he who exhibits the compleEest
Indifference TO the distinction of meum and tltn
is nearest to the kingdom of heaven and most ia
unison with nature and society Mr. Tayler Lewis
knew perfectly well while peDnag this paragraph
that he was charging me- in the understanding Of
his readers, with teaching that the greatest thief
liar, adulterer. murderer, was the truest or di.
vinest man. Be knew perfectly well that had
not given the smallest conceivable ground to any
fair ard intelligent reader Of my book for such a