I do not object, if you believe that any good is to be done in that way, and if you feel incapable of exciting interest by a simple exposition of the beauties of Christianity. But I tell you that the idea savors strongly of charlatanism, and that Christianity has no need of such an auxiliary. Whenever such a course is adopted, it should be regarded as a tolerated exception; but on this point, also, the exception has too frequently been taken for the rule. Nowadays, the Gospel is almost entirely overlooked, there are so many other matters to be attended to. We must needs discuss and argue, and treat all kinds of philosophical and humanitarian questions. {163} Hence a great part of our time is taken up with talking philosophy to pious men and women,--and after what fashion? The pulpit resounds with such words as these: rationalism, philosophism, Protestantism, materialism, pantheism, socialism; and it will be lucky if all this does not ultimately get mixed up with fetishism, anthropormorphism, Vishnooism, Buddhism, Kantism, Hegelism, etc. No wonder that a woman of fashion once exclaimed, in a fit of petulance:--"The Lord deliver us from these preachers of _isms!_" I repeat, it is all well enough that a few eminent men should treat such questions before select audiences; but now every one seems bent on talking philosophy, or on philosophizing about every thing. We have the philosophy of theology, the philosophy of the sacraments, the philosophy of the liturgy; and to what does it all tend? To prove that God might have occupied a prominent place among the thinkers of these times: which would be proving very little in God's favor. There has, indeed, been quite a mania to make philosophy about every thing. We have heard a treatise on the philosophy of the hand-grenade. As a malicious wag once remarked:--"We shall soon have the philosophy of boots and shoes." Hence it is that the ignorance respecting religion everywhere prevailing, among high and low, even among those who constantly hear sermons, is truly deplorable. {164} Society in general is much less instructed in matters of religion, and even in philosophical questions, than is usually supposed; for religion is no longer taught. We demonstrate, argue, philosophize, but we do not evangelize. ... There is so much ignorance among men, otherwise well-informed, on the subject of religion, that they would certainly be deemed unfit for confirmation even in a country district. Neither is the community more proficient in philosophical than in religious questions; and much less attention is bestowed upon them than is imagined. We meet with certain systems in special books, or among a particular class of persons, and we may think that those systems are about to make a great stir in the world. But do the masses trouble themselves about them? For the most part, even intelligent men hardly know what to say when referred to on such subjects.