The Christian Foundation, Or, Scientific and Religious Journal, Volume I, No. 10. October, 1880

In Short

The Christian Foundation is a monthly journal from 1880 that serves as a platform for lay theologians and apologists to challenge the cultural dominance of both scientific secularism and traditional Calvinist dogma. Through a series of essays, the contributors argue for a rational, non-vicarious understanding of the atonement while defending the Bible against modern critiques. It is a time capsule of late 19th-century religious discourse, capturing the friction between emerging evolutionary theory, entrenched denominational strife, and the earnest, often polemical, desire to reconcile faith with human reason.

The Story

The journal begins by dismantling the "scholastic" and "Calvinist" interpretation of the law, specifically the idea that divine justice required a vicarious sacrifice to satisfy an inexorable penalty. The writers argue that the concept of "original sin"—that all humanity inherited the guilt of Adam—is an arbitrary and unjust legal fiction. They assert that because no person was present in the Garden of Eden, no person can be held guilty for Adam’s transgression. Instead, they propose that individuals are free moral agents, judged solely by their own choices and actions, and that Christ’s death served not as a payment to a vengeful deity, but as a way to provide humanity with a "new and living way" to righteousness.

Moving from theology to the nature of the mind, the journal shifts its focus to the "science of mind." The contributors contend that because humans possess consciousness—an indivisible, sovereign "I"—they are the direct offspring of a Divine Spirit. This leads to a harsh critique of contemporary evolutionists, particularly those who argue that human intelligence is merely a quantitative improvement upon animal instinct. The authors claim that this theory fails to explain the unique human power of self-directed thought and the spontaneous nature of intellectual growth, which they contrast with the repetitive, fixed habits of the animal kingdom.

The argument then turns toward history and the "revival of learning." The authors survey the rise of European universities and the influence of the printing press, framing the Reformation as a necessary "washing" of the face of Christianity, removing the "dirt" and superstition accumulated by Roman Catholic traditions over the centuries. They argue that the Bible remains the ultimate anchor of truth, and that the perceived rise of infidelity and skepticism—typified by public figures like Robert Ingersoll—is actually predicted by biblical prophecy. The journal concludes by affirming the dignity of womanhood as man’s equal partner, while dismissing modern infidels as people who parrot the arguments of past skeptics without having done the labor of personal investigation. The ending is not a resolution of a narrative, but a call to arms for the reader to abandon skepticism and return to the "pure seed" of early Christian teaching.

How It Unfolds

The rejection of vicarious atonement The text opens by challenging the interpretation of the law as an inexorable, punitive force. It argues that penalizing an innocent person for the sins of the guilty contradicts both justice and the character of God.

The claim of an alibi The authors systematically dismantle the doctrine of original sin by arguing that because no modern person was present in Eden, they cannot be held accountable for Adam's actions. This assertion sets the stage for a theology based on personal accountability rather than inherited guilt.

The investigation of mind The focus shifts to psychology and the nature of the soul. The writers use the existence of self-consciousness as scientific proof of a Divine Creator, distinguishing human intelligence from animal instinct.

The critique of evolution The contributors target contemporary evolutionists for failing to account for the unique capacity for self-discipline and directed thought. They challenge the idea that complex human behavior is merely the result of ancestral habits petrified in brain structure.

The historical perspective The journal traces the history of the Bible through the lens of European academic development. It justifies the Reformation as an essential return to the original, clean state of Christian truth.

The final challenge The journal concludes by warning against contemporary infidels and skeptics. It invites the reader to stop merely mimicking the criticisms of others and to engage directly with the text of the Bible to see the divinity for themselves.

The People

The contributors are anonymous, unified by a specific, combative persona: the "common-sense" Christian. They view themselves as the defenders of a rational faith, standing between the rigid, dogmatic theologians of the old order and the "cowardly" skeptics of the new age. They are deeply suspicious of "scholastic" systems, particularly Calvinism, which they believe makes God look like a tyrant. They are similarly dismissive of the "infidel," represented here by the orator Robert Ingersoll, whom they characterize as a man of flashy rhetoric but no actual knowledge of the Bible. The authors emerge as men who value plain speech, rigorous logic, and the conviction that, through the power of the mind, every individual can grasp the truth of their divine heritage for themselves.

In Its Own Voice

"Yet this quality of law is claimed in order to make out the theory of a vicarious punishment endured by the Savior, that is, that He took the sinner's 'law place.'"

(In a critique of Calvinist theology, the author argues that the concept of a "law place" is an abuse of the text.)

"The man who is content to believe what he sees, hears, tastes, smells and feels, is only a sensuous believer--an animal, and not a man."

(In a discussion on the science of mind, the author draws a sharp line between those who rely on the senses and those who use reason to perceive the invisible.)

"I know the Bible is inspired, because it finds me at greater depths of my being than any other book."

(The journal concludes with this quote from Coleridge to summarize the final authority of the Scriptures.)

What It's Really About

At its core, this journal is about the struggle to define the individual in a rapidly secularizing world. It argues that man is not a byproduct of dead matter or ancestral habit, but a conscious, sovereign being made in the image of God. The authors are obsessed with the idea of "individuality"—the belief that each soul is an indivisible unit capable of choosing its own path. By attacking the legalistic view of atonement and the materialist view of evolution, the authors attempt to carve out a space where human agency and divine authority can coexist without the mediation of church tradition or the interference of scientific naturalism.

Why Read It Today

Readers interested in the history of ideas will find this journal a fascinating, if sometimes confrontational, experience. It is not a gentle read; the prose is dense, polemical, and firmly rooted in the debates of the late 19th century. You will encounter frequent dismissals of "infidels" and "evolutionists" that may feel jarring to modern ears, reflecting a time when the pulpit and the science laboratory were seen as being in a state of open warfare. However, there is a certain rugged, intellectual intensity here that is rare today. The authors demand that the reader think for themselves, even as they insist that the only correct conclusion is their own.

The journal is difficult because of its reliance on obscure denominational controversies and its outdated, often abrasive, attitudes toward skeptics and other cultures. Yet, it serves as a powerful window into a specific kind of American piety—one that prizes "common sense" and personal study above all else. It is a reminder that the tension between faith and science is not a modern invention, and that the language used to navigate that tension has changed as much as the science itself. If you enjoy historical primary sources and want to feel the heat of the 1880s religious debates, this volume offers a unique, unfiltered perspective.