Epilogue

The theory of paganism would seem ever to have been that gods should have been as numerous as human necessities, or even human whims. It is perhaps not wonderful that polytheism should have had many believers, seeing how difficult it is on the one hand to conceive how all great and good attributes can be combined in one Personality, and how easy it is on the other hand to imagine that a distribution of such attributes mieht have helped to expedite and perfect the administration of universal affairs. Beyond this there is a consideration which perhaps may throw some light upon the philosophy of polytheism: human invention delights in its own fertility, and to add another god to the Pantheon must always have been peculiarly gratifying to its vanity. What a saint must he have been who descried amid the confusion and clouds of mundane and super-mundane aifairs the outline of another god, yet to be named in the prayers and songs of men! To have few gods was to confess poverty of imagination; but to have many was not only a sign of intellectual vigour, it was also a delicate compliment to individual and national piety. A profusion of gods was a most human arrangement: manhood,

372 TJie Paiaclete.

wherever opportunity was afforded, has always effloresced into large estabHshments, and compensated for its weakness by the redundance of such displays as are possible to its limited power. Etymologically there is no polytheism in Christianized countries; but substantially there is an abundance of it: find elaborate arrangements to kill time, to make life easy, to bring good luck, to be first in the race, and to be uppermost in the fray, and you find what under barbaric conditions would have been an idol in cedar, an angel in sculptured marble, or an imaginary god lurking amid concealing clouds, and exerting a mythic influence on the life of his devotee. So we make etymological changes, and become pious by the process. In view of the naturalness of polytheism, it was very bold on the part of any religion to come into the world with only one God to offer to the attention of mankind. At this point a great controversy was inevitable. The innovating religion set itself in distinct opposition to countless hosts of gods; it mocked them with uttermost contempt and scorn; it defied their power, and shook the clouds Inside out to show the world that no idol had ever climbed so high. It did not ask to be heard as if one case were to be considered equally with another, or as if possibly the idols might be able to say something for themselves. It recognised the existence of idolatry; It took notice of the workman melting a graven Image, and the goldbuiith spreading it over with g)ld and casting silver

The Divine Natitre. 373

chains; and it even condescended to notice the meaner gods cut out of trees that would not rot; but argument on equal terms it never asked for, and never assumed to be possible; and in this respect at least it was singular and bold in assertinof the one-ness of its God.

The original revelation of the divine one-ness had been lost, or had been so intermixed with corrupt traditions as to have been dispossessed of all authority. It is important, however, to remember that such a revelation had actually been made, so that the doctrine of the unity of God may not be classed with the impious guesses which expressed themselves in Nature-Worship, Passion-Worship, or the Olympian heavens of ancient poetry: the One God revealed in the Bible, having been dropped out of human consciousness, was thought to have reappeared in the varied forms of deification which were originated by the irrepressible religious instinct which even in the most corrupt barbarisms has interposed an infinite distance between the lowest man and the highest beast. And, strange to say, as well as most instructive to remember and reflect upon, this very variety of form, and whatever it may suggest in the direction of polytheism, may have had some colourinor of truthfulness and authority in the intimations of .divine plurality given in the book of Genesis. The speech of God, as there reported, is not a monologue but an interlocution, and therefore there is nothing strained, and certainly there is nothing that is necessarily profane, in the inference drawn by the religious minds of antiquity that polytheism was the true expression of divine existence. Monotheism is not a bold conjecture on the part of speculative thinkers; in no sense is it an after-thought consequent upon the excesses and abominations of idolatry: it is the original revelation, a- divine statement of a divine reality.

Is this divine one-ness a doctrine or a fact so far removed from all that is known and relied upon in human affairs as to be a mystery beyond all reason, without parallel, analogue, or any manner of similitude by which we can get a hint of its purpose and meaning? Perhaps not. We ourselves may have created all the mystery by an easy misapprehension of the relative value and significance of numbers. If we have mistaken fractions for integers, and counted segments as circles, it is not improbable that we may have mistaken unity for solitude, and thought of Godhead as somehow involving the idea of infinite monotony. There is one God; true; and- there is one Alan, one Heart, one Universe. Fix the mind upon the fact that there is one Htnnanity as certainly as there is one Deity, and then the mystery of the divine one-ness will at least be seen to be not solitary in. its supposed difficulty, and even some hint of plurality in unity may be suGfSfcsted. A remembrance of this fact will humble men in moments of self-exaggeration and unholy self-sufficiency. To every man this doctrine says in

I effect — Y oli 2S& human but you are not htunanity; ‘Ou are a man but you are not manhood. Hence, everywhere in the Scriptures man is spoken of as a unity. God hath made of one blood all nations of men. It is the heai’t — the one heart — that is described as deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; not a heart here and there, but the one heart of human nature. Nor ought this consideration to be taken as detracting from the importance of the individual life, but rather as enhancing it. To be so much as a leaf on such a tree is no mean honour, — he that is least in this kingdom of manhood is orreater than the hiofhest life in the forest, in the sea, or whatsoever passeth through the paths of the sea. What is taken from the boast of vanity is added to the seriousness of stewardship: we are members one of another; each is his brother’s keeper; no man liveth unto himself; as the sun shineth upon all, so the cross was set up for all, and the free gift of justification is offered to all. The mansions are many, but the hoiLse is one.

God is revealed in the Bible as havina in some sense a threefold personality, which would seem to be inconsistent with the idea of one-ness. But so also is man himself represented in Scripture, and so also is he known to his own consciousness! Herein is it true that man is made in the image of God, and that he must look into himself if he would look deeply into his Maker. Triune Godhead is an undoubted mystery, bi*t no greater, except in the differ«=’nce of the subjects, than is triune manhood.

37^ The Pai’aclete.

If the one has to be given up simply because of mystery, so must the other; but as the fact in the latter cases corresponds to the revelation in the former, the revelation is on that very ground presumptively true. As to one-ness, what if it should be found that we do not know the meaninsf of the term? Have we ever seen any life that is absolutely one in the popular sense of the word? A stone may be one, so possibly may be a beam of wood; but who shall say that life is not always and necessarily plurality, or that without plurality it is possible to have life? Here we can only stand still in wonder, in awe, yet in joyous confidence: God is three in one, so is man; as a question of consciousness and reason it is more philosophical to believe this than to disbelieve it, — something in our own nature answers to the triunity of God; we see its meaning afar; we know it to be as it is, yet we have no words that can fully tell what is in our heart.

One question there is which admits of a decisive answer. Does the Bible anywhere demand the acceptance of a plainly unreasonable doctrine respecting God? If so, it must be easy to point out the instances. We are taught that His name is I Am; that He is the Creator, Ruler, and Saviour of the world; that He numbers the stars, and binds up the broken in heart; that no man hath seen Him nor can see Him; that H^ will judge the worid in righteousness, and allot the destiny of men on principles of equity, — these are the great features by which He is outlined in the Bible; but interstitially there are countless hints and glimpses of purity, tenderness, and grace ineffable. Nowhere is there any attempt to satisfy mere curiosity: minuteness never fritters into pettiness, nor is the lowest condescension ever less than the attempering of infinite glory. Now, such a revelation, it is submitted, is in many respects the very contrary of what would have been invented by man; it would seem to be deficient in precisely those characteristics which would have most gratified human curiosity, and to abound with the qualities and claims which most humblingly limit the spiritual dominion of mankind, — spiritual as distinguished from magisterial; in his latter capacity man has charter enough, yet, though all things are put under his feet, all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field, the fowl of the’ air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas, he cannot tell what a day will bring forth, nor does he know all the meaning of his own dreams. Yet with all this limitation there is promise of wide liberty in spheres and ages to come. We are to be like the Lord, for we shall see Him as He is. We shall see God’s face! Looking at all this, there is certainly no other theory respecting Godhead so simple, so reasonable, and so satisfactory, as that which is propounded in the Bible. But why have any theory at all? Because human nature demands it, — the heart will find a God or make ’ one. And besides this, whatever mystery may attach even to the fullest disclosure of God, such as is given in the Bible, the mystery which comes zvith Him is cloudless glory compared with the mystery which would remain without him.

The importance of knowing the true God will be felt all the more if we consider the doctrine ti/cc God, like inaii; that is to say, given the idea of God which is entertained and the degree of sincerity with which He is worshipped, and there can be no difficulty in discovering the moral quality of the worshippers. More dignity may be expected from a man who worships the sun, than from a man who worships a stock or stone. As is the idol, so will be his faithful devotee, — like priest like people, like God like worshipper. Find a man whose idea of God is narrow, and you find a bigot or a persecutor: find a man whose conception of God is lofty, pure, tender, loving, and )-ou find a life ennobled and enriched with proportionate thought and charity. What, then, may be expected from the honest and constant worshippers of a God who is infinite in power, wisdom, and goodness, to whom sin is an abominable thing, and whose delight is in judgment and mercy, — a God who is angry with the wicked every day, yet who continually seeks their purification and immortality, a God who resisteth the proud but giveth grace unto the humble? What ought to come out of such worship is evident, — pureness, dignity, simplicity of life, hatred of evil, wholeness of noble character. But the objector will remind us, perhaps,* too, with some cruelty of tone, that these results are not found in Christendom. Possibly not. Yet they are found in Christendom as they have never been found elsewhere on the face of the globe. The sneerer himself may owe the continuance of his own mean life to “the salt of the earth” which he affects to despise. And more, none will be so ready as true worshippers themselves to confess, with many bitter self-reproaches, that they dishonour the footstool at which they kneel, and grieve the Lord whom in their deepest heart they love with unspeakable tenderness.

That it is important even in Christian countries to explain clearly the true character of God as revealed in the Bible, is proved by not a few culpable instances of wilful misconception, and is rendered needful by the energetic dissemination of false and most vicious opinions. John Stuart Mill says of his father: “He found it impossible to believe that a world so full of evil was the work of an author combining infinite power with perfect goodness and righteousness.... ‘Think, he would say, * of a beinof who would make a hell, who would create the human race with the infallible knowledge, and therefore with the intention, that the great majority of them were to be consigned to horrible and everlastingr torment.’” Mr. Stuart Mill himself “believed that the time is drawing near when all persons with any sense of moral good and evil will look upon this dreadful conception of an object of worship with the same indignation with which his father regarded it.” This is a fair example of the ignorance and maHgnity of so-called philosophical infidelity. Mr. Stuart Mill’s fathet fabricated a monster out of his own imagination, and then called it the God of the Christian faith, which is false witness carried to the point of blasphemy. Nowhere in the Bible is there such a God as James Mill delineated. James Mill, an ex-candidate for the holy ministry, was shocked by “a world full of evil,” yet he deprecated the existence of “hell,” and comforted the few good people who are in the world by assuring them, though indirectly, that the universe had no Creator: as if by denying God’s government we either explained the evil or got rid of it. We are asked to “think of a being who would make a hell.” But this is a false view of the penal side of life. Hell was not” ;;z?^/(?” by the Almighty, it was necessitated by sill; we know this, in a measure, by the operation of moral law in society: prisons are not made by Virtue — they are no part of the plan of Virtue — they are made by Vice, and are only accepted by Virtue as a painful necessity. The father does not make the rod of chastisement, it is made by the insubordination and perversity of the child.

The theory of Mr. James Mill, as It stands in the pages of his son’s autobiography, is so imperfect as to be at once morally unjust and intellectually absurd. That theory limits the case which it presumes to state, and treats the limitation as if it were inclusive and final; nothing is allowed for invisible influences; no account is taken of remote combinations: the possible range of the divine movement is either ignored or miscalculated; in short, the same theory, if applied to the form and relation of the earth, would deny its rotundity because of its mountains, and ridicule its alleged motion on the ground that no one ever saw it niove. Mr. aMill’s statement is either complete or it is incomplete: he gives no hint of its incompleteness, and therefore he leaves it to be inferred that it is fair and sufficient, — “Think,” says he, “of a being who would make a hell — who would create the human race with the infallible foreknowledge, and therefore with the intention, that the great majority of them were to be consigned to horrible and everJasting torment.” Let this theory be stated to a philosophical pagan, who has never heard of Christianity, and afterwards let the Bible, without note or comment, be put into his hands, and it would not excite surprise to find him, after due inquiry, addressing Mr. Mill to this effect: “You told me that the world is full of evil, but you said not a word about the good that is in it; )ou directed my attention to hell, but I did not learn from you that there is also a heaven; you told me that God created the human race with the intention that most men should go into horrible and everlasting torments, but 1 find no confirmation of this in the Bible; besides, I find a great many things in the Bible, bearing upon this very point, which your statement neither expresses nor imphes, — you did not tell me that God has no pleasure in the death of the sinner; you did not tell me that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, ihat whosoever belie veth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life; you gave a rough and vulgar account or representation of a many-sided and most intricate case, and I accuse you of having suppressed the truth, and so of having produced upon my mind all the effect of a malignant lie.”

Mr. Mill did what is very generally done in the representation of the divine nature; he fixed attention upon one aspect, and treated it as the whole personality, a method which is unjust in all cases, but specially and disastrously vicious in the case before us. And this would have been not a whit the less true had he called attention exclusively to the other aspect of God, and said: “Think of a God all mercy, all pity, all condescension, and love:” that is not a full representation. of God. In a very deep sense is the poet right when he says, “A God all mercy is a God unjust.” The God of the Bible is righteous in His mercy, merciful in His righteousness, “just, yet the justifier of the ungodly,” — none so condescending, because none so lofty; none so gracious, because none so terrible in judgment. God is love, — God is a consuming fire.

Objections Ansi’cred, 3S Mr. Mill says “the world is full of evil,” but does he tell us that a scheme of redemption and purification of proportionate grandeur is at least proposed in the Bible? He is careful to suggest that God made hell, but does he give one hint as to the existence of heaven? He speaks broadly of “horrible and everlastinof torment,” but does he say that Jesus Christ tasted death for every man, that” no man should die? It is important to accumulate these questions, or to set the same inquiry in different aspects, to show — how utterly unworthy of confidence as a religious guide, or a guide in religious inquiry, is any man who can be so one-sided and incomplete in his statements. What if the bigotry of religion be only less than the bigotry of impiety?

From the line of this inquiry the distance is not great to other questions which have thrown candid and modest minds into temporary disquietude, and which, therefore, demand notice from earnest Christian teachers. In dealing with some of those questions we have no hope of settling them beyond all controversy, but we have a distinct confidence that they may be dispossessed of their power to keep men back from the kingdom of God. If those questions be turned into the form of objections their sharpest aspects will be seen, Thus: —

I. The Holy Ghost has been working in the name and on the behalf of Christ for more than eighteen centuries, and yet it is well known that but a small fraction of the population of the globe is even nominally Christian, and it is also well known that the fraction that is nominally Christian is far enough from being holy. How is this slowness of movement to be accounted for? You reply that the formation of the rocks was slow, but this is not a satisfactory answer; the rocks do not suffer; the rocks do not perish for lack of knowledge: I am not a rock, I am a man, and on behalf of what you would call unsaved and imperilled men I wish to know how it is that the work of the Holy Ghost is so slow in its progress, even granting that it may be said to be making any progress at all. It may be ver)’ comfortable to those who suppose themselves to be in the kingdom of God to speak of the slolyness of geological formations, but what of men who are supposed to be on the way to the “everlasting hre prepared for the devil and his angels “?

Such an objection proves nothing by proving too much. By exactly the same use of it we may doubt the existence, or cctainly the inlhience, of what is commonly known as uprightness, honour, honesty, nobleness, and magnanimity. We may even doubt the reality and power of civilisation itself. Suppose we reason thus: There can be nothinLj vital in the spirit of so called Jioucsty, otherwise jt would make

Objections Ansiuerai. 385

greater progress in the world; as a matter of fact the majority of mankind are dishonest, and therefore honesty has proved itself to be a failure or a mistake. Or, we may reverse the application of the argument thus: Whatever is right must make rapid progress in self-propagation; it must so commend itself to the confidence of mankind as to be instantly received with all honour and appreciation, — Dishonesty has made rapid progress; war, rapine, cupidit)’, oppression, are world-wide in their influence; therefore they must be right. We say (not as theologians or Christians, but simply as moralists) that “Truth is mighty, and must prevail,” but facts are against that theory, for to-day, after centuries of civilised training there is more falsehood spoken by men than truth. So, if the existence and ministry of the Holy Spirit are to be called in question because of the apparent slovxness of Christian progress, the existence of Truth itself may be denied on precisely the same ground, which is proving nothing by proving too much. The objector will remember the ancient confession, “I see the right, and yet the wrong pursue “; according to his reasoning, which takes progress to be the test of reality, the wrong would be the right simply because it is pursued, and has by so much ousted right from the field. But the objector need not travel beyond his own consciousness to confute his own arcjument. Unless indeed he be an infallible man, and therefore not a man at all, he will acknowledge that in his own life — inward and outward — the faults are in excess of the excellences, and that he has been an apter scholar in the school of vice than in the school of virtue, and because he has been such he has proved that virtue is neither divine nor supremely influential. It is not the Spirit of God that is slow, but the spirit of man, — slow to learn, slow in the direction of self-sacrifice, and in all tendencies which require self-suppression and costly discipline on the part of the scholar. If man acted fully up to his light and power in all wise and holy things, that is to say if he brought himself fully abreast of the divine movement in all things which he himself knows to be not only good but possible, then he might with some show of reason chide the divine slowness, and demand that God should not delay his progress towards perfection. But when the exact contrary is the case; when the plainest duties have fallen into desuetude, and on every hand the man is confronted by an accumulation of arrears in those very matters which lie easily within the compass of his power, he need not go far for an explanation of what he calls the slowness of spiritual progress. It may be more or less easy to him, according to the wildness of his imagination, to suo-o-est how God could have made shor’ier work rpi the conversion of mankind, but he should humble himself by remembering that the fertility of his inventiveness is not equalled by the rigour of his personal discipline, and that there may be some things unknown to him, which, if apprehended, would prove his fancies to be idle and preposterous.

2. But has not the Holy Spirit hmited His own influence and retarded His own progress by ilUberal restrictions? For example, we are told that strait is the gate and narrow is the road leading to life, and few there be that go in thereat: is not the smallness of the number to be accounted for by the straitness of the gate? Can He be a God of love who thus narrows the road to His kingdom?

Everything depends upon the nature of that kingdom, and upon the destiny reserved for those who aspire to its occupancy. It is quite certain that all other kingdoms organized and defended by men themselves have before them a strait gate and a narrow road exactly in proportion to their splendour and importance. Take as an example the kingdom of learning, — Strait is the gate and narrow is the way, and few there be that find it. It is proverbial that there is “no royal road to learning”; the road is narrow, hard, uphill, and long, but the kingdom is worth taking. So also with the highest social injluence; it is slowly attained. It is the expression of character which has taken long years and manifold discipline to consolidate and ripen. It is not a power to be snatched at and held by the mere charm of what men call luck; it is the result of long-continued, steady, honourable life In short, strait is the gate and narrow is the road, and few there be that find it. What, therefore, is complained of as restricted and discouraging as to the kingdom of heaven is at all events the custom and law of all the

CS The Paraclete.

human kinodoms which are accounted of hi oh value. VVlicre the honour is small, the candidature need not be keenly watched. Anybody can attach himself to a mob, but it is more difficult to find access to a reputal)le family. The gate opening upon social ruin is wide enough, but the gate opening upon social respectability and confidence of the best quality is guarded by a jealous discipline. To the man, then, who acknowledges the propriety and necessity of these lower laws, and yet complains of the narrowness of the heavenly road, God is entitled to say,” Thou wicked and slothful servant, out of thine own month I condemn thee.’’ It is interesting to remark how constantly Jesus Christ upheld this law of disciplinary entrance into the kingdom of heaven, and how He thereby discouraged such access of numbers as would have invested His cause with the noise of wide popularity. When men would have freely joined Him, He disheartened them by saying plainly — Except a man deny himself and take up his cross daily he cannot be my disciple. A rich young man, who could have made the question of church subsistence easy, and would have taken pride in helping the cause with money, was turned back to sell all that he had before he could become an acknowledged follower of Christ. Severe examinations these, and cruel pluckings! But the whole cost was calculated; the kingdom was most carefully populated; but this very carefulness was its strength, — the gates of hell could not prevail against it. This is the law n’hich we ourselves act upon in all affairs

Objections Answe-ed. 389

‘.vhich we reckon of primary importance, and yet we reproach God when He proceeds upon the same basis!

3. Still, having regard to the brevity of life on the one hand and its painful realism on the other, would it not be better to confine our energies within the limits of things upon which we are agreed, and to abandon all religious speculation and difficulty?

But upon what things aj-e lq agreed? The sug-’ gestion assumes that there is a considerable area of intellectual territory within which there are neither suspicions nor challenges, but this is the very thing which we hold to be contrary to fact. It is not true of physical science, for scientists have as much difficulty about an atom as theologians have about the metaphysics of the Trinity; nor is it true of philosophy, for its expositors are still contending about definitions, and one teacher is standing only until another is able to overthrow his supremacy, sometimes by subtler mistakes, and occasionally by louder pretensions. Where, then, is this supposed circle of agreement, this undistracted and quiet heaven of intellectual contentment? As to those things on which we are sufficiently agreed not to quarrel about them, there is nothing in their quality or claims to satisfy the inquisitiveness or aspiration of mankind; and but for this very desire, which they cannot appease, we should never have known even the few things on which we are supposed to agree. Besides this, the area* of thinis assumed to be settled is felt to be too small for the talents and energies of mankind; by the very constitution of our nature we must intermeddle with things distant and unknown, a necessity to whose faithful expression we owe all that is valuable in civilisation. A standstill policy is in its very essence a blunder and a crime, and it is furdiermore an impossibility in practice. Life itself is a high and solemn speculation; that is to say, its surmises, its hopes, its wonderings, and dreamings, are always in excess of its actual attainments, and that very surcharge works a discontentment which is not without a certain keen pleasure of its own. Equity would seem to require that if speculation were arrested in one direction it ought also to be interdicted in every other, in which event both poetry and philosophy and every effort which properly conies under the name of imagination, would be banished from the region of human thinking. It is evident, too, that to confine our energies within the limits of things upon which we are agreed, and to abandon all religious speculation and difficulty, is to resort to the meanest of all escapes from intellectual trouble; it is, indeed, the refuge of the suicide who is too cowardly to face the trials of life. Religious speculation need not be religious fratricide; it has no necessary connection with zealotry, uncharitableness, or pharisaism, though it may be wantonly dragged in that direction by men who excel only in obstinacy and self-worship.

4. It is not speculation, however,- so much as aiLfhority that is objected to. According to the Christian theory-, the Holy Spirit is the fountain of all righteousness, and the sole arbiter in every question of casuistry, and from His decision there is no appeal. This is oppressive. Authority of this kind puts human judgment in a most servile position. Why should not every man be a law unto himself?

As a matter of fact every man is not a law unto himself even in thinsfs other than relioious: then why not impeach the constitution of society, and develop the principle of individiLalism pure and simple? That “no man liveth unto himself” is clear enough, apart from New Testament teaching; it is the very necessity of life; we limit one another; beyond ourselves there is an organized authority which determines our liberty and encounter> our inconsiderateness with a law of trespass and penalty. It is a very subtle authority, and often unnameable; not the will of one man else it would be tyranny, not the will of all men else it would require no sanctions; probably not the will of living men, for they may have had nothing to do with its creation, having only come under its dominion as an inheritance, — yet there it is, inexorable, indestructible, omnipotent! In religious obligation, however, the question is not primarily one of attlhorily, but of Divinity. If God has spoken, there is an end of contention and doubt. Where there is any uncertainty upon this point, of course there will be disinclination to acknowledg-e spiritual authority; bat even then that disinchnation should be cautious, because every man who knows himself, knows that, even as the inspirer and director of his own thought and life, he is largely dependent upon moods. and contingencies over which his control is pitifully imperfect; the consequence is, that his authority is not only variable, but often the very irony of pretended power, and so he becomes self-fooled and self-victimised. It must never be forgotten, however, that Christianity, beyond every form of religion known to mankind, has not only permitted but enjoined a high realisation of personal distinctiveness and stewardship. “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind:” “According as he hath purposed in his heart, so let him do:” “Every one of us shall give account of himself to Christ;” such are some of Its directions, from which the tone of its dignity and condescension may be inferred, — and such, too, are some of the directions which give Christianity a unique eminence amongst- the religions of the world.

5. Look at the suggestions of utilitarianism as opposed to the spiritual teaching of Christianity, and their superiority must be acknowledged. What answer can be made, that is at all satisfactory, to the theory of Stuart Mill, laid down in his book on Utilitariaiiisiii (pp. 21,22), which is this: —” No one whose opinion deserves a moment’s consideration can doubt that most of the great positive evils of the

Objeclioiis Afiswered. 393

u’orld are in themselves removable, and will, if human affairs continue to improve, be in the end reduced within very narrow limits. Poverty, in any sense implying suffering, may be completely extinguished by the wisdom of society, combined with the good sense and providence of individuals. Even that most intractable of enemies, disease, may be indefinitely reduced in dimensions by good physical and moral education, and proper control of noxious influences; while the progress of science hoMs out a promise for the future of still more direct conquests over this detestable foe. And every advance in that direction relieves us from some, not only of the chances which cut short our own lives, but, what concerns us still more, which deprives us of those in whom our happiness is wrapt up. As for vicissitudes of fortune, and other disappointments connected with worldly circumstances, these are principally the effect either of gross imprudence, of ill-regulated desires, or of bad or imperfect social institutions. All the grand sources, in short, of human suffering are in a great degree, many of them almost entirely, conquerable by human care and effort; and though their removal is grievously slow — thousfh a loner succession of oenerations will perish in the breach before the conquest is completed, and this world becomes all that, if will and knowledge were not wanting, it might easily be ipade — yet every mind sufficiently intelligent and generous to bear a part, however small and inconoicuous, in the endeavour, will draw a noble enjoyment from the contest itself, which he would not for any bribe in the form of selfish indulgence consent to be without.” What possible objection can there be to a theory so plain and sensible, and what need can there be for a spiritual or metaphysical religion to cure the wounds of human nature?

The first sentence in this extract is very remarkable as coming from one who rejects the idea of being under authority as a thinker, — “no one whose opinion deserves a moment’s consideration can doubt,” etc. There is something unquestionably positive in this tone, and had it been the tone of a Christian it might have been censured as haughty and dogmatic by men who boast their intellectual freedom. Let us, however, take the statement just as it stands, and inquire, If. the acquiescence in the proposition be so universal as to include everj’body but imbeciles and madmen, why state it with the kind of positiveness which is usually adapted to conceal the weakness of an argument? And, again, it is clear that if the opinion be so universal, the utilitarian school cannot claim it as a special “property,” and possibly, therefore, even Christian thinkers may come within the circle of those “whose opinion deserves a moment’s consideration “; if so, there is nothing in the first sentence of Mr. Mill’s theory requiring an answer. As to the possibility of extinguishing” poverty in any sense implying suffering,” and indefinitely reducing the dimensions of disease, probably there is no conflict of opinion. Still, therefore, we are waiting for the originality of Mr. Mill’s theory, — so far, certainly, there is no hint of genius in it. Mr. Mill reminds us that vicissitudes of fortune and other disappointments connected with worldly circumstances are principally the effect either of gross imprudence, of ill-regulated desires, or of bad or imperfect social institutions; to which we may reply, What then? As to all the grand sources of human suffering being in a great degree, and many of them almost entirely, conquerable by human care and effort, it may suflice to say that the suggestion is so carefully limited that it is impossible for anybody fully to understand where it begins and wlere it ends. In the first place, the suo-o-estion relates to ‘’all the erand sources of human suffering,” then it drops down to “a great degree’; then it comes further down to “many of them”; and it impotently concludes with ‘’almost entirely.” Who can make anything of a suggestion like this? Why does the conquest stop at “a great degree “? What is a great degree? And why does the conquest stop at “almost entirely”? And what is the meaning of “human care and effort”? Why speak of human care, when, according to Mr. Mill’s philosophy, there is no other? This is a fair example of the theories which are avowedly or by implication set against Christianity. With apparent boldness they combine so adroit a use of qualifying words, such as have just been cited, as to leave themselves many escapes from the grave responsil):Iities which at first they seem but too eager to assume. If we look at Mr. Mill’s theory from another point of view, we must protest against the possible insinuation that Christianity sets itseU against “human care and effort” as applied to poverty, distress, and “disappointments connected with worldly circumstances.” Mr. Mill and his school do most disingenuously proceed in the statement and inculcation of their opinions as if they alone concerned themselves with the practical side of human life, and 5s if Christianity and its teachers were occupied with speculations and superstitions remote from the cares and sorrows of mankind. In doing so, they presume largely on the ignorance of their followers; for Christianity, as embodied in Jesus Christ and unfolded in His doctrine, is a religion of healing, sympathy, unselfishness, industry, honour, and nobleness; and to ignore this is either to be proved ignorant or criminal. But let us see how the case would stand even in Mr. Mill’s own way of putting it: let every man have good health, a good

income, and a good house; let poverty, weakness, ignorance, have no more place in human society: What then? With nothing to live on but Mr. Mill’s doctrine, the world as thus reconstituted would be a most uncomfortable heaven. As it is to the helplessness and the ignorance of childhood that family life owes much of its mellowness and sweetest charity, so it is to I lie poverty and weakness of the world that society owes some of its deepest lessons of wisdom and many of Its most blessed experiences of thankfulness and joy. Nor must It be supposed that poverty and weakness themselves have been utterly left without compensation. It Is not unknown that the weak man has often a marvellous strength other than bodily, and that the poor man has wealth more than golden; and on the other hand It Is certain that even the so-called advantages of life brlnof with them anxieties and responsibilities often burdensome and painful. Besides, all theories of happiness that never go beyond merely circumstantial requirements, leave unprovided for many necessities infinitely more urgent than It is possible for physical need to be. If a man’s mind be thoroughly alive, he cannot be content with good health, good revenue, and fjood dwellinof. There are heart-achlno-s, and out-oolnors of love and wonder, and siohlncrs which waste the life, which cannot be soothed or appeased by “bread alone.” On the one hand you will find sad hearts surrounded by the highest personal and social advantages, and on the other you will find hearts glad with unspeakable joy In spite of circumstances the most untoward and harassing. It is, therefore, in the opinion of Christian thinkers, a superficial and mocking theory of human happiness which concerns itself mainly with circumstances. What is wanted is a principle which will put all accidental conditions in their right place, and persistently remind man that “the life is more, than meat,” and that apparent failure may be real success. Am I happy? is a mean inquiry compared with Am

T right? Christ says that the kingdom of God and His righteousness should be first sought, and that all things will be added, — where not literally so, yet so in that measure of spiritual contentment arising out of loving trust in God which is better than the technical and formal possession of the largest wealth. There is, still farther, another remark to be made upon Mr. Mill’s theory, to the effect that it is heartless and cruel as bearing upon many who are in poverty and suffering. Mr. Mill says to such — This is the result either of gross imprudence, of ill-regulated desires, or of bad behaviour in some direction or odicr; this is, in short, your own blame, and you must devise or adopt means for your own recovery. Now all this may be true, yet for want of something else neither expressed nor Implied it is most disheartening. Christianity does not shrink from inflicting just reproach upon sinful men; its judgments are keen and withering beyond all other. It steadily points to the heart of man as the fountain of evil, and emphatically declares that death is the wages of sin; but having done this it speaks a word of hope, and offers a helping hand to those who are crushed. It says, “where sin abounded, grace did much more abound;” so that iniquity may be pardoned and the life of man may be renewed; and to those who are sufferino- throuorh no traceable fault of their own, it says, “All things work together for good to them that love God;” “Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth.” Place these theories side by side, and say

Objeclio7is Answered. 399

which of them commends itself most strongly to the consciousness and the affections of mankind. But Mr. Mill denies the Christian theory. What of that? Is any man’s denial to have all the effect of a divine revelation? Were this a question of mere denial or affirmation, the Christian apologist would have no difificulty in quoting names representative of intellectual power, genius, learning, and manifold human service, which would make any denial puerile and contemptible.

6. But how Is It that the Bible, If inspired and dictated by one Spirit, can be taken as the foundation of theories which would seem at least to be mutually contradictory? Calvinism and Arminian-Ism are both in the Bible, if we are to believe their respective exponents; what, then, becomes of the one Spirit and the one Faith y

It may be quite true that both Calvinism and Arminianism (philosophically defined) are to be found in the Bible, but It does not follow that either of them is to be taken as a complete statement of Biblical truth. Great errors have unquestionably been committed by the exaggeration of special aspects or claims of revealed doctrine, and Endless controversies have attended the propagation of those errors. Calvinism and Arminianism are quite as surely In human life as they are in the Bible: righteousness and mercy, government and compassion, severity and goodness, are found everywhere; and lie would be no philosopher who founded a theory of i,oo ‘TJie Paraclete.

human life on one of them to the neglect or exclusion of the other. Calvinism and Arminianism are both in the Bible, as also are Adam and Eve, the stronir and the “”entle, the rulino and the loving. Calvinism and Arminianism are not only in the Bible but in ever-y great-natured man, — there are times when he hardens into law, and there are times when he softens into pity, yet is he no self-contradiction or anomaly, but rather a whole-natured and many-sided man. Wherever the Bible seems to teach two opposing doctrines, it is giving the two halves of the same truth. For example, Trinitarianism is in the Bible, and so is Unitarianism — not, indeed, as these terms have often been expounded by partizans and zealots, but in a high and philosophical sense. He who says that God is three persons can quote much Scripture in proof of his statement, and he who contends that God is one can confirm his doctrine by many passages. So also with the Deity and Humanity of Jesus Christ, both of which are expressly taught in the Scriptures. Neither aspect, in all the instances quoted, is to be honoured at the expense of the other; they are mutually necessary, and are explicable by the great dual ft.w which makes Adam and Eve one humanity, the dry land and the seas one globe.

“There is a sin unto death.” “All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme, but he that

Conclusion. 40 1

shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.” “Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven,” — a wide circle, yet with one tree that may not be touched! Explanation of this mystery there is probably none. It best explains itself by exciting a holy fear as to trespass. Another step — only one — and we may be over the line. One more word, and we may have passed into the state unpardonable. Life is thus infinitely delicate, — it may be destroyed by the point of a needle. Do not ask what this sin is; only know that every other sin leads straight up to it, and that at best there is but a step between life and death. There are places at which we must stand still because there is no lieht to help us farther; our lamp goes out, so that we cannot tell what comes next, — a lion, a precipice, a grave: this is such a place, — in front of us is the Unpardonable I From what the merciful God docs pardon, we can only infer that the sin which “hath never forgiveness” is something too terrible for full expression in words. He pardons “abundantly “: He pardoned Nineveh, and Himself became their pleader and defence when His mercy was reproached; He passed by the transgression of the remnant of His heritaije, because He delighted in mercy; where sin abounded He sent the mightiest billows of His grace; when the enemy would have stoned the redeemed, by reminding them of sinr,

D D manifold, and base with exceeding aggravation, behold their sins could not be found, for His merciful hand had cast them into the sea, — yet there is one sin that hath never forgiveness! As it is unpardonable, so it is indescribable. If it be too great for God’s mercy, what wonder that it should be too mysterious for our comprehension? “M)’ soul, come not thou into that secret.” Yet nature has one faint ray to throw on the appalling gloom: — “There is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease; thouoh the root thereof wax old in the earth, and. the stock thereof die in the ground, yet through the scent of water it will bud, and bring forth boughs like a plant,” — but if the tree tear itself from the earth, and refuse the light and the dew, what can become of it, or who can cause it to triumph over God? And if man will uproot himself from the kindness and love of God our Saviour, and decline association with all the appointed channels of life and sustenance, none can save him from the second death.

»-*-•