Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

heavy, and how long has been that sword forged by the wickedness and folly of man out of the gracious promises and gentle commands of Him whose very name is love, and how often has it dripped with blood! Poor Ireland has passed under the harrow of fanaticism, and it is much to be wished that Irishmen in this new world would be warned by the follies of the past, and be wise for the time to come. Catholics amd Orangemen, would to Heaven ye would cease to provoke one another, to envy each other. Does it run in the blood? Wise Paul of Tarsus rebuked just the same faults in the Galatians who were cousins, not far removed, to the Irish. Here all Irishmen have equal privileges before the law; and whilst they never should yield them but with their lives, they should not envy to each other their enjoyment. We trust that the coming twelfth may be signalized by no disaster, by the shedding of no fraternal blood.

Irishmen ought to be Christians and patriots first, and then Catholics or Protestants, as the case may be. Let all Irishmen join to build up this grand new country, where all creeds and all nationalities are free with a common freedom; where all citizens are privileged alike to make their own laws, and to help each other to obey them. Let Irishmen pit themselves against the shrewd Scot and persevering Englishman, and then perchance their genius will give them the foremost place. Then with Irishmen in the van their favourite place in battle, with the old cry, 'Faugh a ballah !' -clear the way!-down will go all obstacles physical, social, and political, and in fulfilment of their manifest destiny, Canadians shall march across this vast continent, the apostles of civilization, the champions of freedom, the architects of empire, and the missionaries of peace.

SONNET,

BY GOWAN LEA.

[ocr errors]

N silence do ye gather, shades of night!
The sun in peaceful glory passed away;
As quietly arises the new day;

And gently fall the rays of the moon's light.
How doth the sparkling eye with glances bright
Make revelation more than tongue can say--
The inmost secrets of the heart betray !
No speech is needed for the soul's insight,
To thought, O silence, thou'rt a very sun;
Without thee, genius withers and grows pale,
And will not charm us with her faintest flower:
High born art thou; even the gods do hail
Communion with thee-consecrate thy hour.
In silence nature's grandest work is done!

MONTREAL.

THE REV. PHILLIPS BROOKS ON POPULAR SCEPTICISM.

BY LAON.

HERE is much that every candid

THERE

[ocr errors]

and earnest mind must admire in the article contributed by the Rev. Phillips Brooks to the March number of the Princeton Review, under the title of 'The Pulpit and Popular Scepticism.' It is an article which, in the opinion of the present writer, does not seriously touch the intellectual position of sceptics, that is to say of unbelievers in the Christian scheme of doctrine; yet it will summon every serious sceptic to not unprofitable reflection, while the orthodox will find some of their own weaknesses exposed in a very faithful and effectual manner. Clergymen of all denominations are urged by Mr. Brooks not to pretend to believe more than they do not to bind on men's backs burdens which they do not themselves touch with their little finger. How many men in the ministry to-day,' says Mr. Brooks, believe in the doctrine of verbal inspiration which our fathers held, and how many of us have frankly told the people that we do not believe it? I know,' he adds, the old talk about holding the outworks as long as we can, and then retreating to the citadel; and perhaps there has hardly been a more mischievous metaphor than this. It is the mere illusion of a metaphor. The minister who tries to make people believe that which he questions in order to keep them from questioning that which he believes, knows very little about the certain workings of the human heart, and has but little faith in truth itself.' A great many teachers and parents, Mr. Brooks thinks, are just now in this condition. Another serious evil lies

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

in the partizanship which Christian teachers display, and which makes their ministry seem rather a scramble for adherents than a Christlike love for souls, which stamps their unanimity as the mere outcome of a professional mind.' These are brave and strong words which ought to cause a good deal of heart-searching. While evils like these are at all common in the Church there is but little need to seek an enemy outside; the enemy is within the gates, wearing the very livery of the defenders of the citadel. 'There is nothing so terrible,' says Mr. Brooks, yet more emphatically, as the glimpses we get occasionally into a minister's unbelief; and sometimes the confusion which exists below seems to be great just in proportion to the hard positiveness of dogmatism which men see upon the surface.'

Now Mr. Brooks hints at these evils as wide-spread; but a very important question is-how widely are they spread? Are the cases in which we observe them in any true sense exceptional, or are the exceptions the cases in which faith is so clear and strong as neither to vacillate nor temporize, so pure and fervent as to make nothing of worldly or professional success, in comparison with the vivifying of human souls by the power of the gospel ? Each one would answer such a question in the light of his individual experience, but certainly many would say that the Christian ministry, speaking generally, is a profession like any other; that its members are professionally-minded; that the 'scramble for adherents,' and the ways and means, first of building, and then of maintaining,

the weigh-house fee was paid by the fair ones themselves, or by their adorers, or whether the charge was graduated according to the pressure exerted on the scales, I am not in a position to

more or less ostentatious church edifices, occupy more thought and absorb more energy than the 'saving of souls.' The average sinner is to the average minister, first a contributor, or possible contributor, to a church fund; second, a being with spiritual capacities and responsibilies and a somewhat problematical destiny in another world. And where the minister is actuated by a higher spirit, and desires to preach what he regards as a pure gospel, without respect of persons and free from all pecuniary calculations, the financial men of his church, churchwardens or trustees, often step in to tell him, not in so many words perhaps, but plainly enough for all practical purposes, that this kind of thing will not do, that ways and means have to be provided, and that the preaching must be of a character to fill the galleries and produce large collections. What effect such an insinuation must have upon a sincere and high-minded man, who had never before looked upon his ministry as, primarily, a means of raising revenue, may easily be imagined. Yet will any one who knows the facts deny that, in an ever increasing number of churches, the financial question is taking precedence of every other. The cry is not 'What shall we do to be saved?' or What shall we do to save the world?' but What shall we do to pay the interest on our mortgages? And the ingenuity which this state of things calls into play is really in its way admirable. Time would fail to tell of the numberless devices employed to draw money from people's pockets,-some of an unobjectionable character, but many of them grotesque and vulgar in the last degree. I have before my mind at this moment a case in which, at a teameeting held in aid of the funds of a leading Methodist church, a platform scale was introduced, and the ladies' were weighed at so much a head, the weights being duly recorded, under initials, in the local papers. Whether

state.

It would seem, therefore, altogether questionable whether the Church, in any broad sense, is in a position to act aggressively towards scepticism.. or to undertake its cure. Individual men of exceptional qualifications may be moved to do it, and anything that a good and wise man may have to say on a subject to which he has given earnest thought is deserving of serious. consideration. The Rev. Mr. Brooks is a man with whom sceptics should. be glad to have an opportunity of coming to an understanding, as it is. well worth their while to know his. view of their position and of his own. I shall, therefore, proceed to make a few remarks on Mr. Brooks's theory as to the causes of modern scepticism, and as to the best means of battling with it, in the hope, not of argumentative victory, but of some small increase of light, some slight gain to the cause of truth.

The first remark of any importance that I find in the article to which reference has been made, is that Christianity enjoys a perpetual advantage over scepticism in this, that the latter 'offers men no substitute for the religion it would destroy, and thus leaves man's religious nature unprovided for and hungry.'

Now, is it true that modern philosophy offers no substitute for the religion or rather the theology which it tends to supersede? If we consider for a moment what a vast and everincreasing place in men's minds the modern doctrine of development holds; when we think how profoundly it has modified thought; what a light it has shed upon many questions upon which before no light could be obtained; when we think of the sustained intellectual interest it has power to create; we certainly find in it, I do not say a

substitute for the belief in a Divine government of the world, and a Divine purpose in all things, but much more than a substitute for religion in its popular forms, or, in other words, for anything which it has a necessary tendency to destroy. The belief in God not only survives the demonstration of the universality of law, but in many minds is only deepened and strengthened as the proof proceeds. On the other hand, the belief in perpetual miracle enfeebles and degrades the conception of the Divine Being, reducing Him to little more than a puppet, whose wires are controlled by a priesthood, or by the prayers of the individual. When, therefore, we think of the ordered condition of the thoughts of a liberally educated man of to-day, his rational confidence in natural law, his clear insight into the causes of many things which not long ago were insoluble mysteries; when we think of his well-grounded hopes of future progress, and above all, of his clear perception of cause and effect in the affairs of life, and consequently greatly increased chances of being happy himself and making others happy, we surely must conclude that he has obtained a glorious substitute for almost any amount of purely theological doctrine. Mr. Brooks would scarcely refuse to allow that, in this new conception of the universe as the theatre of law and order, there is much to stay the thoughts and even to inspire a faith which, in minds duly fitted, may rise to any degree of sublimity and enthusiasm. To see the full importance of this consideration, we have only to think of the chaotic condition of mind and the purposeless lives of many who have never lost their theological faith. What is the very idea of God to many but, as it were, the symbol of unknown and incalculable forces which each tries to coax, to wheedle, or to whine over to his own side? The fretting and grumbling of pious people, when things are not to their mind, has struck many a

[ocr errors]

sceptic, I am sure, with astonishment. The same people who grumble and fret will, of course, have their seasons of prosperity and consequent exultation or self-complacency; and then they are prepared to dilate with great unction on the comforts of religion.' But we who watch such people through their various stages, know what their comfort of religion amounts to, and vastly prefer a system of thought, which, by taking away from us all sense of privilege, all pretension to command the unseen powers of the universe, except by obedience to law, removes all occasion of fretfulness, and enables us to take things as they come, the best of now and here.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

I pass now to the explanation offered of the causes of modern scepticism. Any man,' says Mr. Brooks, 'who has seen much of unbelief as it exists among our people now, knows that in general it does not consist of any precise and assignable difficulties. It is not the difficulty of this or that doctrine that makes men sceptics today. It is rather the play of all life upon the fundamental grounds and general structure of faith.

[ocr errors]

The reason why my hearer, who sits moodily or sadly or scornfully before me in his pew, and does not cordially believe a word of what I preach to him, the reason why he disbelieves is not that he has found the evidence for inspiration or for Christ's divinity or for the atonement unsatisfactory. It is that the aspect of the world, which is Fate, has been too strong for the fundamental religion of the world, which is Providence. And the temptation of the world, which is self-indulgence, has seemed to make impossible the precept of religion, which is selfsurrender; and the tendency of experience, which is hopelessness, has made the tendency of the Gospel, which is hope, seem unreal and unbelievable.'

This is impressively put, but it suggests to my mind many questions. First-Why should 'the play of life'

be so deadly to faith in these days particularly? Why should it not have been equally so in the Middle Ages, when social order was so imperfect, when Force stood so often in violent antagonism to Right, when passions were stronger than they are now, and hopelessness, so far as this world was concerned, more general and more profound? Mr. Brooks surely owes us some explanation upon this point. Before we can be asked to accept his theory, he must show us wherein the 'aspect of the world' to-day differs from its aspect in former days, and must also make it plain that the difference, whatever it may be, has a causal connection with the phenomenon under consideration. Until this

is done the theory that the decline in belief is due to the greater spread of intelligence and education is entitled to hold its ground. Comparing present times with past we do find a more enlightened condition of public opinion now than formerly, and why should we not say that this is the explanation of the abandonment of so large a portion of the theological belief of our forefathers? We explain a modern phenomenon by a modern phenomenon, and it is for those who do not like the explanation to bring forward one more profound and philosophical.

Secondly-When Mr. Brooks says that any man who has seen much of unbelief as it exists among our people now, knows that, in general, it does not consist of any precise and assignable difficulties,' is he not aware that, allowing this to be true, the unbelief to which he refers may still be the result of a true intellectual instinct, such as led to the abandonment of the belief in witchcraft so strongly held by our forefathers. He has probably not forgotten Mr. Lecky's celebrated chapter on the belief in witchcraft and its decline; and, if so, he must know that some beliefs perish from the world not on account of the 'precise and assignable difficulties' connected with them, but because the

evidence for them gradually fails, and because men's thoughts take a direction that leads them insensibly away from such beliefs.

Thirdly-When Mr. Brooks says of a typical unbeliever that the reason why he disbelieves is not that he has found the evidence for inspiration or for Christ's divinity, or for the atonement unsatisfactory, does he not pronounce judgment where he ought to investigate? Is Mr. Brooks in a position to say that the evidence for these things cannot be found unsatisfactory? If so, the only thing to say of popular scepticism is that it is a popular delusion. If Mr. Brooks admits that there is room for argument in regard to these matters, he must allow a chance, at least, that 'the hearer who sits moodily or scornfully or sadly in his pew,' and doesn't believe a word of what he hears from the pulpit, may have his own quite satisfactory reasons for not believing reasons, perhaps, which, for logical coherence, would favourably compare with those which his neighbour in the next pew has for believing everything. I fear it would prove a somewhat dangerous thing for our orthodox friends to insist that every person who either believes or disbelieves should have pointed and conclusive arguments by which to establish his scheme of thought. Such a rule would, no doubt, embarrass a portion of the unbelieving world, but what confusion and dismay would it spread among the believers!

It is, however, the wear and tear of life, according to Mr. Brooks, that produces scepticism. But surely, if the Christian religion is meant for this world, it should not only be able to stand the wear and tear of life, but the wear and tear of life should be the very thing to bring it home more intimately to men's minds and hearts. But what, let us ask most seriously, can the wear and tear of life, or, as Mr. Brooks calls it, 'the play of life,' have to do with such a dogma as, for example, the infallibility or inspiration

« VorigeDoorgaan »