Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

ficulty is equally great of conceiving moral responsibility not to exist, or to exist without free agency. To ignore one element of our perplexity is merely to cut the logical knot with a sword. Have we an exhaustive knowledge of the possibilities of being, and can we say that free agency is excluded? lf not, and if it must be allowed to be possible that in the ascending scale of being human free agency might at last .emerge, we have to consider how its appearance could be manifested in any other way than those in which it is apparently manifested now,-our sense of a qualified freedom of choice before action, our consciousness of responsibility founded on the same belief after action, and our uniform treatment of our fellows as free and responsible agents. Science appeals to the reasonings of Jonathan Edwards as conclusive in favour of

the necessarian theory. If Jonathan Edwards found the truth, it is very remarkable, since he never sought it for a moment. He was not a free inquirer,* but a sectarian divine, trying to frame a philosophic apology for the dogma of his sect. He is reduced to the absurd conclusion that moral evil emanates directly from perfect goodness.

But these questions are beyond our present scope. The object of this short paper is only to call attention to the fact that, if we may judge by the experience of history, a crisis in the moral sphere, which will probably bring with it a political and social crisis, appears to have arrived.

-Atlantic Monthly.

* His critic, Mr. Hazard, is a free inquirer in the full sense of the term, and one of a very vigorous mind.

MR. GOLDWIN SMITH'S ATLANTIC MONTHLY ARTICLE.

E the universe or there is not.

ITHER there is Intelligence behind

Unless I am to be a universal sceptic, discredit the laws of thought, and admit my own existence as but a doubtful hypothesis, I must hold that one of these two propositions must be true. Shall I then accept as true the one proposition, or the other, or shall I, in the misery of doubt, perpetually oscillate between the two. Agnosticism' virtually tells me that I must do the latter. I must be certain of nothing except that there is nothing that I can be certain of. I must not be a Theist and still less must I be a Materialist. I must hold that Theist and Materialist are equally deluded, not as to the fact of Deity or no Deity-on that question I am to have no opinion-but in supposing that they really believe the one thing or the other.

Agnosticism claims to hold the balance impartially between Theism and Materialism. But the question for the great mass of men is not, is the Theistic or the Materialistic theory the most prob

able? It presents itself as a practical question-Shall we believe in God, or shall we not? Can there be any doubt into which scale Agnosticism throws its weight.

6

Mr. Goldwin Smith, in his recent article in the Atlantic Monthly, finds fault with Agnosticism for practically assuming a negative decision, while ostensibly declining to decide the matter in issue at all. He thinks that Agnosticism, if it means suspense of judgment and refusal to accept the unknown as known, is the natural frame of mind for any one who has followed the debate with an unpre judiced understanding, and who is resolved to be absolutely loyal to the truth;' that to such a man existence must appear at this moment an unfathomable and overwhelming mystery;' but he also thinks that the question cannot be in its nature insoluble, and on the hypothesis that we are in the hands of goodness there seems to be reason to hope for a solution.' Of one thing he is assured, that in the attitude towards religion

taken by so-called agnostics, with the general decline of faith which may be expected as a consequence, there is imminent danger of a 'moral interregnum.'

[ocr errors]

Mr. Goldwin Smith himself indicates a reason which to many people who accept life as a fact, with whatever mystery it may be surrounded, seems a sufficient ground for deciding that life must have its source in God. Assuming the correctness of the agnostic position, that the intellectual difficulties of belief and unbelief are equally balanced, we necessarily look elsewhere for a ground of decision. The main object of Mr. Smith's article is to shew that by the belief in God human character gains in moral height, while in the absence of that belief, human character deteriorates. Many a Christian can add to Mr. Smith's historical retrospect the testimony of his individual experience. Let a man,' says Dr. Arnold, live on the hypothesis of its falsehood (i.e., the belief in God), the practical result will be bad; that is, a man's besetting and constitutional faults will not be checked; and some of his noblest feelings will be unexercised, so that if he be right in his opinions, truth and goodness are at variance with one another, and falsehood is more favourable to our moral perfection than truth; which seems the most monstrous conclusion which the human mind can possibly arrive at.' Surely with such a practical test as this at hand, not only in history but in the facts of daily observation, a man may follow the course of modern thought, with the reresolve to be absolutely loyal to the truth,' and still not deem it necessary to be agnostic.

Mr. Goldwin Smith is evidently a sincere believer in Christianity as a power for righteousness in the world, but he apparently considers that 'fresh assurances of our faith' are needed. 'Christianity, though it may cease to be accepted as a miraculous revelation, remains the central fact of history, and as such, in connection with other religions, seems to call for an examination which it has not yet received.' The faith of free inquirers' in, amongst other things, the history of the New Testament, so far as it is miraculous or inseparably connected with miracles,' has been destroyed. However Mr. Smith is probably of opinion that in the New Testament sanctions are to be formed for the hypothesis that we are in the

hands of goodness' which are not to be found elsewhere.

Any one who has read the 'Lectures on the Study of History,' and the appreciative remarks there upon the type of character presented in the Gospels, will have some idea on what the author, unless he has found reason to change his views, would probably base the argument from Christianity in favour of Theism. It is possible that a conscientious thinker might find it difficult to give credence to the records of miracles in the New Testament, and still remain convinced that the character of Christ can only be explained as a manifestation of Deity. But, however intellectual and high-minded men, educated in the atmosphere of Christianity, might be confirmed in their belief in God, and aided in their efforts towards holiness, by the contemplation of a divinely beautiful type of character, I have no doubt whatever that a Christianity which offers no more than this, has no power to seriously influence the average man, and keep the world from becoming altogether corrupt.

It is the fashion in some quarters now-a-days to claim that modern culture' understands Jesus better than the men who were chosen by Him to be His companions, and preach His Gospel. Various efforts have been made by writers of this school to revive the so-called Jesus of History, but none of these attempts, as far as I am aware, commend themselves to sober judgment. The fact is that, if we refuse to accept the unaffected story of the Evangelists as substantially accurate, the Founder of the Christian religion becomes the merest myth. The Christ who stands out from the Gospel pages with such marvellous vividness and consistency, the most real Man in history, to many a follower of His, loses all distinctness of outline, fades away from sight, becomes but a voice uttering a few rather impracticable maxims for conduct. The Jesus of the Evangelists is a Man, with a power, over those who realize the meaning of His life and mission as His companions interpreted it, which is not to be explained on merely human principles. The Jesus of those who consider the greater part of the Gospels as quite unworthy of credence, is necessarily as impersonal as the Delphic oracle. To such a Christ, it is hard to conceive any one rendering a conscious personal allegiance.

The religion of St. Paul and the disciples of Christ is of course inseparably connected with at least one miracle. Christians are told that they are mistaken as to the real element of power in their religion. It is not the resurrection and the profound doctrines based thereupon, as St. Paul fondly imagined, which give life to Christianity, but the sermon on the Mount, which, in spite of the superstition about a resurrection, has placed the Christian faith at the head of religious systems. In answer to this Christians have simply to say that they know better. They know what it is that is the power in their own lives, and what it is which lifts up fallen lives around them, and has from the beginning been the vital element of regenerating power in Christianity. We all admire the Sermon on the Mount, but who is the man who has the power of approximating in his life most closely to the doctrines of the Sermon on the Mount? It may be rare to find a person who literally loves his enemies, does good to them which hate him, blesses them which persecute him, and prays for them who despitefully use him. But there have been such men in Christian history; and there are such men in the world to-day. And I will dare to say that such a man, wherever he is or has been found, holds, or in his day has held, with all his mind and heart to the faith that He who bade him live in this spirit was delivered for his offences and raised again for his justification.

The hypothesis that we are in the hands of goodness was held by Epictetus as distinctly as anyone holds it who does not believe that the fact has been revealed. But when Epictetus bids you not to be angry with the servant, it is not because you should love the servant, but because you should not allow a

servant to put you out of harmony with nature. The effort to attain high-chararacter is often but a subtle form of selflove. Self-surrender is only possible

to one who has a realizing sense of the presence of a Being to whom such selfsurrender is possible and due as a debt of gratitude. What is wanted, amid all the pain and trial of life, to make the hypothesis that we are in the hands of goodness a conviction, and a motive to grateful self-surrender? Something more than we discover of God's love in nature; something more than the idea that we owe to Him our existence, a doubtful blessing in the opinion of many people now-a-days; something more than admiration for the character of Christ. Is it not the faith in some unmistakable token of divine love, something which brings home to the individual heart a consciousness of personal relationship with a Father in Heaven, of the Father's sympathy with the deepest spiritual needs of His children, of an affection on His part for the creatures of His hands proving itself by the only true test of affection-sacrifice? In this was manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him.'

[ocr errors]

The apostolic doctrine of the Cross -this has been the life of Christianity in the past, and must be its power in the future. In a word, this is Christianity. I believe that there is no other power than the doctrine of the Cross wherewith to meet the danger of a moral interregnum, and that the practical duty of regenerating humanity in the concrete and the unit, will always devolve upon those who in an honest and good heart receive it.

G. A. M.

ROUND THE TABLE.

VICARIOUS IMMORALITIES.

T seems to me that our vicarious im

expression, are very much on the increase now-a-days. In order to explain myself, let us take the single example of the usurious money-lender and his misdeeds. In the old days your usurer was probably a Jew who risked his own capital stock of gilders and grinders, bore his own risks, did his own dirty work of extortionment, shouldered all the blame of the needful executions, distresses, and sellings out, and pocketed his own exorbitant profit. The Banking Corporation, Private Banker, or Loan and Savings Company supplants the individual Shylock now, but we need not think that extortion altogether disappeared while the business was changing hands. The same temptations exist, the same facilities abound. Advantage is taken of the need of the borrower to wring ruinous terms from him. Endless renewals, protests and lawyer's fees heap themselves up in a vast pile till they obscure the very memory of the original petty advance. When it is dangerous to let things run longer, even at this lucrative rate, the borrower is skinned, securities realized, perhaps on a falling market, and the Loan Company is up to time with its big half-yearly dividend.

It would surprise the ordinary investor if he were told that he were in any way responsible for the hardships thus caused. Why, he would say, my minister has shares in the same company, my lawyer himself advised me to invest in it. Where can be the wrong? I have nothing to do with the management. All the same, my friend, it is your money that has enabled the corporation to go into this business, it is the proceeds of the sale of your poor neighbour's furniture which pays your dividend, and you are as much responsible for any harshness of procedure on the part of the officials as if you had personally sent the bailiff in to seize the man's goods.

Would you be content with a lower rate of interest than that which you exact from your investments? Would you accept it as a valid excuse for the nonpayment of any dividend if the General Manager told you that, in order to raise funds to meet it, so many poor devils would have to be sold up, neck and crop? If so, you would be excusable. But are you so content? The requirements you lay upon your directorate are such that this extortion follows as a matter of course. Some minds seem to find it a comfort that it is half ignorantly

'they turn an easy wheel

That sets sharp racks at work, to pinch and peel,'

but I cannot see that the wilful shutting of our eyes makes the guilt any the less. S. V. I. R.

NIAGARA.

ORD DUFFERIN'S idea of an In

Lternational Park at Niagara Falls

seems taking a definite form upon itself.

It is certainly time that something should be done. Have you seen or heard of the latest vulgarism that has been foisted upon an admiring public? I mean the Electric Light, which displays its abominable tints from Prospect Park, -for, I am happy to say, the Canadian side is innocent of such a desecration.

It was on a cold evening that I paid my last visit to the Falls. The first snow of the season had fallen, and the moon shone fitfully through masses of clouds that were hurtled across the sky by a rapid, cold wind. At each turn of the road, deserted by all men, the subdued roars of the waters came louder upon the ear. Far below coiled the struggling eddies, restlessly immoveable in their narrow gorge, now dimly seen, now plainly marked as the sky broke open over head. It was a night full of solemnity, such a night as one would choose upon which to pay one's first visit to the Falls by

moonlight; so that the mind ran on in advance and pictured for itself the long steaming mist-cloud rising out of that bottomless caldron, and the pale glints of light upon the perilous edge of the mass of falling waters.

One beauty the American Falls have generally had conceded to them; they are considered to possess the grandeur of unity in a larger degree than our Horseshoe Falls. This beauty, the proprietors of Prospect Park contrive, with diabolical ingenuity, to destroy after night-fall. Seven or eight glaring electric lamps, with moveable reflectors, painfully strike the eye as you look across from the Canadian side. It is a peculiarity of an electric light that (unlike the modest violet) it will not submit to be overlooked, and each of these lamps gives the retina a blow from which it does not recover easily. But the worst is to come. I looked several times and rubbed my eyes vigorously before I could believe it; but at last I was driven to conclude that these miserable pyrotechnists had deliberately turned a red light upon the face of the Falls, about half way down! From the point of view of a scene painter, the result was admirable, and the effect would certainly be in place and keeping as the back ground for a spectacular ballet, but, at Niagara !

It is generally believed (and I share the opinion) that reading the Newgate Calendar is morally unhealthy. For instance, I am so overpowered by the degrading spectacle I have witnessed, that I burn to commit to paper an atrocious idea it has suggested to me. It would be so quaint-essentially vulgar, -so extremely novel,-so meretriciously gaudy, that I am persuaded the Prospect Park people would at once put it practice, which consideration alone induces me to refrain.

[blocks in formation]

ence to put an end to the modern form of it, which we know most about. This is but a sorry defence to put forth for a Church which has such pretentions. Its zeal must have cooled wonderfully to keep silent in presence of a system which moved one who had no claim to infallibility to describe as the sum of all villainies.' I do not, however, admit that the Church did so much to extinguish slavery in the middle ages. Lecky, rationalist though he is, is too ready to admit the statements of the ecclesiastical--they are chiefly ecclesiastical-historians of the period, and it is well known that their evidence requires to be carefully sifted, as indeed all history does which is more than two or three centuries old. I preferred, therefore, to test the Cardinal's statement by an appeal to the annals of our own time. The readers of the MONTHLY can form their own judgment on the subject.

I very gladly comply with 'TINEA'S’ request to bring forward some more of the false as well as glittering generalities so plentifully strewed through Dr. Newman's books. Here is one of the worst. 'The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and all the millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, than that one soul should, I will not say be lost, but that it should commit one venial sin; should tell one untruth, or steal one farthing's worth of property."

I do not know whether the Church of Rome holds this frightful doctrine or where it gives authoritative expression to it, but I should say of the man who gives utterance to it as his sincere belief that his mind is seared by sacerdotalism, and that he is dead to all sympathy with his race. It is an exaggerated example of a belief still too commonly held, though fast fading away, that human conduct is to be measured by its effects on the mind of an invisible being which we call God rather than by its effects on the welfare of fellow-man. To see how utterly callous to human suffering this idea makes men we have only to go back to the ages when the Church is supposed to have destroyed slavery and conferred so many other benefits. It was then an almost daily sight to see crowds looking on complacently at the sufferings of a poor old creature burned at the stake for witchcraft-an imaginary compact with an imaginary devil. The numerous attempts now being made to deduce a

« VorigeDoorgaan »