those happy days the priesthood will never be intolerant, so the people will never be restive. Modern populations will not look upon themselves as degraded by the social destiny which imposes upon them constant submission................. Men will be brought to perceive instinctively the moral superiority of submission over revolt.' (Vol. ii., p. 235.) Thus we are to have a political pope and a college of cardinals who will keep the world in order. We get rid of 'papal infallibility'; of the arbitrary power of kings'; of the arbitrary power of the people,' for the despotic rule of a clique of philosophers. Is this prospect peculiarly pleasant? Is it not very much otherwise?

True, Comte's philosophers are to be patterns of moderation and virtue ; indeed, all the men and women of the Positive future are to be specimens of extraordinary heavenliness, although it puzzles one to know how they are to be got out of this 'poor weak nature,' over which Comte mourns: but society will scarcely be in a hurry to substitute despotic philosophers for free parliaments. The Saturday Review, which cannot fairly be accused of an undue bias to evangelic religion, recently wrote thus on the intolerance of men of science:

'Men of science are often the keenest and most intense partisans imaginable. There is perhaps no set of people who are more dogmatic, intolerant or prone to crush, at any rate with contempt and disdain, every one who ventures even on the minutest point to disagree with them. The men of science, we are sometimes told, are the priesthood of the future, and they occasionally display some of the least estimable qualities of the priesthood of the past. It has been said with considerable truth that the temper of some of them is more nearly akin to that of the Inquisition than the temper of any existing sect.'

Comte was himself one of the most arrogant of mankind, and we have every reason to suppose that his successors would have resembled him.

We ask once more, Is there any notable triumph here on the field of practical life? Christianity does not come to us as a political directory. Revelation does not attempt to do anything for man that he can do for himself; and as it considers man competent to comprehend the spirit and needs of the times, it leaves him free to frame such institutions and measures as may best conserve the interests of society. Yet the Old Religion has its political bearing. Napoleon made no mistake when he placed the Bible in the political section of his library. It does not propound any order of government, but it creates in the soul of the people the love of truth and righteousness and freedom. As Canon Westcott says: 'Christianity is not a principle of order, but a spirit of life.' Yes, it creates that life which spurns all despotism, and demands for itself 'glorious liberty' in all directions. How really able men can prefer Comte, with his profound sympathy for tyrants and tyranny, to Christ, with His great gospel of life and liberty; can only be explained on the same ground of blindness and perversity which led the Jews to see the promised deliverer in any Wat Tyler of their day, whilst they nailed the real Messiah to the

cross.

6

IV. The relation of Positivism to Industry.-Comte accuses Christianity of being altogether inimical to industrial action and prosperity. The sole object of Monotheism being to unite each man to God, man's material existence, in which social co-operation plays so prominent a part, was completely set aside. The true type of Christian life is a distinct sanction of inactivity. This is specially illus trated in the curse of God upon labour.' (Vol. iii., p. 375.) If the Law of Libel were made co-extensive with the literary world, and authors should be punished for bearing false

witness against systems as well as against society, Comte would be severely mulcted. The passage in Genesis represents toil 'in the sweat of the face' as partaking of the nature of chastisement; and Mr. F. Harrison holds: The necessity of toil is an evil in itself.' (Nineteenth Century, October, 1877.) The honourable place occupied by industry in the Jewish world must not be forgotten by none have trade and handicraftsmanship been more honoured than by the chosen people. And certainly industry has occupied no lower place in the Christian system, whose Founder was a carpenter. The industrial development which has ever accompanied the spread of Christianity also proves its genius. The commercial splendour of Christendom is due, according to Comte, to the priesthood acting under the influence of the situation, and not to the doctrine'; but we believe in doctrines and convictions creating the world anew, and if the genius of Christianity had been as antimundane as some wish to represent, it would not have created empires whose cities, fleets and treasures eclipse all the glowing memories of Babylon and of Tyre.

But let us see what triumphs Positivism will achieve on this field of practical life. Society is to be divided into three great classes.

First: The working class, or, as he terms them, the proletaries. Once more this class is bepraised inordinately; but, alas! whilst a star is given, a sun is taken away.

The

working man is to have no property. 'In the case of the proletaries, we may sum up this in the ownership of their house; beyond this their aiming at property would be prejudicial to their happiness no less than to their duty.' (Vol. iv., p. 295.) The working man is not to attempt to rise. Governments have done all they could to divert the people from their true

social function, by affording opportunity for individuals among them to rise to higher positions.' (Vol.i.,p.155.) 'Guided by the priesthood, the proletaries will stigmatize any tendency to leave the class as a slur upon the dignity of the popular function, and as fatal to the just aspirations of the people, those who desert it invariably betraying it.' (Vol. iv., p. 74.) Saving is quite injurious, it lowers the character of the labourer.' Wineshops are exceedingly valuable : 'Social instincts are cultivated there which deserve our approval far more than the self-helping spirit which draws men to the savings-bank.' (Vol. i., p. 156.) Finally, the working class is to be remunerated at the discretion of the capitalists. The payment of the services of the workers will be left to the private decision of the employers. At the same time, Positive morality, duly enforced by the Priesthood, and supplemented by the feelings of Women and the opinion of the People, will lay on the employers obligations of a kind to prevent all abuse of this, their essential privilege.' (Vol. ii., p. 335.) We think this will be enough.

Next come the capitalists. The patrician hierarchy will possess the wealth, and the immense power that goes with wealth. But there will be no danger of these fabulously opulent bankers misusing their vast resources and influence: 'It will be only by a passing delirium or personal vanity that Patricians of this sort can ever be led to imitate the old Theological or Metaphysical tendency to look on themselves as absolute masters of the immense materials entrusted by the public to their care.' (Vol. ii., p. 338.) They will sweetly use all for social ends. The working class will rather pity than envy the opulent: 'The best workmen, like the best philosophers, will soon cease to feel envy for greatness, laden, as it always must be, with heavy respon

sibilities.' (Vol. i., p. 157.) 'The position of the Patriciate invites pity rather than envy.' (Vol. iv., p. 291.) Indeed, the rich classes will be sorry that they are rich: With all their personal advantages, they will often regret that they were not born, or that they did not remain, in the condition of workmen.' (Vol. i., p. 157.) If labour is not cursed by the Old Religion, gold is cursed by the New. In the German legend of Hans Merchermann we behold an unhappy man with a huge lump of gold on his shoulder, of which he was fain to rid himself, but found it impossible : do what he would the accursed ingot was on his back till death. Hans Merchermann is the rich man of the Positive millennium, who, when all the rest are blessed with the joys of toil and poverty, is compelled to bear a shining load which no noble workman will be willing to share.

Lastly, the priesthood completes the new social and commercial compact. The priesthood stands alike above the proletariat and the patriciate. If the patriciate do not use their capital properly, the priesthood will interfere. Property is in its nature social, and needs control; wealth is to be devoted to the service of the country; and when the philosopher and workmen feel that the rich are not making a wise use of their riches, they will be compelled to confiscate the property of such idle or selfish capitalists: When the rich neglect their duty, the Positive priesthood will persuade them.' (Vol. i., p. 300.) No doubt when the patriciate have had a few tastes of priestly persuasion in the form of formal condemnation' and 'social excommunication,' they will have some reason to regret the cruel fate which thrust upon them gold and purple.

One ought perhaps to apologize for wasting so much precious time and space in recapitulating these absurdi

ties, but they will at least show that men are not necessarily Solomons in the practical world, because they deny a higher and a better world. Wilder

or sillier views on literature, science, commerce and politics, are not to be found in the whole range of literature than you find in this eloquent dreamer, who professes to bring us the final religion. Christianity does not insist on scientific principles, political theories and social economics; it does infinitely better -it brings the light and grace and power to make the scribe, the man of science, the politician, the merchant, new creatures. It turns its whole strength on the improvement of that human nature over whose imperfections Comte mourns; knowing well that all the confusions of the world will cease with the purification and harmonizing of man's perverted and discordant powers. It is reported that whilst Velasquez was engaged in painting one of his great pictures, he found himself vexed by perceiving, as it were, the effect of a shadow cast by some of the drapery. Again and again, in endeavouring to do away with this 'shadow,' Velasquez undid portions of his work, but again. the insidious shadow stole upon his vision, until at last the painter seized a brush and prepared to dash it across the canvas. The shadow' was really in the painter's wearied eyes and morbid brain. The confusions which mark all spheres of human life and action, exist primarily in human nature itself: and the sad blots which disfigure the grand picture of the world are not to be removed by cunning erasures from the many-coloured canvas. It is only as man himself is renewed in brain and heart and conscience that the shadows will disappear from the realms of learning, statesmanship and industry, and society will become a masterpiece of harmony and beauty. To this grand work Christianity addresses

itself; and, thank God! does not address itself in vain.

Yet Christianity does far more justice to the present practical world than Positivism does. Comte fails to appreciate the dignity of the body when he remits anatomy to hangmen ; he fails to appreciate the dignity of marriage when he holds forth the 'Utopia of the Virgin Mother,' and calls adoption the parental relation in its purest form'; he fails to

appreciate the dignity of work and wealth and worldliness in general when he declares, that moral greatness can only be attained when material necessities no longer exist. (Vol. ii., p. 233.) Christianity teaches the compatibility of the highest excellency with worldly relations and material necessities. It promises us the next world on condition that we have made the best of this.

Of the three great questions-What am I? Why am I here? Whither am I going? it seems reasonable to start with the first. Physiology eagerly proffers her reply, and not more imperatively than impertinently assures us that she has spoken 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.' Perchance in her more modest moods she will admit that the whole truth has not yet been told, but even then she is positive that only herself can declare it. Nevertheless, the answer of physiology, however correct it may be, so far as it goes, is palpably insufficient; and to whatever extent she may push her successful investigations, her methods and her limits can allow her to return only an incomplete reply. Nor is mental science, even when it is not pursued as a branch of physiology, able to satisfy the interrogation. No merely natural science can bring the knowledge of either God or that which is godlike in man. It must, to all intents and purposes, deny both, or confess its incompetence to cover the whole ground.

The Christian student turns in

stinctively to the Oracles of God. They proclaim to him his destiny and the reason of his earthly existencehe will enquire of them concerning his nature. At the very outset he encounters two objections, closely akin and generally urged by the same parties, but not identical. It is argued, first, that we should not resort to the Bible for our psychology any more than for our cosmology, that the sole object of the Scriptures is to reveal to us the facts of Redemption, and that we must necessarily go astray the moment we seek for ought else therein and second, that, as might be expected, the Bible actually contains no real system of psychology whatever. Replying to the first objection, Dr. Delitzsch observes : 'What Scripture says of cosmology, may certainly appear insufficient to originate a system of Biblical cosmology; but assuredly it says to us infinitely more about man's soul and spirit than about Orion and the Pleiades. And inevitably so; for Redemption deals primarily with the 'inner man,' and it cannot be but that in explanations of the process

of Redemption, descriptions of the experience of saved and unsaved persons, appeals and counsels and warnings, and revelations of the life to come, the Bible should afford at least incidental information as to the nature of that inner man' it most concerns itself with. Such incidental information certainly possesses some value. The main purpose of the Bible was not to teach geography and history, but are we therefore to reject its evidence that a town called Capernaum once stood on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, or that a man called Pontius Pilate once ruled Judæa? And is a map of Canaan as divided among the tribes a purely fictitious representation? The visible universe. does not exist chiefly to teach men cosmology, but that hardly furnishes sufficient reason why physicists should cease to examine it and to theorize. But the Bible does contain direct teaching upon cosmology. Suppose a cosmogonist denies the fact stated in the first chapter of Genesis that 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'; asserts that God and creation are alike pure fancies, we shall not reckon his denial no insult to the Scriptures, because their primary purpose is not to instruct in cosmogony. So when a materialist denies the distinction between body and soul, we do not regard his as an admissible speculation, which believer and unbeliever may alike accept, because the Bible is something more than a compendium of psychology. It is part of the purpose of revelation to declare with regard to both cosmogony and psychology things necessary for us to know which we could not have discovered for ourselves.

A truer parallel, however, is drawn between psychology and ethics. The Bible stands closely related to Moral Philosophy; the former builds the foundation of the latter, the latter is little more than an arrangement and application of the principles and

precepts of the former. All ethical systems fail which do not base themselves on religion. The duty of man to man is included in the duty of man to God, and Holy Writ teaches both; it cannot teach one without the other. Similarly, in revealing the nature of God and our relation and duty to Him, Holy Writ must reveal the nature of man; or its statements about God and duty (to say nothing of sin and holiness) would be unintelligible. The investigation of Biblical Psychology cannot, then, be a bootless task; unless, indeed, the second objection mentioned above could be substantiated.

To that objection-that the sacred writers have no consistent scheme of psychology-the most convincing reply is the exhibition of such a scheme. But it is in no wise contended that the Bible contains psychology, except in the same way as it contains theology, i.e., it furnishes the facts, the material, of both sciences. And the psychology of the Bible, like its theology, is revealed 'at sundry times and in divers manners,' by progressive degrees. We cannot expect to find in the Old Testament as full and clear declarations as in the New.

And further, psychology differs from physiology: the latter science lies within the range of human research, and the Bible accommodates its physiological language to the knowledge of the time in which it was uttered.

The psychology of the Bible, assuming that it can be ascertained, obviously must possess high intrinsic value, and it must exercise important influence upon our views of some great theological problems, e.g., the nature of Original Sin, the change effected at Regeneration, our future destiny, and the manner in which human souls now come into being. Unfortunately, the majority of modern English authors who have given much attention to the subject support the doctrine of Conditional