,,problems ,,of ,,immanence ,,studies ,,critical ,,and ,,constructive ,,by ,j4 ,,warschauer1 ,m4,a41 ,d4,phil4 ,,author ,,of ,,the ,,new ,,evangel1 ,,jesus3 ,,seven ,,questions1 ,,etc4 ,,see ,,that ,,there ,,is ,,no ,,one ,,who ,,makes ,,you ,,his ,,prey ,,by ,,means ,,of ,,his ,,theosophy1 ,,which ,,is ,a ,,vain ,,deceit ,,after ,,the ,,traditions ,,of ,,men1 ,,after ,,the ,,elements ,,of ,,the ,,world ,,and ,,not ,,after ,,christ4 ,col4 ii4 #h4 7,dr4 ,moffatt's ,translation47 ,,london ,,james ,,clarke ,,co4 #ac #ad ,,fleet ,,street #aiji ,transcriber's note3 ,page numbers in this book are indicated by numbers enclosed in curly braces1 e4g4 #ii4 ,they have been located where page breaks occurred in the original book1 in accordance with ,project ,gutenberg's ,,faq-,v-#ii4 #e ,,preface ,about a year ago certain tendencies in the popular discussion of the doctrine of ,divine ,immanence suggested to the present writer the idea of a brief sketch or article1 to be published under the title1 ,the ,truth of ,transcendence4 ,on further reflection1 however1 a somewhat more extended treatment of so important a subject seemed desirable1 and this has been attempted in the following chapters4 ,when the doctrine of immanence began1 as it has been of late1 to be reasserted in a somewhat pronounced manner1 most of those who were best able to judge felt conscious of certain dangers likely to arise through misinterpretation and over-emphasis2 that those anticipations have been abundantly realised1 no careful student of recent developments will dispute1 and the present book is intended both to call attention to these dangers and to bring out the distinction between the truth of immanence and what to the author seem perversions of that truth4 ,in the meantime1 while these pages were passing through the press1 there has appeared a new work from the brilliant pen of ,professor ,william ,james1#a some sentences from which might to a large extent be taken as indicating #f the standpoint of the volume now submitted to the reader3-- ,god1 in the religious life of ordinary men is the name not of the whole of things1 heaven forbid1 but only of the ideal tendency in things1 believed in as a superhuman person who calls us to co-operate in ,his purposes1 and who furthers ours if they are worthy4 ,he works in an external environment1 has limits1 and has enemies4 ,when ,john ,mill said that the notion of ,god's omnipotence must be given up1 if ,god is to be kept as a religious object1 he was surely accurately right2 yet1 so prevalent is the lazy ,monism that idly haunts the regions of ,god's name1 that so simple and truthful a saying was generally treated as a paradox2 ,god1 it was said1 could not be finite4 ,i believe that the only ,god worthy of the name must be finite4 ,it is precisely the theory which identifies ,god with the whole of things which will be combated in the following discussions2 it is precisely the lazy ,monism that idly haunts the regions of ,god's name to which they offer a plain and direct challenge4 ,at the same time such a phrase as that in which ,professor ,james speaks of ,god as working in an external environment would seem unduly to under-emphasise the fact of immanence2 and it may be said at once that the theory of ,divine finitude put forward by the present writer will be seen to differ from that of ,john ,stuart ,mill1 as the idea of self-limitation differs from that of a limitation ab extra--in other words1 as ,theism differs from ,deism4 ,it is perhaps a little remarkable that the fundamental antinomies which arise from the assumption of the actual infinity of ,god should not have been more frequently dealt with2 or rather1 that thinkers postulating that infinity #g as a basal axiom should have been comparatively blind to its logical implications4 ,for if ,god is infinite1 then ,he is all2 and if ,he is all1 what becomes of human individuality1 or how are human initiative and responsibility so much as thinkable8 ,benjamin ,jowett1 in his ,essay on ,predestination and ,freewill1 glanced at this problem in passing1 and the remarks he made upon it more than fifty years ago1 if somewhat tentative1 are well worth consideration to-day3-- ,god is infinite4 ,but in what sense8 4 4 4 ,press the idea of the infinite to its utmost extent1 till it is alone in the universe1 or rather is the universe itself1 in this heaven of abstraction1 nevertheless1 a cloud begins to appear2 a limitation casts its shadow over the formless void4 ,infinite is finite because it is infinite4 ,that is to say1 because infinity includes all things1 it is incapable of creating what is external to itself4 ,deny infinity in this sense1 and the being to whom it is attributed receives a new power4 ,god is greater by being finite than by being infinite 4 4 4 ,logic must admit that the infinite over-reaches itself by denying the existence of the finite1 and that there are some limitations1 such as the impossibility of evil or falsehood1 which are of the essence of the ,divine nature4#b ,where1 of course1 ,divine immanence is held to mean the allness--which is the strict equivalent of the infinity--of ,god1 evil in every shape and form will either have to be ascribed to the direct will and agency of ,god ,himself1 or for apologetic purposes to be reduced to a mere semblance1 or not-being4 ,thus we are told to-day in plain terms that if ,god does not avert evil1 it is because ,he requires it2 #h that what to us seems evil is ordained of ,god2 that-- ,if prayers and earthquakes break not ,heaven's design1 ,how then a ,borgia or a ,catiline8 ,but if evil be only apparent and not real1 we shall surely1 having gained this insight1 be too wise to waste indignation upon the non-existent2 if what we call misdeeds in reality fulfil ,god's own requirements1 a thoroughly enlightened public opinion will not seek to interfere with the sacred activities of the pick-pocket1 the forger1 the sweater1 the rou1 every one of whom may plead that he is but carrying out the ,divine ordinances2 if ,alexander ,borgia's perjuries1 poisonings and debaucheries break not ,heaven's design1 but are ordained of ,god for some purpose1 morality itself becomes an exploded anachronism4 ,it is because these and such as these are the results in the fields of religion and conduct which flow from certain errors in the field of speculation1 that these chapters have been written1 and are now sent forth4 ,belief in a personal ,god1 personal freedom1 personal immortality--these essentials of religion are one and all endangered where the doctrine of ,divine immanence is presented in terms of a monistic philosophy2 it has been the writer's object to safeguard and vindicate these truths anew in a volume which1 though of necessity largely critical in method1 he offers as wholly constructive in aim4 ,august #ast1 #aiji4 #a ,a ,pluralistic ,universe4 #b ,thessalonians1 ,galatians and ,romans1 vol4 ii4 pp4 #chh-i4 ,,contents ,,chapter ,,page ,,introduction3 ,,divine ,,immanence 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #aa ,i4 ,,some ,,problems ,,of ,,immanence 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #bc ,,ii4 ,,pantheism3 ,,the ,,suicide ,,of ,,religion 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #da ,,iii4 ,,the ,,ethics ,,of ,,monism 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #ec ,,iv4 ,,monism ,,and ,,the ,,individual 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #fd ,v4 ,,the ,,divine ,,personality 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #gd ,,vi4 ,,evil versus ,,divine ,,goodness 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #hg ,,vii4 ,,evil versus ,,divine ,,goodness 7cont47 4 4 4 4 4 4 #aja ,,viii4 ,,the ,,denial ,,of ,,evil 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #aai ,,ix4 ,,determinism 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #ada ,x4 ,,morality ,,as ,a ,,religion 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #aga ,,xi4 ,,problems ,,of ,,prayer 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #aib ,,xii4 ,,immortality 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #bah #aa ,,introduction ,,divine ,,immanence ,the doctrine of ,divine immanence is in a very special and unmistakeable manner the re-discovery of the nineteenth century4 ,nothing could be more remote from fact than to call that doctrine a new--or even an old--heresy4 ,old it certainly is1 but heretical in itself it as certainly is not2 it can point to unquestionable warranty in ,holy ,scripture1 where such is demanded1 and it has never been repudiated by the ,christian ,church4 ,but just as a law1 without being repealed1 may fall into desuetude1 so a doctrine1 without being repudiated1 may for a time fade out of the ,church's consciousness2 and in the one case as in the other any attempt at revival will arouse a certain amount of distrust and opposition4 ,there would no doubt be a measure of truth in the statement that the suspicion and antagonism with which the recent re-enunciation of this particular doctrine or idea was attended in some quarters1 exemplified this general attitude of the human mind towards the unaccustomed2 and yet such a statement1 made without qualification1 #ab would be only a half-truth4 ,the fact is1 and it cannot be stated too soon or too clearly1 that if the antagonism and suspicion exhibited have been exceptionally strong1 there have been exceptional causes to justify both4 ,alarm1 and that of a very legitimate nature1 has been called forth by one-sided and extravagant statements of the idea of ,divine immanence on the part of ill-balanced advocates2 and in this book we shall be almost continually occupied with the task of disengaging the truth of immanence from what appear to us mischievous travesties of that truth4 ,that such a task is a necessary one1 we are firmly convinced2 for if1 as ,principal ,adeney says1 among all the changes in theology that have been witnessed during the last hundred years this--i4e41 the re-discovery of the principle of ,divine immanence--is the greatest1 the most revolutionary1 it must certainly be of paramount importance that we should understand and apply that principle aright4 ,confessedly1 it denotes a great and far-reaching change2 can we1 then1 in the first instance1 briefly and plainly state what this change is from1 what it involves1 and in what respect it is supposed to help us in dealing with the problem of religion8 ,it has to be borne in mind1 to begin with1 that the very term immanence had for a long time ceased to be in current use1 and had thus become strange to the average believer2 it has equally to be remembered that in theology as #ac in other matters we have not yet altogether passed the stage where hostis means both stranger and foe--that1 in fact1 to many minds1 the unfamiliar is1 as we said1 eo ipso the suspect4 ,but immanence means nothing more abstruse than indwelling2 and the renewed emphasis which1 from the time of ,wordsworth onward1 began to be laid upon the ,divine indwelling1 the presence of ,god in the ,universe1 represented in the first place the reaction of the human spirit against the cold and formal ,deism of the eighteenth century1 which thought of ,god as remote1 external to the world1 exclusively transcendent4 ,according to the deistic notion1 ,god was known to man only by reason of a revelation ,he had given once and for all in the far-off past--a revelation which in its very nature excluded the idea of progress2 as against this conception that of the immanence of ,god declares that ,he is not far from each one of us1 that in ,him we live and move and have our being1 that ,he is over all and through all and in all--the ,life of all life1 the ,energy behind all phenomena1 the ,presence from which there is no escaping1 unceasingly and progressively--though by divers portions and in divers manners--revealed in the universe1 in nature and in man4 ,thus expressed1 the doctrine of ,god's nearness and indwelling will probably commend itself to most thoughtful religious people2 but in #ad re-emphasising an aspect of truth there is always the danger of over-emphasising it1 of claiming it as the whole and sole truth--of falling1 in a word1 from one extreme into the other4 ,to that rule the present case offers no exception2 it is1 on the contrary1 very distinctly one of the pendulum swinging as far in one direction as it previously swung to the other4 ,let us then at once state the thesis which many of the following pages will serve to elaborate3 when the indwelling of ,god in the universe is interpreted as meaning ,his identity with the universe2 when the indwelling of ,god in man is taken to mean ,his identity with man1 the whole structure of religion is gravely imperilled4 ,for in the identity of ,god with the world and with man--which is the root-tenet of ,pantheism--there is inevitably involved the surrender of both the ,divine and the human personality4 ,we shall have occasion to see how much such a surrender signifies2 for the moment it suffices to say plainly that ,pantheism1 the doctrine which denies the transcendence of ,god1 is by no means the same as that which affirms ,his immanence1 nor does it logically follow from that affirmation4 ,the mistake so frequently made lies in regarding the ,divine immanence and the ,divine transcendence as mutually exclusive alternatives1 whereas they are complementary to one another4 ,a one-sided insistence on the immanence of ,god1 to the exclusion of ,his transcendence1 leads to #ae ,pantheism1 just as a one-sided insistence upon ,his transcendence1 to the exclusion of ,his immanence1 leads to ,deism2 it is the two taken together that result in1 and are necessary to1 ,theism4 ,thus it cannot be too well understood1 and it should be understood at the very outset1 that we have not to make anything like a choice between immanence and transcendence--that these two can never be separated1 but are related to each other as the less to the greater1 as the part to the whole4 ,one naturally shrinks from employing a diagram in dealing with such a topic as this2 but perhaps recourse might without offence be had to this method--necessarily imperfect as it is--on account of its essential simplicity1 and because it is calculated to remove misapprehensions4 ,if we can think of a very large sphere1 ,a1 and1 situated anywhere within this1 of a very small sphere1 a--then the relation of the smaller to the greater will be that of the sphere of immanence to the sphere of transcendence4 ,the two are not mutually separable1 but the one has its being wholly within the other4 ,nevertheless it is quite true that there has been within recent years a distinct shifting of the centre of gravity from the one doctrine to the other1 a growing disposition to regard the immanence of ,god as the fundamental datum1 the basis of the modern restatement of religious belief4 ,how will this conception help us to #af such an end8 ,the answer to that question may be given in the words of ,dr4 ,horton1 who says1 ,the intellectual background of our time is ,agnosticism1 and the reply which faith makes to ,agnosticism is couched in terms of the immanence of ,god4 #a ,dr4 ,horton's meaning will grow clearer to us if we once more glance at our imaginary diagram1 letting the smaller figure a1 the sphere of immanence1 stand for our universe4 ,if the sphere of ,god's being lay altogether outside the universe1 i4e41 outside the radius of our knowledge--if ,he1 in other words1 were merely and altogether transcendent--,he would also be merely and altogether unknowable1 exactly as ,agnosticism avers4 ,his transcendent attributes1 all that partakes of infinity1 cannot--and that of necessity--become objects of immediate knowledge to finite minds2 if ,he is to be known at all to us1 ,he can only be so known by being manifested through ,his presence within1 or action upon1 the finite and comprehensible sphere4 ,in other words1 it is primarily as ,he is revealed in and through the finite world1 that is to say as immanent1 that ,god becomes knowable to us2 all that is included under ,his transcendence is of the very highest importance for us--religion would be utterly incomplete without it--but it is an inference we make from ,his immanence4 ,it is1 to give an obvious illustration1 only to a transcendent ,god that we can offer prayer--,god #ag over all whom the soul needs1 to enter into relations withal2 but it is also true that we gain the assurance of ,his transcendence through ,his immanence1 and that ,the ,god without he findeth not1 ,who finds ,him not within4 ,in a word1 the ,divine immanence is not the goal of our quest of ,god1 but it is the indispensable starting-point4 ,a simple reflection will serve to place this beyond doubt4 ,against the old-fashioned ,deism which continued to bear sway till far into the last century1 the agnostic had an almost fatally easy case2 he had but to reject the revelation alleged to have been given once for all in the dim past--to reject it on scientific or critical grounds--and who was to prove to him that the universe had been created a few thousand years ago by a remote and external ,deity8 ,as for him1 he professed1 and professed candidly enough1 that he could see nothing in nature but the operation of impersonal forces2 there was natural law1 and there was the process of evolution1 but beyond these----8 ,now the only really telling reply that can be made to those who argue in this fashion is that which reasons from the ,divine immanence as its terminus a quo--the doctrine which beholds ,god first of all present and active in the world1 and sees in natural law not a possible substitute for ,him1 but the working of ,his sovereign ,will4 ,from this point of view1 the orderliness of the cosmos1 #ah the uniformity and regularity of nature1 attest not the unconscious throbbing of a soulless engine1 or a blind ,power behind phenomena1 but a directing ,mind1 a prevailing ,will4 ,the world1 according to this conception1 was not made once upon a time1 like a piece of clockwork1 and wound up to run without further assistance2 it is not a mechanism1 but an organism1 thrilled and pervaded by an eternal ,energy that worketh even until now4 ,in ,sir ,oliver ,lodge's phrase1 we must look for the action of ,deity1 if at all1 then always2 and this thought of the indwelling ,god1 revealing ,himself in the majestic course and order of nature1 not only rebuts the assaults of ,agnosticism1 but compels our worship4 ,and as natural law speaks to us of the steadfastness and prevailing power of the ,divine ,will1 so evolution speaks of the ,divine ,purpose1 and proclaims that purpose somehow good1 since evolution means a steady reaching forward and upward1 an unfolding and ascent from less to more4 ,we take a step higher up when we come to the further revelation of ,god as seen dwelling in man2 a step higher up because on any sane view immanence is a fact admitting of very various degrees1 so that ,god is more fully revealed in the organic than in the inorganic world1 more in the conscious than in the unconscious1 far more in man than in lower creatures4 ,we speak of ,god's indwelling in man in the #ai same sense in which there is something of an earthly parent's very being in his children2 indeed1 rightly considered1 the ,divine ,parenthood is the only rational guarantee of that human brotherhood which is being so strongly--or1 at least1 so loudly--insisted on to-day4 ,man1 that is to say1 is not identical with ,god1 any more than a son is identical with his father2 but man is consubstantial1 homogeneous1 with ,god1 lit by a ,divine spark within him1 a partaker of the ,divine substance4 ,as in nature we discern ,god revealed as ,power1 ,mind1 ,will1 ,purpose1 so in man's moral nature1 and his inner satisfaction or dissatisfaction according as he does or does not approach a certain moral standard1 we discern ,him as ,righteousness2 and1 more than all1 since men1 beings in whom the ,spirit of ,god dwelleth1 are persons1 it follows that ,god also is at least personal1 since there can be nothing in an effect that is not in the cause producing it4 ,thus the doctrine of ,divine immanence throws at least a ray of light upon one of the problems which press with peculiar weight upon many modern minds--and which we shall consider at greater length hereafter--viz41 the ,divine ,personality4 ,there remains1 however1 a still further step to be taken along the line which we have been pursuing4 ,we are not fully satisfied when we know ,god even as personal1 even as righteous2 the assurance which alone will satisfy the awakened human spirit is that which tells us #bj that ,god is ,love1 and that ,his truest name is that of ,father4 ,how could such a culminating assurance come to us8 ,we conceive that this end could only be achieved through a complete manifestation of the ,divine character on a finite scale1 i4e41 through ,his indwelling in an unparalleled measure in a unique and ethically perfect being2 and such an event1 we hold1 has actually taken place in what is known as the ,incarnation4 ,in the words of ,dr4 ,horton1 the doctrine of the immanence of ,god1 the idea that ,god is in us all1 leads us irresistibly to the conclusion that ',god was in ,christ1 reconciling the world unto ,himself4' ,this argument1 he says--viz41 from ,divine immanence--becomes more and more favourable to the doctrine of ,christ's ,divinity4 #b ,the highest and truest knowledge of ,god1 that which it most concerns us to possess1 could have become ours only through ,one in whom the fulness of ,godhead dwelt bodily1 in whom we saw ,divinity in its essence and without alloy4 ,to bring us this perfect revelation was1 indeed1 the very reason of ,christ's advent4 ,we come to the ,father through the ,son1 because there is no other ,way4 ,we have seen the light of the knowledge of the glory of ,god in the face of ,jesus ,christ1 the very ,image of ,his ,substance4 ,divine ,love1 mighty to save1 full of redemptive power1 longing for the soul with infinite affection--in fine1 ,fatherhood--this is what constitutes #ba religion's ultimate2 and this revelation we have in the ,incarnate ,son1 in whom the ,spirit dwelt without measure--who1 i4e41 stands forth as the supreme and unparalleled illustration of the ,divine immanence4 ,here1 then1 we have a first1 preliminary survey of the meaning of this much-discussed1 much-misunderstood term--a mere outline sketch which1 needless to say1 requires a great deal of filling in1 such as will be attempted in subsequent pages of this book4 ,so much should be clear from what has been said1 that the nineteenth century1 in practically restoring this fruitful and far-reaching conception to a ,church which had largely forgotten it1 made a contribution of the utmost importance to theology and religion2 indeed1 the value of that contribution could hardly be more strongly stated than in the utterances of ,dr4 ,horton which we have quoted above4 ,such a factor1 however1 cannot be introduced1 or re-introduced1 into our theological thinking without necessitating a good deal of revision1 nor without causing a certain measure of temporary confusion and dislocation2 it will accordingly be the principal object of the following chapters to clear up misapprehensions which have arisen in connection with the idea of immanence1 to assign to it its approximately proper place in ,christian thought1 and to safeguard an important truth against the injury done to it--and #bb so to all truth--by a zeal that is not according to knowledge4 ,corruptio optimi pessima3 in unskilled hands this doctrine is certainly apt to become a danger to religion itself2 nevertheless1 rightly applied1 there is probably no more potent instrument than this to help us in that reconstruction of belief which is admittedly the urgent business of our age4 ,it is true1 as ,raymond ,brucker said1 that the answer to the riddle of the universe is ,god--the answer to the riddle of ,god is ,christ2 but it is also true1 we hold1 that the most effective key for the unlocking of the riddle is the idea of ,divine immanence4 #a ,my ,belief1 p4 #ajg4 #b ,op4 cit42 pp4 #ajh1 #aji4 #bc ,,chapter ,i ,,some ,,problems ,,of ,,immanence ,it used to be said of a famous volume of apologetics--with what justification this is not the place to discuss--that it raised more difficulties than it professed to settle2 and a somewhat similar charge has more than once been brought against the doctrine of ,divine immanence1 viz41 that if it succeeded in throwing light upon some problems1 it created new ones of a particularly insoluble character4 ,the old deistic notion which interposed a distance between the ,creator and ,his creation1 and in particular represented ,god as there and man as here1 might be untenable in philosophy1 but it was at least intelligible and practically helpful to ordinary minds2 but does not the idea of ,god's immanence in the world and in man tend to efface that distinction1 and thus to introduce confusion where confusion is least to be desired8 ,in the present chapter we shall attempt to glance at some of the main questions which arise in connection with this doctrine2 and1 to begin with1 we may state with the utmost frankness that nothing is easier than to interpret the #bd conception of ,divine immanence in such a manner as to make it appear either ludicrous or hateful or simply meaningless--in any case repulsive from the religious point of view4 ,this1 to come straight to the point1 is what is bound to happen when ,god's indwelling in man is explained as meaning that man is de facto one with his ,maker4 ,what could the general reader think when he was told with vehemence1 ,you are yourself the infinite--,you are yourself ,god2 you never were anything else8 ,if that reader was lacking in mental balance1 he was likely to be swept off his feet by such a declaration1 and to accept1 with all its implications1 a view so flattering to human vanity2 if1 on the other hand1 he was a person of soberly religious outlook and experience1 he inquired what was the doctrine in whose name such a proposition was offered to him for acceptance--and on learning that the name of that doctrine was the unfamiliar one of immanence1 straightway set it down as the worst of brain-sick heresies4 ,thus1 not for the first time1 has a cause or truth been wounded and discredited by injudicious advocacy4 ,for the purpose which we have in view we cannot do better than state what we consider the fundamental misinterpretation of this doctrine in the considered words of one of its most popular exponents1 who expresses it as follows3 ,god in man is ,god as man4 ,there is no real ,divine ,immanence which does not imply the #be allness of ,god4 #a ,it is not too much to say that this brief statement contains the fons et origo of all the misunderstandings with which the re-enunciation of this idea has been attended2 it is this assumption of the allness of ,god which underlies and colours quite a number of modern movements1 and will be seen to lead those who accept it into endless and inextricable tangles4 ,if ,god is all1 then what are we8 ,granted the basal axiom of this type of immanentism1 it follows with irresistible cogency that our separate existence1 consciousness1 volitions and so forth are merely illusions4 ,we can be ourselves ,god only in the sense that we are individually nothing2 the contrary impression is simply an error1 which we shall have to recognise as such1 and to get rid of with what speed and thoroughness we can4 ,this1 it is true1 is more easily said than done1 for our whole life both of thought and action bears incessant witness to the opposite2 there are1 however1 those to whose temperament such a complete contradiction1 so far from being distressing1 is positively grateful because of its suggestion of mystery and mysticism4 ,sometimes a ,tertullian voices this abdication of the reasoning faculty defiantly--certum est quia impossibile est2 but more often perhaps the same position #bf is expressed in the spirit of ,tennyson's well-known lines1 which1 indeed1 bear directly upon our immediate theme3-- ,we feel we are nothing--for all is ,thou and in ,thee2 ,we feel we are something--that also has come from ,thee2 ,we know we are nothing--but ,thou wilt help us to be4 ,we submit1 however1 that while such a contemplation of1 or oscillation between1 mutually destructive tenets may for a time minister to some kind of aesthetic enjoyment1 the healthy mind cannot permanently find satisfaction while thus suspended in mid-air2 nor are we appreciably advanced by the temper which1 after pointing out some alleged fundamental antinomy1 quietly accepts--i4e41 in practice ignores--it4 ,problems of this description are not solved by what ,matthew ,arnold called a want of intellectual seriousness2 is it true1 we ask1 that the mystical view of the ,divine immanence compels us to believe in the allness of ,god1 and so to deny our individual existence8 ,the answer is that this soi-disant mystical view is simply a distorted view of what immanence means4 ,we are not really called upon to do violence to the collective facts of our experience1 which rise up in unanimous and spontaneous testimony against the monstrous fiction that we are either nothing or ,god4 ,the fallacy upon which this fiction rests is not a #bg very subtle one4 ,when we speak of ,god's indwelling in man1 we predicate that community of nature which the writer of ,gen4 ii expresses by saying that ,god created man in ,his own image2 we predicate1 i4e41 what we already called homogeneity--likeness of substance--and not identity1 which is a very different thing4 ,we do not commit ourselves to the proposition that ,god in man is ,god as man4 ,parent and child are linked together by a precisely analogous bond to that subsisting between ,god and man1 but they are nevertheless distinct individualities4 ,but1 it will be objected1 the analogy does not hold1 for parent and child are both finite2 how can a similar separateness be so much as thought to exist between ,god and man1 seeing that ,god is infinite8 ,it will be seen that the objection merely restates the allness of ,god under a different form2 and this brings us to the very heart of the matter4 ,we must at length face the one conclusion which does not land us in self-contradiction--viz41 that in the act of creation ,god limits ,his own infinity1 no matter to how infinitesimal an extent4 ,on the alternative supposition we have ultimately to think of ,god and man either as ,all plus something or ,all plus zero--which is absurd4 ,mr4 ,chesterton has rendered useful service by insisting that in creating the world ,god distinguishes ,himself from the world1 as a poet is distinct from his poem--a truth which he has condensed into an aphorism1 #bh ,all creation is separation2 but on the part of the ,deity such separation implies of necessity the self-limitation just spoken of4 ,just as a billion1 minus the billionth fraction of a unit1 is no longer a billion1 so infinity itself1 limited though it be but by a hair's-breadth1 is no longer1 strictly speaking1 infinite4 ,once we admit this ,divine self-limitation as a working theory1 we shall no longer be troubled by the unreal difficulty of having to reconcile the principle of ,divine immanence with the fact of individual existence4 ,the ,divine spark may burn in man1 brightly or dimly as the case may be1 and yet be separate from the central and eternal ,fire whence it has been flung forth2 in other words1 man may be a partaker of the ,divine nature without being himself ,god4 ,if we are to be able to believe in either a universe or a humanity which1 though the scene of ,divine immanence1 are not identical with ,god1 it seems to us that such a view of creation as we have just propounded is inevitable2 and unless this non-identity can be maintained--unless1 that is to say1 we definitely repudiate the idea of the allness of ,god--religion itself is reduced to a misty and ineffective theosophy4 ,the issues involved in the acceptance or rejection of this view appear to us of such importance that1 at the risk of seeming to labour our point unnecessarily1 we are anxious to make it perfectly plain4 ,in the phase through which #bi religious thought is passing to-day there are few things more urgently needed than to dispel that interpretation of immanence which obliterates the line of demarcation between ,god and man4 ,we may decline the mechanical dualism which placed the ,creator altogether outside the universe1 and yet embrace a view which for want of a better name might be called spiritual dualism1 and which maintains the distinction of which we are speaking4 ,what happens when that distinction is lost1 is sufficiently apparent from a statement like the following1 actually addressed to a miscellaneous audience3 ,if there is an eternal throne1 you are on it now2 there has never been a moment when you were not on it4 ,such downright extravagance is most suitably met with a bald contradiction3 man is not on the eternal throne1 and there has never been a moment when he was on it4 ,it is this fact which makes worship so much as possible2 it is1 in short1 the transcendent ,god with whom we are concerned in the exercise of religion1 for as ,mr4 ,chesterton puts it in his own manner1 that ,jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that ,jones shall worship ,jones4 ,let us see what follows if we once seriously persuade ourselves that we are on the eternal throne1 or1 to extract its meaning from that picturesque phrase1 that the presence of ,god is already perfectly realised in us4 ,we cannot but think we shall carry the reader #cj with us in saying that such a belief is in itself indicative of spiritual danger2 indeed1 there can hardly be a greater danger than that which is directly encouraged by the idea that we have already attained1 and that all is well with us1 seeing that we are one with the ,all-good4 ,on such a supposition1 why pray--for even were there ,one other than ourselves to pray to1 what is there to pray for8 ,or1 to quote the actual question of a believer in this kind of immanence1 ,why ask outside for a strength which we already possess8 ,what a nave question of this calibre reveals only too plainly is that self-complacency which is the most deadly foe of the spiritual life4 ,one is reminded of the ,american story in which a bright and intelligent wife asks her cultured but indifferent husband1 ,is it true that ,god is immanent in us all8 ,i suppose so1 he answers2 but it does not greatly matter4 ,the question is1 ,do we already possess the strength for which we ask8 ,or rather1 ,does not the very fact that we ask for it prove that we do not possess it1 and that ,he from whom we ask it is not ourselves8 ,is not the gift of the ,holy ,spirit1 the ,divine invasion of the soul1 a fact of experience1 and is it not also a fact that that gift is only to be had for the asking1 only given in response to earnest and persevering prayer1 and that it effects in those who receive it a change of thought and feeling8 ,all these are facts resting on irrefragable evidence2 the apparent problem is1 to #ca harmonise them with the affirmation of the divinity existing in man4 ,if ,god be truly in us all1 then in what sense or to what purpose can we pray for a consummation which1 it will be urged1 is ex hypothesi an accomplished fact at the time that we ask for it8 ,we reply that the ,divine indwelling in man is of the nature of a capacity for striving rather than of an attainment1 a potentiality rather than an actuality1 a prophecy rather than a fulfilment4 ,man's longing for communion with ,god1 as for an unrealised good1 is the longing of like for ,like1 but it is only through struggle and effort that the goal can be reached4 ,the ,eternal is indeed the ,life of all life1 and to that extent it is true that all life expresses ,him2 nevertheless our original divine endowment is no more than the material which has to be shaped and wrought into the type of perfect4 ,without this divinity of substance as it might be called1 we should never have the finished product1 divinity of character2 but the latter can only be achieved through arduous and persevering endeavour4 ,without a genuinely divine element--without the ,spirit breathed into man by his ,creator--we could not even realise our failure1 nor aspire after a fuller portion of that same life-giving ,spirit2 it is what we have that tells us of what we lack1 and directs us to ,him who alone can supply our want out of ,his inexhaustible fulness4 ,and if we have thus found an answer to the question1 ,how1 from the point of view of #cb ,divine immanence1 can there be anything but ,god8 we have at the same time received a hint indicating where we shall have to look for the answer to another query of even more directly practical interest1 viz41 ,how1 from the same point of view1 can there be anything but good--how can there be any real evil1 physical or moral8 ,put in that extreme form1 this problem1 like the one with which we have just dealt1 arises from the erroneous assertion of the allness of ,god2 but as the whole subject of the reality of evil will come up for treatment at a later stage1 we need not now enter into its discussion4 ,at one aspect1 and one only1 of this vast and complex theme we may1 however1 be permitted to glance for a moment before we pass on4 ,if ,god dwells in us1 it is frequently asked1 whence comes what ,paul so pathetically calls the law of sin which is in our members--whence come the wrongful desires and harmful passions of whose power we are so painfully conscious8 ,that is an entirely legitimate and even inevitable query1 but the solution of the enigma is not past finding out1 though we must content ourselves with a mere suggestion4 ,we have1 in the first place to keep our hold of the fact1 disregarding all pleas to the contrary1 that sin is a reality1 and not a phantasm of our imagination2 we shall then diagnose its nature as the misuse1 the unfaithful administration1 of the power which ,god has conferred upon us for employment in ,his holy service2 and then1 #cc lastly1 we shall grow aware that the very pain1 the sense of unhappiness and moral discord by which the consciousness of guilt is ever accompanied1 is the protesting voice of that which is the deepest reality within ourselves--the indwelling ,divine4 ,but when we have shown that the doctrine of ,divine immanence does not1 as some of its advocates would have us believe1 swallow up human individuality--a subject to which we shall return--we are faced with yet another difficulty4 ,the question is asked--again1 quite naturally and inevitably--,in what sense can we speak of ,god as immanent in the inorganic world8 ,how1 e4g41 does a stone embody or express ,his essence8--and yet1 if it is not somehow a manifestation of ,him1 what is this cold1 lifeless1 ponderable substance we call a stone8 ,nor do matters grow simpler when we ascend in the scale3 we may trace the immanent ,deity in all that is good and fair in nature1 in all its smiling and beneficent moods--but what of nature's uglinesses and cruelties8 ,is ,god expressing ,himself in the ferocity of the tiger1 the poisonous malice of the cobra1 the greed of every unclean carrion-bird8 ,if ,he is such as religion represents ,him1 how can ,he be present in these8 ,we may quote with rapture the familiar lines in which the poet tells us3-- ,i have felt ,a presence that disturbs me with the joy ,of elevated thoughts4 4 4 #cd ,but the world which is the dwelling of that something far more deeply interfused of which ,wordsworth sings1 does not consist exclusively of the light of setting suns1 ,and the round ocean1 and the living air1 ,and the blue sky4 4 4 --it contains also dismal1 fever-breeding swamps1 dreadful deserts1 dreary wastes of eternal ice1 plunged into darkness half the year2 are we going simply to ignore these realities when we speak of the ,divine indwelling in the world8 ,and1 once more1 shall we assert this doctrine when we remember the cold cunning of the spider1 or the delight in torture displayed by the domestic cat8 ,it depends1 we answer1 what we mean by this doctrine2 if we construe immanence to signify allness1 we may as well admit first as last that there is no way of escape from the difficulties which these queries suggest4 ,in that case it is not for us to pick and choose--to say that ,god is the beauty of the beautiful1 but not the ugliness of the ugly2 the compassion of the compassionate1 but not the cruelty of the cruel3 if ,he is all1 ,he is both1 and for that very reason is neither4 ,that is the real inwardness of a conception of the ,deity which represents ,him1 with ,omar ,khayyam1 as ,one-- ,whose secret ,presence1 through ,creation's veins ,running1 ,quicksilver-like eludes your pains2 ,taking all forms from ,mh to ,mhi2 and ,they change and perish all--but ,he remains4 #ce ,such a doctrine can only mean that the ,divine ,substance1 under a myriad-fold variety of appearances1 is equally diffused through all creation1 like the universal ether of science2 and such a conception of the ,eternal1 whatever else it may be1 ceases ipso facto to be religiously helpful4 ,the counterpart of the theoretical allness would be the practical nothingness of ,god4#b ,but having quite definitely declined to place such a construction upon immanence1 we are preserved from the absurdities which flow from it4 ,we may and do hold that all the works of the ,lord manifest ,him in some manner and in some measure2 but1 as we already stated in our introductory chapter1 not all do so in the same manner or the same measure1 and not any of them nor all of them are ,he4 ,to the specific inquiry1 ,what1 if not part of ,god1 is this stone8--we can1 indeed1 only answer in the words of ,tennyson that if we knew what the least object was in itself1 we should know what ,god and man is4 ,but1 dealing with the question more generally1 we may say that what inorganic nature shows forth of the indwelling ,god is ,his prevailing ,power and abiding ,law2 looking upon the works of ,him who stretcheth out the north over empty space1 and hangeth the earth upon #cf nothing1 we can but feel that awed admiration of ,his wisdom and might which is expressed over and over again in the ,book of ,job4 ,and this impression deepens when we pass upward from the inorganic to the organic creation2 for not only do we behold the entire vast spectacle thrilled through and through by one ,life1 but we are also enabled to discern something of the august ,purpose which progressively realises itself in all the phases of the cosmic process4 ,that the ,god revealed by the universe must transcend the universe in order to be in any real sense its ,creator1 is self-evident2 but that it is ,his own ,energy which pervades it1 a present ,power operating from within--in other words1 that ,he is immanent in the world1 as well as transcendent--is a thought from which we cannot legitimately escape4 ,when we speak of the immanence of ,god in nature1 therefore1 we mean principally immanence of ,power2 and due weight should be given to this qualification1 since its effect is to remove the obstacles we have enumerated above4 ,for it ought to be plain1 though in popular discussion it is constantly overlooked1 that ,god cannot be ethically present in the unethical1 nor personally present in the impersonal4 ,and here1 it seems to us1 we go to the root of our present problem1 viz41 by re-emphasising what is indispensable to a right conception of this whole doctrine--that immanence is of necessity a matter of degrees4 ,nature is not moral1 #cg and hence does not reveal ,god's moral character to us2 nature is not personal1 and therefore1 while its operations point with irresistible cogency to personal directivity1 does not show forth the ,divine ,personality as indwelling4 ,as soon as we grasp this obvious truth1 we shall be led to find the answer to that question which1 as we saw1 presents a stumbling-block to many minds1 namely1 in what sense it is permissible to affirm the ,divine immanence in the animal world4 ,how can ,god be in the denizens of the jungle1 we ask1 feeling that to make such an statement concerning ,him is to empty the idea of ,god of all its meaning4 ,natural1 however1 as such reasoning is1 reflection will show it to be faulty4 ,to use a simple1 if necessarily imperfect1 illustration1 something of man's own being is in all his organs1 but not all that makes him man is in every one of them2 certainly1 his higher faculties are not displayed in the organs designed to fulfil the lower functions of the organism4 ,to proceed to the obvious application--animals are not moral beings1 but act1 with the occasional exception of such of their number as have been humanised by contact with men1 from instinct and not from conscious choice2 and for that reason we are not called upon to reconcile the loving-kindness and tender mercy of ,god with the habits and general behaviour of the lower creation4 ,in ascribing all sorts of moral qualities to animals we simply exhibit the same #ch tendency which leads children to endow lifeless objects both with life and purposiveness4 ,moral attributes1 however1 whether good or bad1 presuppose conscious choice1 a faculty of weighing and if necessary repelling motives2 and with such a faculty we have no reason for crediting animals4 ,no doubt1 our incurable habit of reading the facts of our own moral nature into the actions of beasts and birds accounts for the vogue alike of ,aesop's ,fables and of such works as the ,jungle ,books2 but what strikes us as cruelty in the tiger is not a moral quality at all1 any more than it is a motive of heroism that impels the mongoose to fight cobras4 ,the tiger and the cobra are no more deliberately cruel than they could be conceived as deliberately benevolent2 they are below the ethical level1 expressing no character at all1 and least of all the character of ,god4 ,but if ,god is immanent in the cosmos as its pervading and sustaining ,power and ,life2 if ,he is immanent in man as that moral and spiritual principle which reaches out after fuller communion with the ,most ,high3 where shall we say that ,he ,himself is personally present1 since ,he is not so present either in nature or in man8 ,and assuming that such a supreme and full revelation of ,god has been given in history1 shall we not do well to distinguish in some manner between it and every lesser manifestation of immanence8 ,mr4 ,w4 ,l4 ,walker has admirably pointed out that while #ci ,god is personally present to everything1 and entirely absent from nothing1 yet it is certainly false to imagine that ,he is personally inside of everything4 ,nothing can happen wholly apart from ,him--,he is in some measure in everything and being2 but where shall ,he ,himself be found1 where shall we look for ,his very fulness8 ,he cannot1 says ,mr4 ,walker--and we shall not attempt to better his words--be personally present in anything1 or in any being1 till there is a being present in the world capable of containing and expressing ,him in ,his essential truth2 and that we do not have till we come to ,jesus ,christ4 ,and thus we may perhaps claim to have shown1 however briefly1 in what direction we must look for the solution of our problem of universal immanence--a problem unnecessarily complicated by a plausible but false construction of that doctrine4 ,we conclude that every portion of the cosmos1 including our conscious selves1 manifests so much1 and such aspects1 of ,god as it has the capacity to manifest--,his ,power1 ,his ,purpose1 ,his moral ,law1 which vindicates its sanctity upon whosoever would violate it2 but ,his own ,essence1 ,his ,character1 could be revealed only in ,one whose soul harboured no single element at variance with the ,divine ,goodness1 ,one who could be described as ,god manifest in the flesh--even that unique ,son whose oneness with the ,father was #dj undimmed and unbroken by any diversity of will4 ,it required the perfect ,instrument to give forth the perfect ,harmony4 ,and here a final but important point arises4 ,if the ,incarnation of ,god in ,christ is in one sense the highest example of ,divine immanence--just as man represents the highest form of animal life--yet in another sense it transcends mere immanence just as truly as humanity transcends the animal creation4 ,we leave this as a suggestion which the reader may develop for himself4 ,so much is certain1 that in ,christ alone does the edifice of faith reach its culminating point--in ,him our questionings receive their complete and final answer1 because what we see in ,him is not a stray hint or broken gleam1 but the pure and quenchless light of ,god's own ,presence4 ,no man hath seen ,god at any time2 the only begotten ,son1 which is in the bosom of the ,father1 ,he hath declared ,him4 #a ,the ,rev4 ,r4 ,j4 ,campbell1 ,m4,a41 in a paper on ,divine ,immanence and ,pantheism4 ,for the phrase and the ,idea of the allness of ,god see also ,rudimental ,divine 7i4e4 ,christian7 ,science1 by ,mary ,baker ,eddy1 p4 #aj4 #b ,we cannot forbear quoting two pungent lines of ,mr4 ,hamish ,hendry's1 in which the outcome of such theosophising seems to be not altogether unjustly described as-- ,a kind o' thowless ,great ,first ,cause1 ,skinklin' thro' vapour4 #da ,,chapter ,,ii ,,pantheism3 ,,the ,,suicide ,,of ,,religion ,in speaking of ,deism1 the theory which explicitly denies the ,divine immanence1 we already had occasion to acknowledge that quality of intelligibleness which makes this doctrine easy of assimilation1 and accounts1 e4g41 for the success of ,islam1 the deistic religion par excellence1 as a propagandist creed4 ,there is1 however1 another aspect of ,deism1 none the less real because it is not always recognised at first sight1 which perhaps an illustration will serve to bring home to us4 ,we all know what is likely to happen to an estate in the owner's prolonged or permanent absence--it deteriorates2 his active interest and personal supervision are wanting1 and the results are visible everywhere4 ,sloth and mismanagement1 which his presence would check1 go uncorrected1 the daily duties are indifferently performed or remain undone1 and soon the property as a whole bears unmistakeable traces of neglect4 ,there is always the possibility of the master's return some day1 when he will exact an account from his servants2 but #db the long interval which has elapsed since such a visit took place has deprived that mere possibility of any wholesome terror which it might inspire1 so that matters drift steadily from bad to worse4 ,now1 from the deistic point of view1 the world may not unfairly be compared to such an estate4 ,god is remote--,he may look down upon the terrestrial scene from ,his far-off heaven1 but ,he does not actively interfere1 except by an occasional miracle1 which is not the same as direct hour-by-hour superintendence3 is it any wonder that the ground should bring forth weeds and brambles rather than flowers and fruit8 ,is it a wonder that this ,god-less world should be a dismal place and full of misery1 and that human nature1 left to itself1 should have no health in it8 ,it would be matter for wonder if it were otherwise2 and thus ,deism is well in accord with those gloomier forms of religious thought which for a long time were the generally predominating ones4 ,the distance between this conception and that which flows from the doctrine of ,divine immanence can hardly be measured2 it certainly cannot be bridged4 ,the soul to which1 through whatever experience1 there has come the revelation that ,god is closer to us than breathing1 and nearer than hands or feet1 looks out upon a new heaven and a new earth4 ,once it is understood that ,god is really and truly in ,his universe1 that ,he is not infinitely far #dc and inaccessible but infinitely nigh1 an encompassing ,presence1 a fresh light falls upon nature and human nature alike4 ,viewed in that light1 and from the standpoint of this illuminating truth1 the world's no blot for us1 nor blank1 but the scene of ,divine activity and unceasing revelation2 for all nature's forces are seen to be the expression of the ,divine ,energy1 and all nature's laws the manifestation of the ,divine ,will4 ,if ,god ,himself is the ,life that stirs within all life1 the ,reality underlying all phenomena--if we live and move and have our being in ,him1 and ,his ,spirit dwelleth within us--the direct outcome of such a belief should be a sacred optimism1 an assurance that the cosmos means intensely1 and means good4 ,there can1 we think1 be little doubt as to the beneficial effects which have accompanied the re-affirmation of this idea in recent times4 ,it is only too true as yet1 in the case of many1 that the past1 which still holds its ground in the back chambers of the brain1 would persuade us that 'tis a demon-haunted world1 where not ,god but the devil rules2 we are not yet persuaded that this is a cheerful1 homely1 well-meaning universe1 whose powers1 if strict in their working1 are nevertheless beneficent and not diabolic4 ,against these phantasmal fears the doctrine of ,god's immanence1 rightly understood1 offers the best of antidotes1 and here lies its unquestionable value4 ,at the same time it has already become apparent #dd to us that the suddenness of the stress laid upon that idea has brought new dangers in its train4 ,the temptation is ever to swing round from one extreme to its opposite2 and in the present case not a few have carried--or been carried by--the reaction against the belief in ,god's remoteness so far as to forget1 in contemplating the truth that ,he is through all and in all1 the complementary and equally necessary truth that ,he is also ,god over all4 ,because something of ,his ,mind and ,will is expressed by the universe1 they not only1 as we saw in the previous chapter1 conclude that the universe is identical with ,him1 but that ,he is no other than the universe which reveals ,him4 ,all is ,god1 and ,god is ,all1 they exclaim1 adding the doctrine of the ,godness of all to that of the allness of ,god2 the universe1 in their view1 is the one ,divine and ,eternal ,being of which everything1 including ourselves1 is only a phase or partial manifestation2 as it is the ,divine life which pulses through us1 so it is the ,divine consciousness which our consciousness expresses1 the ,divine nature which acts through ours4 ,here we are face to face with ,pantheism full-grown3 let us see what is involved in its assumptions1 and why the ,christian ,church must resolutely refuse to make terms with this teaching4 ,no one would deny that the pantheistic theory1 which identifies ,god with the universe and ourselves with ,god1 has its fascination and #de glamour--a fascination which is not ignoble on the face of it4 ,the modern founder of ,pantheism1 ,benedict ,spinoza1 was a man of pure and saintly character1 a gentle recluse from the world1 lovable and blameless4 ,nevertheless1 we have no hesitation in avowing our belief that the glamour of ,pantheism is utterly deceptive2 that those who set foot on this inclined plane will find themselves unable--in direct proportion to their mental integrity--to resist conclusions which mean the practical dissolution of religion1 in any intelligible sense of that word2 and that in the present transitional state of religious opinion it is particularly necessary that the truth about ,pantheism should be clearly stated4 ,the test of a theory is not whether it looks symmetrical and self-consistent in the seclusion of the study1 but whether it works4 ,if it fails in actual life1 it fails altogether2 and the one fatal objection to this particular system is that it does not work4 ,nothing could be more significant than the admission of so representative an exponent of ,pantheism as ,mr4 ,allanson ,picton1 who tells us that one1 if not more1 of ,spinoza's fundamental conceptions have increasingly repelled rather than attracted religious people4 #a ,it is the object of the present chapter to show why this must be the case1 wherever the implications of his teaching are understood4 #df ,pantheism declares--it practically begins and ends with the declaration--that the universe is ,god1 and that ,god is the totality of being4 ,now1 try as we will1 such a conception can never take the place of the thought of ,god as our ,father1 and that for the simple reason that the universe is not even what we mean by personal4 ,as ,schopenhauer shrewdly remarked1 ,to call the universe ',god' is not to explain it1 but merely to burden language with a superfluous synonym for the word 'universe4' ,whether one says 'the universe is ,god' or 'the universe is the universe' makes no difference4 ,it is when people no longer know what to do with a ,deity1 he continues1 that they transfer ,his part to the universe--which is1 properly speaking1 only a decent way of getting rid of ,him4 #b ,a totality of being is not the same as a personal ,god1 but the very contrary4 ,nor is it any consolation to be told that this totality1 though not personal1 is super-personal4 ,such a super-personal ,absolute or ,whole1 to quote ,dr4 ,ballard's penetrating criticism1 is devoid of just those elements which for human experience constitute personality4 ,to our power of vision it matters nothing whether we say that the ultra-violet rays of the spectrum are super-visible or invisible4 ,the pertinent truth is that they are not visible4 ,so1 too1 that which is not 'merely' personal is not really personal4 #dg ,if the ,absolute of philosophy be the super-personal1 it is not1 in plain truth1 personal at all4 #c ,now1 a ,god who is not what we mean by personal can be of no help to us in our religious life4 ,when a congregation of modern worshippers is appealed to in these terms--,do not1 ,i beseech you1 think of ,god any more as a personal being like yourself1 though immeasurably greater--they are really being asked to commit spiritual suicide4 ,for we cannot hold communion except with a person2 we cannot pray to the universe4 ,we can neither give thanks to the universe1 nor supplicate it1 nor confess to it1 nor intercede with it4 ,but a ,god to whom we cannot pray1 with whom we cannot enter into communion1 is for all practical purposes no ,god at all4 ,the only ,god with whom we can stand in personal1 conscious1 spiritual relationship must be one who is not identical with the universe1 but ,one in whom1 on the contrary1 the universe has its being4 ,it is the transcendent ,god with whom we have to deal in religion2 such a ,god ,pantheism does not acknowledge4 ,but not only is the universe not personal2 this god of ,pantheism is not ethical either4 ,this totality is neither good nor bad1 but made up indifferently of all manner of components1 and according to ,pantheism all of them--the evil as much as the good--are #dh necessary to the perfection of the whole4 ,thus the pantheist's god has no moral complexion1 and such a god is of no use to us4 ,so far as religion is concerned1 he--or it--might just as well be non-existent as non-moral4 ,the only ,deity whom we can worship is ,one who stands above the world's confusion1 its ,moral ,governor and ,righteous ,judge4 ,but ,pantheism identifies not only ,god with the universe1 but ourselves with ,god4 ,now if this view is accepted1 if there is no real dividing line between man and ,god1 then we can only once more point out that we have no personality either2 we are mere fragmentary expressions of ,god's life1 without selfhood or self-determination1 no more responsible for our acts than a violin for the tune that is played on it4 ,mr4 ,picton1 speaking with authority1 tells us that to the true pantheist man is but a finite mode of infinite ,being2 that human personality is only seeming #d and that1 from the pantheistic standpoint1 the self must be content to be nothing4 ,that is to say that the consistent pantheist must be a consistent determinist4 ,logical ,pantheism rules out the possibility of sin against man or ,god--for who withstandeth ,his will1 seeing that ,he is the only real ,existence8 ,let a further quotation make this plain4 ,what1 asks ,mr4 ,picton1 are we to say of bad men1 the vile1 the base1 the liar1 the murderer8 ,are they #di also in ,god and of ,god8 4 4 4 ,yes1 they are4 #e ,and this amazing conclusion--amazing1 though involved in his fundamental outlook--is sought to be defended on the ground that we have no adequate idea of the part played by bad men in the ,divine ,whole6 ,in other words1 the pantheist god expresses himself in a ,st4 ,francis1 but he also does so in a ,king ,leopold2 he is manifested in ,general ,booth and in ,alexander ,borgia2 ,jesus ,christ is a phase of his being1 and so is ,judas ,iscariot4 ,a sentimental ,pantheism may say that ,god is that in a hero which nerves him to heroism1 and that in a mother which prompts her self-sacrifice for her children1 for there is none else4 ,but that is only one-half of the truth2 arguing from the same premises1 we must also say that ,god is that in the sinner which succumbs to sin1 and in the wrong-doer that which takes pleasure in wrong1 for there is none else4 ,once we rub out the distinction between ,god and man1 we rub out all moral distinctions as well4 ,if we are not other than ,he is1 how can we act other than ,he wills8 ,if we hold that the soul is only a finite mode of ,god's infinite attribute of thought1 part of the necessary expression of the infinite attributes of eternal ,being1 the sense of sin can be no more than an illusion4 ,or shall we be told that1 whatever a man's theoretical ,determinism1 in practice he will #ej always be conscious of his freedom8 ,the answer is1 ,yes1 perhaps1 provided his moral instincts are sound2 but the average mortal1 when he has to choose between the hard duty and the easy indulgence1 will be sorely tempted to find a reason for yielding in his determinist philosophy4 ,and is a doctrine likely to be true which1 the moment it is seriously applied1 undermines the very foundation of morality1 and of which the best that can be said is that people do not consistently apply it8 ,m4 ,bourget's ,le ,disciple is not a book for everyone2 but in it the distinguished author has drawn an instructive picture of the effect of ,determinism as a theory upon a self-indulgent man's practice4 ,as ,mr4 ,baring-,gould aptly says1 ,human nature is ever prone to find an excuse for getting the shoulder from under the yoke4 ,pantheism1 as a matter of fact1 whichever way we travel1 is ultimately compelled to deny the qualitative distinction between good and evil1 declaring both to be equally necessary1 and thus arrives once more at its conception of a ,deity who1 though said to be perfect--presumably in some super-moral sense--is not good1 and hence cannot be a possible object of worship for us4 ,how little the pantheist's ,god can mean to us will be understood when it is stated that1 according to ,spinoza1 man cannot strive to have ,god's love to him4 #f ,indeed1 how could the universe love one of #ea its mere passing phases8 ,is it a wonder that this cheerless creed has increasingly repelled rather than attracted religious people when once they have understood its inwardness8 ,we ask for bread and receive--a nebula2 we call for our ,father1 and are told to content ourselves with a totality of being6 ,and when ,pantheism has thus despoiled us of our religious possessions one by one1 so far as this life is concerned1 what is its message concerning the future8 ,this1 that when we die there is an end even of our seeming self-hood2 we are once more immersed in the ,all1 the ,whole--like a thimbleful of water drawn from the ocean and poured back into the ocean again4 ,this is what ,mr4 ,picton calls the peace of absorption in the ,infinite2 would it not be simpler to call it annihilation1 and have done with it8 ,dissolve a bronze statue and merge it in a mass of molten metal1 and it is gone as a statue2 dissolve a soul and merge it in the sum of being1 and as a soul it is no more4 ,that is not immortality1 but a final blotting out--a fit conclusion from those pantheistic premises which1 consistently worked out1 mean the end of religion1 the end of morality1 the end of everything4 ,pantheism goes about under a variety of aliases to-day1 and therein lies an additional danger2 for whatever its assumed name or disguise1 its essence is always the same1 and its very speciousness calls for all our vigilance and #eb determination to fight it4 ,we must not weary of challenging its root-assumption1 or of exposing its insidious tendencies2 we must not weary of reiterating the truth that ,god is not identical with the universe1 but to be worshipped as the ,one who is over all2 we must insist that ,his nearness to us and our likeness to ,him are not identity with ,him--nay1 that it is ,his otherness from us which makes us capable of seeking and finding ,him1 of experiencing ,his love1 and loving ,him in return4 ,from the inhuman speculations of ,pantheism we turn with unspeakable gratitude to the revelation of the personal ,god in the ,person of ,jesus ,christ ,his ,son1 whom having seen1 we have beheld the ,father1 and whose are the words1 not of annihilation1 but of eternal life4 #a ,pantheism1 p4 #ae4 #b ,parerga1 vol4 ii41 pp4 #aja-ajb4 #c ,the ,true ,god1 p4 #aah4 #d ,op4 cit41 p4 #ae4 #e ,ibid1 p4 #fi4 #f ,j4 ,allanson ,picton1 ,spinoza1 p4 #bac4 #ec ,,chapter ,,iii ,,the ,,ethics ,,of ,,monism ,to say that religious thought is passing to-day through a period of peculiar stress is to utter a commonplace so threadbare that one apologises for repeating it4 ,even the man in the street--or perhaps we ought to say even the man in the pew1 the average member of a ,christian ,church--is aware that certain potent forces have been for some time past directing a series of sustained assaults upon what were until recently all but unquestioned beliefs2 nor1 if he is capable of appreciating facts1 will he deny--though he may deplore it--that to all seeming these attacks have been attended by a considerable measure of success4 ,if1 however1 our man in the pew were asked to specify what forces he had in his mind1 he would probably in nine cases out of ten point to two such1 and two alone1 viz41 natural science and ,biblical criticism1 which1 he would tell us1 had between them created an atmosphere in which the old views of ,scriptural authority found it more and more difficult to maintain themselves4 #ed ,such an estimate of the situation would be true so far as it went2 yet it would omit to take account of a third factor1 a solvent far less obvious in its workings1 but far more disintegrating in its effects4 ,the factor to which we are referring is philosophy2 while science and criticism have overthrown certain traditional ramparts1 a type of philosophy has sprung up1 slowly undermining the very foundations2 or1 to vary the simile1 while the former two have captured certain outworks1 the latter has made its way to within striking distance of the citadel1 and that the more unobserved because attention has been focussed almost exclusively upon the more imposing performances of the critic and the biologist4 ,as a matter of fact1 religion never had1 nor could have1 anything to fear from these two quarters1 which--as we can now see--could not in any way touch the essence of religious faith1 as distinguished from some of its temporary forms2 on the other hand1 that very essence might be imperilled by a false but plausible philosophy1 and grave practical consequences in the domain of conduct might arise from its spread4 ,for if it is accurate to say that behind every ethic there stands--whether avowed or unavowed--a certain metaphysic1 the converse holds true no less2 every philosophy1 in the exact proportion in which it is ex animo accepted1 will tend to produce its ethical counterpart4 ,what we #ee submit in all seriousness is that the only real danger to religion that is to be apprehended to-day--a danger to which it is impossible to blind ourselves--is that involved in a certain metaphysical outlook1 whose continued growth in popularity cannot but ere long produce its own results in the field of practice4 ,the philosophy in question is intimately related to that ,pantheism at some of whose implications we were glancing in our last chapter2 if we refer to it here and subsequently by the name of ,monism1 under which it has of late obtained a considerable vogue in this country1 it must be understood that we do not mean what ,dr4 ,ballard calls ,theomonism1 but a far less carefully thought-out and tested theory of life1 which at the present time is making a successful appeal to multitudes of inexact thinkers4 ,the fundamental idea common to this school is that the universe1 including our individualities or what we think such1 constitutes only one being1 and manifests only one will1 which all its phenomena express4 ,separateness of existence1 according to such a view--which1 after all1 represents only the extreme logic of ,pantheism--is1 of course1 a chimaera1 and so1 a fortiori1 must separate volition be4 ,the only real will--i4e41 the will of the universe--is regarded as good and right2 and since there is no other will but that one1 and seeing that none resists or inhibits it1 it is ever being carried out1 continuously operative4 #ef ,to call this will even prevailing would be a misuse of language1 since there is no other will for it to prevail against4 ,now1 regarded merely in the abstract1 this conception might be treated as a harmless eccentricity or speculative aberration1 and is likely to be so treated by the ordinary practical man1 with his contempt for theories1 and his pathetic conviction that speculation does not matter2 let us1 however1 see what is implied in this particular speculative theory4 ,from the primary assumption of this philosophy it follows with an irresistible cogency that there is no such thing as real1 objective evil4 ,sin1 if the term be retained at all1 can at most be only a blunder4 ,evil is only an inexact description of a lesser good1 or good in the making4 ,indeed1 properly considered--i4e41 from the monistic standpoint--evil is a mere negation1 a shadow where light should be2 or to be quite logical1 evil is that which is not--in other words1 there is no evil1 except to deluded minds1 whose business is to get quit of their delusion4 ,the one and only cosmic will being declared good1 it follows that for the monist all's right with the world1 in a sense scarcely contemplated by ,browning when he penned that most dubious aphorism4 ,we propose briefly to show how this creed works out--what is its ethical counterpart or issue--not by arguing in vacuo what it must be1 but by presenting to the reader three #eg selected illustrations taken from the writings of as many exponents of this type of ,monism4 ,in his volume ,first and ,last ,things--a work which he significantly calls a confession of faith and rule of life--,mr4 ,h4 ,g4 ,wells avows himself a believer in the ,being of the ,species1 and1 prospectively at least1 in the eternally conscious ,being of all things4 ,the individual as such is merely an experiment of the species for the species1 and without significance per se2 we are episodes in an experience greater than ourselves1 incidental experiments in the growing knowledge and consciousness of the race4 ,mr4 ,wells's fundamental act of faith is a firm belief in the ultimate rightness and significance of things1 including the wheel-smashed frog on the road1 and the fly drowning in the milk4 ,in other words1 all is just as it has to be2 regrets1 remorses and discontents exist only for the unbeliever in this truth1 while1 speaking for himself1 the author frankly says1 ,i believe 4 4 4 that my defects and uglinesses and failures1 just as much as my powers and successes1 are things that are necessary and important4 ,in the last resort1 he concludes his book1 ,i do not care whether ,i am seated on a throne1 or drunk1 or dying in a gutter4 ,i follow my leading4 ,in the ultimate ,i know1 though ,i cannot prove my knowledge in any way whatever1 that everything is right1 and all things mine4 #eh ,certainly1 this is uncompromising candour2 but it is also1--though ,mr4 ,wells1 strangely enough1 calls himself a believer in freewill--the most uncompromising ,determinism conceivable4 ,and this ,determinism follows quite inevitably from ,mr4 ,wells's monistic premises--belief in a cosmic scheme every part of which is ultimately right4 ,an end in the gutter or on the gallows may be as necessary to that scheme's perfection as a life spent in strenuous goodness4 ,whatever is1 is right4 ,it can be hardly necessary to point out that such a belief1 consistently entertained1 puts an end to all moral effort2 we follow our leading--i4e41 we do not drive1 but drift4 ,arguing from his own premises1 it is absolutely vain for ,mr4 ,wells to wax indignantly eloquent over social abuses1 as when he says3-- ,i see the grimy millions who slave for industrial production2 ,i see some who are extravagant and yet contemptible creatures of luxury1 and some leading lives of shame and indignity2 4 4 4 ,i see gamblers1 fools1 brutes1 toilers1 martyrs4 ,their disorder of effort1 the spectacle of futility1 fills me with a passionate desire to end waste1 to create order4 7p4 #ii47 ,but why1 we ask1 should ,mr4 ,wells feel this passionate desire1 if all the failures and uglinesses of life are necessary and important8 ,how1 on this assumption1 are existing social ills to be remedied--nay1 why should they be remedied1 why should they be stigmatised as ills1 seeing that everything is right8 ,let #ei ,mr4 ,wells once take his principles seriously enough to apply them1 and personal as well as social reform is at an end4 ,perhaps it may be permissible to say that of all forms of ,determinism the most irrational is that optimistic form which deprecates discontent with things as they are as a mark of unbelief4 ,mr4 ,wells1 however1 while his influence is a very considerable one1 utters his teaching from outside the ,christian ,church1 and very properly disavows the ,christian name2 what must give us pause is to find the monistic ethics being preached and taught by official exponents of the ,christian religion4 ,what1 e4g41 can we think of a statement like the following1 which we quote from the columns of a religious journal8 ,there are people who think it is an evidence of superior ,culture to show themselves pained by certain things2 but it is not really that2 they are pained because they are not cultured enough1 or in the right way4 4 4 ,nothing is good or ill ,but thinking makes it so4 ,they think it desirable to dislike things because they dislike them2 if they thought it desirable not to dislike them1 they would not dislike them4 ,again1 no one will accuse this writer of want of frankness2 according to him1 there is simply no such thing as objective evil--acts and individuals have no moral qualities or characters1 but are such as we think them1 and our business is so to think of them that they will not pain us4 #fj ,if we only knew aright1 we should not regard anything as bad4 ,if we are pained by the thought of fifty thousand hungry children in ,london elementary schools1 or by the condition of ,regent ,street at night1 it is because we are not cultured enough--we have not the right gnosis4 ,when we reflect that anyone who consistently believes that nothing is good or ill1 but thinking makes it so1 will inevitably1 first or last1 apply that comforting maxim to his own acts1 we can see in what direction the ethics of ,monism--in reality a return to the ultra-subjectivism of the ,sophists1 who made man the measure of all things--are likely to lead men4 ,and yet1 if the monistic presuppositions are valid--if the universe in all its phases expresses only one will--we do not see how these conclusions can be repelled4 ,but it is1 perhaps1 our last illustration1 drawn from yet another writer of the same school1 which will exhibit both the teaching under discussion and its practical dangers in the clearest light4 ,we are told that-- ,there is no will that is not ,god's will4 ,i do not mean that yours is not real1 or that any man's is not real1 but ,i do mean that nothing can happen to any of ,god's children--no matter how evil the intention of the person who does it1 or how seemingly meaningless the calamity that causes it--which is not in some way the sacrament of ,god's love to us1 and ,his call upon our highest energies4 ,in a true and real sense1 therefore1 it is ,god's own doing and meant for our greater glory2 4 4 4 ,i believe in the infinitude of wisdom and love2 there is nothing else4 #fa ,those who will take the moderate trouble of translating these words from the abstract into the concrete will need no further demonstration of the moral implications of this type of ,monism4 ,there is no will--not even the most brutalised or the most debauched--that is not ,god's will4 ,nothing can happen to any of ,god's children--say1 to the natives of the ,congo or to a ,jewish community during a ,russian pogrom--but is ,god's call upon their highest energies3 wherefore they ought1 assuredly1 to be thankful to ,king ,leopold's emissaries and the ,tsar's faithful ,black ,hundreds6 ,but let us apply this thesis to yet another case1 which will bring out its full character3 if an ,english girl--one of ,god's children--is snared away by a ruffian1 under pretext of honest employment1 to some ,continental hell1 then we are to understand that the physical and moral ruin which awaits the victim is in some way the sacrament of ,god's love to her--in a true and real sense it is ,god's own doing1 and meant for her greater glory6 ,we have no hesitation in saying that such teaching strikes us as fraught with infinite possibilities of moral harm1 the more so because of the rather mawkish sentimentality with which it is decked out2 for if any scoundrel is really the instrument of ,god's will1 why should he be blamed for his scoundrelism8 ,and we observe how yet once more1 by a glib and vapid phrase--,i believe in the #fb infinitude of wisdom and love2 there is nothing else--the fact of evil has been triumphantly got rid of4 ,in words1 that is to say1 but not in reality2 for in reality there is a great deal else--sin1 and shame1 and remorse1 and heartbreak1 and despair2 against the first of which we need to be warned1 in order that we may escape the rest4 ,we are quite prepared to be told that our anxieties are groundless1 because no one will ever draw such inferences as these4 ,to this we reply1 firstly1 that these are the logical and legitimate inferences from the principles enunciated2 and secondly1 that we do not at all share the particular kind of optimism which trusts that good luck will prevent the application of these theories to practical life4 ,we are living in an age of wide-spread intellectual unsettlement1 an age presenting the difficult problem of a vast half-educated public1 ready to fall an easy prey to all manner of specious sophistries1 especially when they are dressed up in the garb of a pseudo-mysticism2 we must above all remember that human nature is habitually prone to welcome whatever will serve as an excuse for throwing off the irksome restraints of moral discipline4 ,that is why we repeat that the one real danger religion has to face to-day is the danger arising from the spread of a false philosophy1 whose tenets are ultimately incompatible with ,christian morals4 ,the worst heresies are moral #fc heresies2 and of the views we have been discussing we say roundly that their falseness is sufficiently proved by their ethical implications4 ,a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit2 therefore by their fruits ye shall know them4 ,against all the insidious attempts that are made to-day to minimise or explain away moral evil--attempts with which we shall deal in greater detail at a later stage--we have to reaffirm the reality and exceeding sinfulness of sin2 more particularly1 in combating the preposterous notion of man's oneness with ,god as something already realised1 we have to insist with renewed emphasis that salvation1 so far from being self-understood1 is a prize only to be won by a hard struggle1 nor shut the door upon the dread possibility of that prize being missed4 ,there are perhaps few truths to which it is more desirable that we should pay renewed attention than that expressed in the saying1 ,when belief waxes unsound1 practice becomes uncertain4 ,certainly1 the ethics of ,monism supply a case in point4 #fd ,,chapter ,,iv ,,monism ,,and ,,the ,,individual ,when ,tennyson1 in ,locksley ,hall1 wrote the line declaring that the individual withers and the world is more and more1 he might have been inditing a prophecy summing up those modern tendencies which have engaged our attention in preceding chapters4 ,and there are perhaps few more important questions before us to-day than this--whether ,tennyson's prophecy is to be fulfilled1 whether the individual is to be allowed to wither1 and the world to become more and more4 ,there are those who hold that such a consummation is devoutly to be wished2 there are those who regard any movement making in such a direction with something more than suspicion4 ,let us say at once that in discussing the status of the individual1 we are not referring--at least1 not directly--to the struggle between ,individualism and ,socialism4 ,we know that individualists express the fear that under a socialist rgime there would be an end to individual initiative1 while socialists retort that the chief sin of the competitive system is #fe that it crushes and destroys individuality2 but between the contentions of these rival schools of economics we are not attempting to adjudicate4 ,perhaps we cannot better indicate the scope of our subject than by quoting from two recent theological works1 written from such widely differing points of view as ,professor ,peake's ,christianity3 ,its ,nature and its ,truth1 and ,professor ,bousset's ,the ,faith of a ,modern ,protestant3-- ,it is only in it--viz41 in ,christianity--says the learned ,primitive ,methodist theologian1 that the individual has received his true place4 ,in antiquity the worth of the individual was greatly under-estimated2 he was unduly subordinated to the community4 ,but the ,christian religion1 by insisting on the infinite value of each human soul1 and by asserting the greatness of its destiny1 supplied an immense incentive to the attainment by each of the highest within reach4 ,the doctrine of the worth of man is1 to all who accept it1 a powerful stimulus in the struggle to a fuller and deeper life4 ,an interest in mankind in the mass is compatible with heartless indifference to the lot of individuals 7p4 #hh74 ,the ,gospel1 declares the ,gttingen modernist1 announces a ,god who seeks and desires above all else the individual human soul4 ,it unites1 in a security and closeness hitherto unknown1 belief in ,god with the importance of the individual human life4 ,it #ff is the religion of religious individualism raised to its highest point4 7p4 #cf74 ,such concurrence of testimony from two such different quarters is as remarkable as it is significant2 and this brings us to our point4 ,the question with which we are confronted to-day1 and which our civilisation must either answer aright or perish1 is not whether an individualist or a socialist state would be more conducive to the individual's self-realisation1 but whether ,christianity is right or wrong in its doctrine of the individual's paramount importance4 ,the issue1 as we shall try to show1 lies between ,christianity on the one hand and ,monism on the other4 ,from the ,christian point of view the individual matters supremely2 from that of ,monism the beginning of wisdom is that the individual should recognise and acquiesce in his utter insignificance4 ,as in our last chapter we glanced at the monistic ethics1 so in the present one we propose to inquire briefly first into the social and then into the religious implications of this theory1 which it must be remembered is receiving a good deal of support1 and meeting with a large measure of acceptance just now4 ,turning1 then1 to the social side first of all1 no one1 of course1 would say that ,socialism as such was monistic2 on the other hand it is easy to understand the attraction of ,socialism for those whose philosophy is ,monism4 ,they will embrace the economic teachings of ,collectivism the more #fg eagerly in exact proportion to their root-conviction that the only thing that matters is the totality of things1 while the individual1 per se1 does not count at all4 ,that is the conception which underlies the ,socialism of a writer like ,mr4 ,wells1 who is in nothing more emphatic than in asserting that the individual as such has no value at all4 ,our individualities1 he says1 are but bubbles and clusters of foam upon the great stream of the blood of the species4 ,the race is the drama1 and we are the incidents4 ,in so far as we are individuals 4 4 4 we are accidental1 disconnected1 without significance4 ,and when we ask for what we should strive and labour1 if not for the good of individual men and women1 his answer is that we ought to work for the ,species1 for the ,race1 for what he calls a great physical and mental being1 to wit1 ,mankind4 ,now we believe that this philosophy1 consistently embraced1 is utterly devoid of the dynamic which can generate any great social reform4 ,the smallest and forlornest actual slum baby appeals to our sympathy immeasurably more than a vast1 dim aggregate of indistinguishable items called the ,race2 for we have actually met the slum-baby1 and we have never met--what is more1 we shall never meet--the ,race4 ,this tendency to treat the individual as negligible is as futile as it is inhuman2 in the long run it will be found that he who loveth not his brother whom he hath seen1 cannot love #fh the ,race which he hath not seen4 ,no matter by how many times we multiply nothing1 the result is still--nothing4 ,if the individuals do not count1 neither can the species which is made up of such individuals4 ,or1 if the ,race is the drama1 and we are the incidents1 it must be observed that no great and noble drama can be strung together out of trivial and unmeaning incidents4 ,all the talk about ,mankind as the greater being1 the great and growing ,being of the ,species1 the eternally conscious ,being of all things1 is only the old1 thin1 unsatisfying idolatry of ,positivism4 ,if we wish to be social reformers in earnest we must take care of the individuals1 and the race will take care of itself4 ,that the monistic denial of all individual significance should lead to the denial of a future life is only what we should expect2 for if man1 as such1 does not matter1 why should he survive8 ,on the other hand1 the more we care for the individual1 refusing to regard him merely as an experiment of the species for the species1 the more irresistibly shall we be impelled to believe that this life is not all4 ,it is the inestimable achievement of ,christianity1 by its insistence on the infinite value of the soul1 to have given the strongest impetus and support to belief in personal immortality4 ,that1 however1 is an aspect of our subject which demands1 and will subsequently come up for1 separate treatment4 #fi ,what1 for the present1 we must yet once more point out1 as we did in the preceding chapter1 is this--that wide as is the influence of a non-,christian writer like ,mr4 ,wells1 the danger of such teaching is intensified when it is given by those who profess ,christianity4 ,doubtless1 ,bousset is right when he points to the closer contact between ,east and ,west as one of the causes of the growth in our midst of a type of religion in which the human ego is put on one side and almost reduced to zero4 ,doubtless1 also1 he is correct in saying the adherents of this kind of religion will be chiefly found in circles where people do not regard religion seriously1 where they desire and accept religion as aesthetic enjoyment4 ,nevertheless1 the evil attending this type of teaching is1 to our thinking1 great and serious1 designed to undermine selfhood and to set up a species of dry-rot at the very centre4 ,let us again show what we mean by quoting from an actual utterance3 ,god1 we read1 is supposed to be thinking more about us than about anything else--a rather arrogant assumption when we come to think of it1 considering what specks of dust we are amid these myriads of stars and suns whirling through space like motes in a ray of light--and the great object of ,his solicitude is to get us individually to toe the mark of ,christ-likeness4 ,if this view be the true one1 the writer went on to ask1 why do questions like unemployment1 the ,budget1 #gj the uprising of nationalism in ,turkey1 etc41 bulk so largely in our thought8 ,these topics1 he says1 have little or no relation to the question of saving the individual soul1 as commonly understood4 ,how1 he demands1 does the actual life of every day fit into that view of the scheme of things which bids us believe that the silent ,god above us is principally anxious about just one thing1 the moral recovery and ingathering of these individual souls one by one8 ,the answer is given with characteristic confidence3 ,it does not fit into it at all2 if ,god be as anxious about that as we are assured ,he is1 ,he has a queer way of showing it4 ,here we have a conception of man and his place in the sum of things fundamentally at one with that of ,mr4 ,wells1 and as utterly irreconcilable with that of ,christianity4 ,not only does the individual not matter in himself2 he does not even matter to ,god4 ,the idea of the soul's infinite value to ,god is held up to derision1 and so is the idea of ,god's interest in individual character2 man1 the atom1 must not think that the ,creator is specially anxious for his fate1 and is bidden to measure his insignificance against the vastness of the heavenly bodies2 and in conclusion we are pertly told that if ,god really cares about the individual as such1 ,he has a queer way of showing it4 ,in this view--the view of ,monism--it is indeed true that the individual withers1 and the world is more and more4 #ga ,we say that the issue is plain2 it lies between ,monism and ,christianity2 if the one is true1 the other must be rejected4 ,on which side shall we cast our verdict8 ,for a warning example we have only to glance at the case of ,buddhism1 in which1 the value of human individuality having been steadily lowered1 the other main factor is religion1 belief in ,god1 was likewise lost 7,bousset74 ,but1 turning to a more detailed examination of the statement just quoted1 it is hardly necessary to discuss the astounding suggestion that man must not take himself too seriously by the side of the immensities of suns and stars4 ,such a view merely betrays a spiritual perception miles below that of the ,psalmist1 who saw man1 to all appearance a negligible speck1 yet in reality made by the ,almighty little lower than the angels1 and crowned with glory and honour4 ,neither need we combat at length the strangely superficial notion that such questions as unemployment1 the ,budget1 etc41 have little or no relation to that of saving the individual soul1 as commonly understood4 ,if they have no relation to that subject1 they are hardly worth considering2 but the fact is that the regulation of industry1 the distribution of wealth--these and all other questions derive their importance solely from the manner in which they affect individual men1 women and children1 fitting or unfitting them for the life that now is and that which is to come4 ,a good deal might be said of #gb the temper which makes fun of the idea of ,god's solicitude to get us individually to toe the mark of ,christ-likeness2 but we may leave that unhappy phrase to be its own comment4 ,the attitude of ,christianity to our question is perfectly clear4 ,christianity1 in teaching each frailest1 poorest human unit to address ,god as ,father1 affirms in unmistakeable accents the ,eternal's personal interest in and care for the individual soul1 and by so doing ennobles every human life that falls under the sway of the ,gospel4 ,it is ,christianity's master-thought that to the ,father from whom all fatherhood is named each one of ,his children is personally dear1 and that ,his desire is for the salvation of each one4 ,to the cheap and ugly sneer that ,god has a queer way of manifesting ,his concern for us as individuals1 the ,christian consciousness has its own answer2 how1 in any case1 such a sneer could come from the same source from which we previously quoted the statement that nothing can happen to any of ,god's children which is not in some way the sacrament of ,god's love to us1 we do not profess to understand4 ,we are not mere individual organ-stops1 each without use or significance apart from the rest1 waiting for our mutual dissonances to be swallowed up in some music of the whole1 but members of a family1 each with a place in the ,parent's heart and thought4 ,finally1 to the ,christian there is one last1 #gc crowning proof of the soul's value for ,god1 and ,god's yearning for the soul2 that proof is ,calvary4 ,to the ,christian there is one experience which settles this problem fully and finally for him2 it is the experience which ,paul embodied in the cry1 ,he loved me1 and gave ,himself for me4 ,for ,monism the individual is a mere surface ripple on an infinite ocean1 alike impermanent and impersonal2 for ,christianity the soul is a child of the ,father of all souls1 loved with an everlasting love4 ,between these two conceptions we have to choose1 remembering that each utterly excludes the other4 ,there is no third alternative4 #gd ,,chapter ,v ,,the ,,divine ,,personality ,while in our last three chapters we have been dealing with certain theories which implicitly or explicitly deny the ,divine ,personality1 and while an impersonal ,god can be1 as we have already seen1 of no value for religion1 there is no mistaking the fact that this very question--whether1 i4e41 it is possible and legitimate for us to think of ,god as personal--constitutes one of the most typical of modern difficulties4 ,it is probably correct to say that this difficulty1 like others we have reviewed1 dates practically from the collapse of ,deism1 a creed which possessed a certain hard lucidity satisfying to many for the very reason that it required no very profound insight for its understanding4 ,that a ,deity localised in a far-away heaven1 seated on a celestial throne and surrounded by an angelic court1 should be a person1 like any other sovereign1 presented no problem to the understanding2 but if ,god was not merely transcendent but also immanent--not merely somewhere but in some indefinable manner everywhere--then to predicate personality of #ge such a ,one seemed a very paradox4 ,in one of ,feuillet's novels there occurs a phrase which sums up in a few expressive words a very common spiritual misadventure3 the hero says1 ,j'avais vu disparatre parmi les nuages la tte de ce bon vieillard qu'on appelle ,dieu--,i had seen the head of that good old man called ,god disappear amongst the clouds4 ,his nave material conception of the ,eternal had dissolved--and dissolved into nothingness4 ,may we not surmise that nine times out of ten this is precisely what has happened when we hear the question asked1 ,but how can ,god be personal8 ,in by far the greater number of cases1 that is to say1 the problem arises simply and solely from the questioner's failure to dissociate personality from materiality2 a person suggests to him a tangible1 visible1 ponderable form1 with arms and legs and organs of sense--and when he has reflected sufficiently to understand that such a description cannot apply to ,god1 he concludes that therefore ,god cannot be personal4 ,the next step is usually that1 having seen this visibly outlined ,deity disappear parmi les nuages1 he passes into absolute unbelief2 for somehow an impersonal ,power1 while it may possibly inspire awe1 cannot move us to worship1 cannot present to us a moral imperative1 cannot1 above all1 either claim our love or give us its affection4 ,it is really the identical difficulty1 stated a little #gf more pretentiously1 which the rationalist author of ,the ,churches and ,modern ,thought presents to us by remarking that in all our experience that which makes up personality is connected with nerve structures1 so that we cannot attribute such a quality to a ,being who is described to us as devoid of any nerve structure4 ,i know of no answer1 he quaintly adds1 that could be called satisfactory from a theistic standpoint4 #a ,it is evident that ,mr4 ,vivian does not remember the famous passage in the ,essay on ,theism where ,john ,stuart ,mill explains that the relation of thought to a material brain is no metaphysical necessity1 but simply a constant co-existence within the limits of observation1 and concludes that although experience furnishes us with no example of any series of states of consciousness without an accompanying brain1 it is as easy to imagine such a series of states without as with this accompaniment4 #b ,according to ,mill--hardly a champion of orthodoxy--there is no reason in the nature of things why thoughts1 emotions1 volitions and even sensations should be necessarily dependent upon or connected with nerve structures 2 so that ,mr4 ,vivian's argument palpably fails4 ,but what about this popular notion which identifies personality with materiality1 and #gg therefore denies the former attribute to ,god8 ,one would think that even the most circumscribed experience1 or reflection on such experience1 must suffice to dispose of such a misapprehension2 let us use the most obvious of illustrations for showing where the error lies4 ,we have only to imagine one of those everyday tragedies that make a short newspaper paragraph--say1 the case of a man passing a house in process of erection1 and being killed on the spot by a piece of falling timber4 ,he is left as a material form2 he is decidedly not left as a person4 ,something has disappeared in that fatal moment that no one had ever seen or handled--his self-consciousness1 his intelligence1 his will1 his affections1 his moral sense3 with these he was a person2 without them1 he is a corpse4 ,if1 then1 it is these unseen1 intangible qualities1 and not flesh and bones1 muscle and nerve structure1 that constitute human personality1 is it not rather childish to argue that1 unless ,god possesses a body of some sort1 the ,divine ,personality is a contradiction in terms8 ,if we can validly affirm in the ,deity qualities corresponding to those which in human beings we call consciousness1 intelligence1 etc41 we shall obviously be compelled to assign personality to ,him2 the question is1 ,have we sufficient grounds for making such an affirmation8 ,but before we are allowed to answer that question1 we have to meet another preliminary #gh objection2 for it seems that we are in conflict with philosophy--or1 to be more exact1 with a certain philosophy which1 while no longer perhaps in the heyday of its influence with students1 still enjoys a good deal of popular vogue4 ,we are1 of course1 referring to the ,spencerian system1 in which the word ,absolute is used as a synonym for what we should call the ,deity2 but1 argues the ,spencerian1 since ,absolute is that which exists out of all relation1 #c whereas even intelligence or consciousness itself is conceivable only as a relation1 it follows that the ,absolute cannot be thought of as conscious4 ,but if ,god cannot even be thought of as conscious1 how much less can ,he be thought of as personal6 ,such an inference would1 indeed1 be irresistible if only the premises on which it rests were sound4 ,but is it legitimate1 we ask1 to identify ,god with the ,absolute1 or is not this merely a way of begging the question8 ,absolute is that which exists out of all relation1 we were just told1 and such a genuine ,absolute would be genuinely unknowable1 because its very existence could not be so much as guessed at2 but the ,spencerian ,absolute is the most certain of certainties1 described by ,professor ,hudson as the one ,eternal ,reality1 the corner-stone of all our #gi knowledge--otherwise as the ,infinite and ,eternal ,energy from which all things proceed4 ,but the corner-stone of all our knowledge can be such only because1 so far from being unknowable1 it is intimately related to all our experience--which is tantamount to saying that it is not absolute at all2 and again1 if ,god be the ,infinite and ,eternal ,energy from which all things proceed1 that ,energy must be thought of as related to all things--in other words1 it is the very reverse of absolute4 ,and hence the imaginary impossibility of thinking of the ,deity as conscious and intelligent vanishes at one stroke4 ,if ,god were really absolute1 in the sense of the definition quoted above1 it would certainly be1 as ,professor ,hudson says1 from the standpoint of philosophical exactness quite inadmissible to speak of the ,divine ,will1 or a ,personal ,creator1 or an intelligent ,governor of the universe2 but as we have seen that this absoluteness is purely fictitious1 it follows that we may legitimately inquire whether consciousness1 intelligence1 will--and hence personality--are predicable of ,god1 without heeding a veto which rests on imaginary foundations4 ,it is true ,professor ,hudson raises two further objections2 these1 however1 will not long detain us4 ,we are informed in the first place that the further progress of thought 'must force men hereafter to drop the higher anthropomorphic characters given to the ,first #hj ,cause1 as they have long since dropped the lower'2 but since our guide1 a few pages later1 quotes with approval the dictum that unless we cease to think altogether1 we must think anthropomorphically1 we may be pardoned for declining to believe that the further progress of thought must force men hereafter to cease to think altogether4 ,such a suicide of thought would furnish an odd comment upon philosophic progress4 ,we shall1 of course1 continue to think anthropomorphically of ,god2 our thought will thus inevitably fall short of the ,reality1 but it will be truer than if we did not think of ,him at all4 ,again1 ,divine ,personality is declared to be a self-contradiction because ,personality implies limitation1 or it means nothing at all4 ,to talk of an ,infinite ,person1 therefore1 is to talk of something that is at once infinite and finite1 unconditioned and conditioned1 unlimited and limited--an impossibility4 ,to this plea there are1 however1 two answers4 ,the first may be made in the unprejudiced words of ,mr4 ,vivian1 who observes1#d ,we must not forget that in philosophy and theology the word 'person' simply implies 'a nature endowed with consciousness1' and does not involve limits4 ,but secondly1 without committing ourselves to ,professor ,hudson's dictum that personality implies limitation1 we have to point out that we are not concerned to defend any inference that might be drawn from the infinity1 in the sense #ha of the allness of ,god4 ,we do not deny1 but on the contrary affirm1 that in the act of creation ,god imposes limitations upon ,himself2 so that this last obstacle also is disposed of4 ,so far1 then1 we have dealt with the a priori arguments against the ,personality of ,god1 and have seen why none of these--neither that from ,his non-materiality1 nor from ,his alleged absoluteness or infinity--raises any real bar to ,his being thought of as personal4 ,we are now in a position to inquire positively whether there is sufficient ground for regarding ,him as conscious1 intelligent and purposive2 if ,he possesses these qualities1 we repeat that ,he certainly possesses that of personality4 ,the method by which we must proceed is obvious1 and will at once occur to the reader who recalls our opening chapter2 the question resolves itself simply into this--,are the phenomena of nature such as to indicate intelligence and directivity in their ,cause8 ,we submit that incontrovertible proof of the absence of such directive intelligence would be furnished1 if the world were1 as a matter of fact1 chaotic--if it disclosed neither regularity nor continuity--if1 in a word1 we could never be sure what would happen next4 ,true1 in such a state of things life itself could not be sustained1 for life is only possible in a world of orderly sequences and uniform laws2 but seeing that as a matter of fact such orderly sequences and uniform laws meet us everywhere #hb in nature1 is not the inference fairly inevitable8 ,let us be quite clear on one point3 there are two ways1 and two only1 in which any phenomenon can be accounted for--design or chance2 what is not purposed must be accidental4 ,does1 then1 nature impress us as the outcome of chance8 ,if we saw a faultlessly executed mathematical diagram illustrating a proposition in ,euclid1 should we really be satisfied with the statement that it represented the random pencil-strokes made by a blindfolded child ignorant of geometry8 ,on the other hand1 if a fretful baby is allowed to divert himself by hammering the piano keys1 is the result ever remotely akin to a tune8 ,we know perfectly well that we never get harmony1 order1 beauty1 rationality by accident2 and there is only one other alternative--design1 purpose1 guidance4 ,professor ,fiske quotes a quaint observation of ,kepler's illustrating this very point1 which we may be allowed to reproduce3-- ,yesterday1 when weary with writing and my mind quite dusty with considering these atoms1 ,i was called to supper1 and a salad was set before me4 ,it seems then1 said ,i aloud1 that if pewter dishes1 leaves of lettuce1 grains of salt1 drops of oil and vinegar1 and slices of eggs1 had been floating about in the air from all eternity1 it might at last happen by chance that there would come a salad4 ,yes1 says my wife1 but not so nice and well-dressed as mine is6 ,mrs4 ,kepler's shrewd1 homely remark gives its last touch of absurdity to the suggestion #hc that a world which we see to be pervaded by unfailing law has come together by sheer1 incalculable accident4 ,not so much as a salad of respectable calibre could be accounted for upon such a theory2 how much less credible is it that the universe began with a cosmic dance of unconscious atoms whirled along by unconscious forces1 and happening so to combine as to produce order and sequence1 life and consciousness1 will and affection6 ,but not only does the universe exhibit a sublime order which is the very contrary of what we can associate with the blind workings of chance2 not only do the circling immensities of the stars and the microscopic perfections of the snow-crystals alike point to a shaping and directing ,mind and ,will3 what nature reveals--what is implied in the very term evolution--is not merely order but progress4 ,as ,fiske has it1 ,whatever else may be true1 the conviction is brought home to us that in all this endless multifariousness there is one single principle at work1 that all is tending towards an end that was involved in the very beginning4 ,in other words1 the supreme certainty brought home to us by the researches of modern science is that all creation is thrilled through by an all-encompassing ,purpose4 ,we really ask for no more than such an admission2 that1 in short1 is our case4 ,we can clinch the whole argument with one quiet sentence of ,mr4 ,chesterton's3 ,where there is a purpose1 #hd there is a person4 ,if ,mr4 ,spencer's ,infinite and ,eternal ,energy1 from which all things proceed is purposive1 that is equivalent to saying that ,god is what we mean by personal4 ,but ought we not to have shown first of all that ,he is conscious8 ,no1 for the greater includes the less1 and purpose is unthinkable apart from consciousness4 ,in saying this we are aware that a philosopher like ,eduard von ,hartmann speaks of the wisdom of the ,unconscious1 of the mechanical devices which ,it employs1 of the direction of the goal intended by the ,unconscious1 etc41 etc42 but this1 we are bound to say1 is to empty words of their meaning4 ,to intend1 to direct anything requires at least that the one so doing should be conscious of what it is he is doing4 ,and consciousness1 intelligence1 directivity are constituents never found apart from personality4 ,but1 we are told1 the choice lies1 not between personality and something lower1 but between personality and something inconceivably higher4 #e ,we reply that we have already made the acquaintance of this idea of a super-personal ,deity1 and found that for all practical--i4e41 religious--purposes the super-personal is simply the impersonal under another name4#f ,and when we remember that the inconceivably higher than personal ultimate ,reality of the agnostic possesses neither #he consciousness1 nor will1 nor intelligence1 we simply fail to see how a ,power lacking these attributes could be even personal1 to say nothing of its being more than personal4 ,be this1 however1 as it may1 the decisive fact remains that we are persons1 and therefore personality is the highest category under which we can think2 and if we1 the children of the ,eternal1 are endowed with personality1 it is sufficient for us to know that a cause must be at least adequate to produce the effects that have flowed from it4 ,nothing can be evolved but what was first involved4 ,on this ground alone1 whatever else ,god may be1 ,he is at least personal2 and that is all we were anxious to establish4 ,that is all--but it is also all-important2 for it cannot be too emphatically insisted that without a personal ,god religion simply ceases to be4 ,it is a strange and delusive fancy on ,professor ,hudson's part1 and that of a good many people1 that the religious emotions will survive the de-ethicising1 depersonalising of the ,deity1 and that men will remain deeply religious even when it is recognised that the ,great ,enigma1 the eternal and inscrutable energy1 the ultimate ,reality cannot be spoken of as a ,personal ,creator1 or an intelligent ,governor of the universe4 ,for our own part1 we find it difficult to believe that such a forecast could have been framed by anyone possessing a first-hand knowledge of what the religious #hf emotions are2 we say with the utmost confidence that no such emotions can be felt towards a ,power which cannot be thought of as conscious1 let alone as benevolent or personally interested in us4 ,we well know that we can be nothing to such a ,power--nor can ,it be anything to us2 for a ,god who does not care1 does not count4 ,we cannot commune with this chill and awesome ,unknown2 we can only pray to ,one who hears2 we can only love ,one who has first loved us4 ,in the last analysis1 an impersonal ,deity such as one hears occasionally spoken of1 is a mere contradiction in terms1 the coinage of confused and inaccurate thought4 ,where the meaning of personality is so much as understood1 doubt as to the ,divine ,personality vanishes2 and least of all will that truth be doubted by those who see the supreme revelation of ,god in ,jesus ,christ4 ,he1 the ,incarnate ,son1 has shown us1 not a ,power but a ,person--the ,person of the ,father--and1 to-day as of old1 it sufficeth us4 #a ,the ,churches and ,modern ,thought1 by ,philip ,vivian1 p4 #bca4 #b ,three ,essays on ,religion1 ,r4,p4,a4 reprint1 p4 #he4 #c ,this and subsequent quotations are taken from pp4 #ajh-aai of ,prof4 ,hudson's ,introduction to the ,philosophy of ,herbert ,spencer4 #d ,op4 cit41 p4 #bca4 #e ,hudson1 op4 cit41 p4 #aaf4 #f ,supra1 p4 #df4 #hg ,,chapter ,,vi ,,evil versus ,,divine ,,goodness ,that the renewed emphasis upon the ,divine immanence must have for one of its effects that of raising the problem of evil afresh1 and in a particularly acute form1 will be obvious to anyone who has thought out for himself the implications of that doctrine4 ,dark and pressing enough before1 this particular problem has1 in appearance at least1 been both complicated and accentuated by the displacement of ,deism4 ,if1 as we have argued on a previous occasion1 there is a certain causal connection between ,deism and a somewhat sombre outlook upon the world1 on the other hand the existence of evil seemed to fit in better with a view of ,god which represented ,him as outside the universe than with one which insists upon ,his indwelling in creation4 ,if the earth was the scene and playground of undivine agencies which work their will while the ,divine control is withdrawn1 then many things became comparatively easy of comprehension2 indeed1 there was a certain consolation in the thought that-- ,all the things that had been so wrong ,after all would not last for long1 #hh but that ultimately ,god would resume the supreme control ,he had temporarily abandoned1 while the ,power of darkness would be bound and cast into the abyss4 ,if1 however1 we must think of ,him as omnipresent and for that reason directly and uninterruptedly cognisant of all1 then the plain man can only ask himself with a deepening wonder why an all-good and unimaginably powerful ,being should permit evils of every description to lay waste ,his own creation4 ,no one can enter into the house of the strong1 and spoil his goods1 except he first bind the strong2 and since a direct overpowering of ,god by ,satan is out of the question1 is not the assumption to which we are driven this--that the ,strong ,one is absent while ,his goods are being spoiled1 and that it is this very absence of which the spoiler has taken advantage8 ,somehow1 we feel1 if ,he were really present--as present as the doctrine of immanence would have us believe--,he would actively assert ,himself against wrongs and abuses2 and when we think of the blood and tears that are shed the world over as the result of disordered desire1 industrial greed and political misrule1 we find it difficult not to echo the words of psalmist and prophet1 ,why standest ,thou afar off1 ,o ,lord8 ,why hidest ,thou ,thyself in times of trouble8 ,verily ,thou art a ,god that hidest ,thyself4 ,in saying this we do not suggest that such an attempt to explain the phenomena of evil #hi by ,god's supposed absence from the world is defensible2 we do say that the belief in ,his all-encompassing nearness makes those phenomena even more difficult of explanation than they were before4 ,the devout deist could always comfort himself with the thought that1 however mysterious ,god's standing afar off might be1 by and by1 when ,he drew nigh again1 ,he would deal out even-handed justice to all2 but such comfort is not open to those who explicitly deny ,god's remoteness1 but on the contrary assert that ,he is the ,presence from which there is no escaping4 ,and the fact of evil1 physical and moral1 is precisely the chief and most fruitful source of religious scepticism2 it is not the abstract question whether there is a ,god1 but the practical and insistent problem whether the ,divine goodness can be reconciled with the facts of life and experience1 that is agitating men's minds1 and sways their decision for or against religion4 ,everyone knows that this is what ,mr4 ,mallock some time ago called the crux of ,theism2 that crux1 to use his own language1 is not the existence of intelligent purpose in the universe1 which may be freely conceded1 but whether the processes of nature are or are not consistent with a ,god possessing the character which it is the essence of ,theism to attribute to ,him1 and which alone could render ,him an object of religion1 or even of interest1 to mankind4 ,sometimes in accents of wistful #ij wonder1 sometimes in tones of revolt and defiant unbelief1 the question is asked3--,why does ,god allow dire calamity1 painful disease1 earthquakes and shipwrecks1 and accidents of the mine8 ,why does ,he permit war1 or vivisection1 or poverty1 or vice--in fact any of the heartache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to8 ,we should stop these things if we could2 why does not ,he8 ,one is reminded of ,mr4 ,william ,watson's passionate arraignment of the ,powers of ,europe at the time of the ,armenian massacres3-- ,yea1 if ye could not1 though ye would1 lift hand-- ,ye halting leaders--to abridge ,hell's reign4 4 4 ,if such your plight1 most hapless ye of men6 ,but if ye could and would not1 oh1 what plea1 ,think ye1 shall stead you at your trial1 when ,the thundercloud of witnesses shall loom ,at the ,assizes of ,eternity8 ,the application of these burning lines is painfully obvious4 ,it would be a positive relief were it thinkable that the ,eternal would1 but cannot1 stem the flood that rolls ,hoarser with anguish as the ages roll2 or if one might1 with a modern novelist1 compare the case to that of a practitioner doing his best for a wilful patient1 with poor appliances and indifferent nursing4 ,but if ,he could and will not--oh1 what plea8 ,what frankly appals men and freezes the worshipful instinct in their hearts is the #ia apparent ,divine indifference1 the silence of ,god1 in the presence of so much human wretchedness4 ,if one could only feel that ,he cared for and sympathised with ,his suffering creatures1 it would be a help1 like the sympathetic pressure of the hand from a friend1 which does not lessen the actual calamity that may have befallen us1 but makes it easier to bear2 but an indifferent ,god is equivalent to no ,god at all--or1 as we have previously expressed it1 a ,god who does not care1 does not count4 ,the mere sense that ,he was sorry for us would lighten the stroke of fate which ,he had not been able to avert2 but if the truth is that ,he might have averted it by the simple exercise of ,his will1 but refused to do so1 coldly looking on at our grief--not from afar1 but close by--then we can only say that no ,god at all were better than that4 ,it seems1 then1 as though1 in order to escape from palpable inconsistency between theory and fact1 we should have to make a surrender either of ,his immanence1 or ,his omnipotence1 or ,his benevolence1 or the reality of evil4 ,to surrender the ,divine immanence will not really solve our problem4 ,near or far1 closer to us than breathing or dwelling beyond the furthest star1 ,god is still the ,author of our being1 the ,framer of the world and all that therein is1 the ,cause without which there would have been no effects4 ,if1 after creating the world1 ,he withdrew from it to an inconceivable #ib distance1 it is none the less ,his handiwork2 if it is in and through ,his absence that the cosmic mechanism has got out of gear1 it is yet ,he who willed to be so absent1 well knowing what results would supervene2 if a power other than ,he and hostile to ,him has usurped the place and title of ,prince of this world1 such usurpation would have been impossible but for ,his acquiescence1 and personified ,evil1 playing with human happiness1 would still be ,his licensed agent4 ,evidently1 the solution of which we are in search does not lie along that way4 ,we turn1 therefore1 to the second possible explanation1 strongly put forward by ,mill1 according to whom natural theology points to ,god as a ,being of great but limited power4 ,those who have been strengthened in goodness by relying on the sympathising support of a powerful and good ,governor of the world 7he says7 have1 ,i am satisfied1 never really believed that ,governor to be1 in the strict sense of the term1 omnipotent4 ,they have always saved ,his goodness at the expense of ,his power4 ,they have believed 4 4 4 that the world is inevitably imperfect1 contrary to ,his intention4#a ,to the question1 ,of what nature is the limitation of ,his power8 he returns the tentative answer that it probably results either from the qualities of the material--the substances and forces of which the universe is composed not admitting of any arrangements by which ,his purposes could be more completely fulfilled2 or else1 the purposes might have been more fully attained1 but the ,creator did not know how to do it2 creative #ic skill1 wonderful as it is1 was not sufficiently perfect to accomplish ,his purposes more thoroughly4#b ,such an answer1 we need scarcely say1 could only have been given by a thinker who had grown up in the intellectual atmosphere of ,deism2 the ,deity which he contemplates is ,one who works upon the world purely ab extra1 who cannot be spoken of as the ,creator1 except by courtesy2 in reality ,he merely shapes and adapts materials over which ,he has only an incomplete control1 and which1 therefore1 so far from having been called into being by ,him1 must be thought of as existing independently of ,him4 ,had ,he really created the raw material from which ,he was to frame the universe1 ,he would of course have created some medium perfectly plastic to ,his hand and adapted to ,his purposes2 but if ,he merely operates on matter from without1 finding it stubborn and unamenable1 ,he is only a secondary ,deity or ,demiurge1 and we have still to answer the question1 ,what is that real ,first ,cause1 the ,urgott who created the ,urstoff1 matter in its most elementary form1 and endowed it with qualities some of which were destined to serve1 while others resisted and frustrated1 the sub-,divinity's intentions8 ,clearly1 this notion also will not do2 but while we may reject ,mill's theory as to the nature of the limitations of ,divine power1 there #id is distinct force in his shrewd contention that religious people generally--professions to the contrary notwithstanding--have never really believed ,god to be1 in the strict sense of the term1 omnipotent4 ,this contention we believe1 indeed1 to be almost self-evidently true2 for on the contrary supposition nothing can happen contrary to ,god's will--all things and beings would necessarily be carrying out that will1 and sin1 e4g41 would become an utterly meaningless term4 ,but if omnipotence is limited--which sounds1 we admit1 a contradiction in terms--we ask once more1 ,in what way and by whom8 ,to that question we have no other reply than the one given in our first chapter1 viz41 that when we predicate limitation of the ,deity1 we must mean self-limitation4 ,in creating the universe1 we said1 ,god made a distinction between ,his creation and ,himself1 and to that extent limited ,his ,being--for the universe is not identical with ,god2 we now add that in endowing man with an existence related to1 but distinct from1 ,his own1 ,he limited not only ,his infinite ,being1 but also ,his infinite ,power1 delegating some portion thereof to us--for man's will is not identical with ,god's will1 but capable of resisting1 though also capable of co-operating with it4 ,without such individual initiative1 without such an individual faculty of choosing between alternatives of action1 man could never have been a moral agent2 but moral liberty to choose and act aright or amiss implies also #ie moral responsibility for such choice on the part of the chooser4 ,this neglected truth of ,god's self-limitation of ,his power needs to be far more explicitly avowed than has generally been the case4 ,only so shall we get clear of the confusion and uncertainty with which the subject of human freedom is so largely surrounded2 only so shall we be enabled to place the burden of responsibility for sin1 the cause of so immense a proportion of the world's suffering1 upon the right shoulders--i4e41 man's1 not ,god's4 ,it is urgently necessary to disperse the common fallacy according to which ,god1 being the ,author of all1 is the causative ,agent answerable for all the happenings in ,his universe1 for all human pain and all human sin4 ,where freedom is1 there is responsibility4 ,for let us bring the matter down from the abstract to the concrete3 if a dreadful railway accident is caused through the momentary mental lapse of a signalman who has been overtaxed by excessive working hours1 how is the responsibility ,god's8 ,it obviously belongs to those who imposed a task involving the safety of human lives on a man who was not in a fit condition to fulfil such a duty4 ,if an explosion in a coal-mine1 accompanied by terrible loss of life1 is caused through some miner striking a match1 or carrying a naked light1 in defiance of well-known regulations of safety1 how is ,god responsible8 ,he has endowed us with intelligence whereby to #if discover ,his laws1 and with freedom to obey or disobey them3 the use or misuse of that freedom rests with ourselves4 ,but now it may be asked--,was it the act of a benevolent ,deity to entrust this terribly two-edged weapon of liberty to our unskilful hands1 in which it was bound to work so vast an amount of injury8 ,and this opens up the larger and more general question1 ,must we1 in view of the facts of life1 surrender the idea of the ,divine benevolence8 ,it is quite true that the evidence of purpose discernible in the whole structure of the universe proclaims the ,deity to be personal2 but1 as ,mr4 ,mallock says1 the theistic doctrine of ,god is not a doctrine that the supreme mind acts with purpose1 but a doctrine that it acts with purpose of a highly specialised kind--viz41 benevolent purpose4 ,let us once more state the problem in the partial but very pertinent form in which it arises in connection with man's faculty of freedom4 ,to bestow upon ,his creatures a gift which ,he must have known they would use in such a manner as to work infinite harm to themselves and to each other1 seems prima facie no more compatible with kindly intentions than it would be to leave children to play with sharp tools1 loaded firearms and deadly poisons2 since disaster was bound to ensue from such a course1 does not responsibility for the disaster rest with the one who deliberately provided the #ig elements for it8 ,but such a comparison1 while superficially plausible1 upon reflection is seen to be beside the mark4 ,we really cannot plead such inexperience of right and wrong1 such ignorance of moral safety and moral danger1 as would furnish a true parallel between playing with temptation and playing with cyanide of potassium4 ,in setting before us life and good1 and death and evil1 ,god has as distinctly placed within our hearts the moral intuition which1 says1 ,therefore choose life4 ,but why1 the questioner proceeds1 have made sin even possible8 ,because1 we answer1 not to have done so would have made morality impossible4 ,it cannot be too often1 or too plainly1 pointed out that just as the only alternative to purpose is chance1 so the only alternative to liberty is necessity4 ,that is to say1 ,god could no doubt have made us automata instead of free agents2 but even ,he could not have made us free to choose the right1 yet not free to choose its contrary4 ,choice that is not willed is not choice at all2 goodness by compulsion is not goodness1 but merely correctitude--the behaviour of a skilfully-devised mechanism1 but possessing no moral quality whatever4 ,we are not at present concerned with the view of those who maintain that men are de facto no more than such cunning casts in clay a contention which will occupy us at a later stage2 we merely state the commonplace that in making us free ,god ,himself could not also #ih make us impeccable1 insusceptible to temptation1 immune against the possibility of sin4 ,the real question1 then1 shapes itself as follows3 ,can we discern the nature of the purpose which expresses itself in the bestowal of this gift of freedom8 ,stated in that form1 we see that the question has already been answered by implication2 for if there could be no morality without liberty1 it is fair to make the inference that the very object of ,god in allowing us to choose between alternatives of conduct was to make morality so much as possible4 ,was that a good and beneficent object8 ,we submit that even those who impeach the ,deity for opening the door to sin would on second thoughts confess that morally free--and therefore peccable--beings stand on a higher level than marionettes1 however faultlessly contrived to perform certain evolutions4 ,the truth of the matter is set forth with poetic insight in ,andersen's story of the ,nightingale--the immeasurable difference between the artificial bird and the real songster1 whose melodious raptures somehow touched a chord in the listener which all the nicely-calculated trills and cadences of the ingenious mechanical toy failed to set in motion4 ,in like manner we repeat that the power to determine his own course raises man to a plane incomparably higher than he could have occupied as an automaton4 ,the same faculty of free choice which in its abuse makes the sinner1 in its right #ii exercise furnishes forth the saint4 ,all that we mean by moral progress1 by the steady gain of man1 his rise to more exalted ideals1 his conquest of baser appetites--all that makes the history of the race a thrilling and uplifting drama--is bound up with his possession of liberty2 it is this supreme gift which makes him a little lower than the angels1 and crowns him with glory and honour4 ,alone of all earthly beings1 man is not only an effect but a cause2 his freedom--not unlimited but quite real within its not inelastic confines--is the noblest of all his faculties1 even though for that very reason it is capable of being most ignobly perverted4 ,what its bestowal tells us is that ,god does not call us into servitude1 but to that service which is perfect freedom2 ,he might have made us ,his playthings1 as ,plato suggested1#c but by endowing us with the power to choose for ourselves ,he has made us ,his potential fellow-workers4 ,may we not ask--,who1 after all1 would prefer the safety of automatism to the glory of this ,divine adventure8 ,in all this we are not shutting our eyes to what is involved in the misuse of liberty--the dread nature of wilful sin and its ghastly harvest of wrecked and ruined lives2 we do not say that the price of freedom is not a heavy #ajj one1 nor do we pretend that the subject is free from painful mystery4 ,it could not be otherwise2 that we1 with our limited vision and circumscribed understanding1 should be able to solve that mystery with any completeness1 is not even to be imagined4 ,nevertheless1 we may claim that we have at least obtained a glimpse of the purpose of ,god in conferring upon the race this fateful power2 for this and no other was the appointed means by which man was to ascend to his true place as a moral and spiritual being4 ,if we can admit that purpose to be in harmony with the ,divine benevolence1 we may the more hopefully turn to other aspects of our problem4 #a ,three ,essays on ,religion1 p4 #bb4 #b ,ibid1 p4 #gi4 #c ,the ,laws1 vii1 #hjc3 ,greek ,theou ti paignion memechanmenon4 ,compare also ,browning's unhappy phrase1 ,god1 whose puppets1 best and worst1 are we4 #aja ,,chapter ,,vii ,,evil versus ,,divine ,,goodness 7,continued7 ,there is probably no more serious aspect of the popular philosophy which declares so confidently1 ,there is no will that is not ,god's will1 than that1 while professing to be a ,gospel of sweetness and light1 it in reality plunges us into the very depths of pessimism by making ,god ,himself ultimately responsible for all the evil and suffering in the world4 ,from such a position1 from such premises as these1 there is only one step to such conclusions as have been actually drawn3-- ,it is ,his world1 remember2 ,he made it1 and ,he is omnipotent4 4 4 ,if creation does not please the ,creator1 why did ,he not make it better8 ,if it is wayward and intractable1 it can be no more than ,he expected1 or ought to have expected4 ,wherein consists ,his right to punish us for our transgressions8 ,suppose we challenge it2 what will ,he say in defence8 ,we may shrink with distaste from such wild and whirling words2 but if it be true that there is no will that is not ,god's will--if whatever takes place in the universe expresses that almighty will--they are as rational in their very vehemence as ,omar's lines are rational in their melancholy3-- #ajb ,o ,thou1 who didst with pitfall and with gin ,beset the ,road ,i was to wander in1 ,thou wilt not with ,predestin'd ,evil round ,enmesh1 and then impute my ,fall to ,sin6 ,o ,thou1 who man of baser ,earth didst make1 ,and ev'n with ,paradise devise the ,snake3 ,for all the ,sin wherewith the ,face of ,man ,is blacken'd--,man's forgiveness give--and take6 ,it is only when we clearly recognise that man is other than a mere phase or mode of the one ,eternal ,being2 that he has been endowed with individual existence and individual will1 and therefore with individual responsibility--and that for the express purpose of realising his highest potentialities3 it is only when we accept such a reading of the facts as this that we escape from that worst of nightmares which reaches its climax in hurling its foolish defiance at the ,most ,high1 challenging ,his right to punish the instruments of ,his own will1 those helpless pieces of the game ,he plays1 impotent items in that unending spectacle-- ,which for the pastime of ,eternity ,he doth ,himself contrive1 enact1 behold4 ,but if it is true that ,god bestowed freedom upon us because only as free agents could we learn to love and do the right for its own sake2 if it is true that the struggle which we have to wage against our lower impulses has the wholly benevolent object of enabling us to achieve the glory of a perfected character1 it has also to be borne in mind that under no #ajc circumstances can character be conceived otherwise than as the result of growth4 ,that is to say1 ,god ,himself could not call moral perfection into being ready-made1 by a mere fiat1 and that for the same reason which precludes omnipotence itself from making two straight lines to enclose a space1 i4e41 because the idea involves a self-contradiction4 ,so true is this that we read even of our ,saviour that though ,he was a ,son1 yet ,he learned obedience by the things which ,he suffered1 and in this manner was made perfect4 ,character in its very definition is the result of many deliberate exercises of a free will2 and if the evolution of character was an object dearer to ,god than the highest mechanical or animal perfection1 that object could have been secured in no other way than by this particular endowment4 ,and here we shall also find the reply to the very natural inquiry why ,god does not1 as ,he might1 intervene or frustrate the evil designs of wrong-doers4 ,why does a good ,god allow ,his intentions to be set at defiance by those whom the prophet described as drawing iniquity with cords of vanity1 and sin as it were with a cart rope8 ,it would not matter so much1 we sometimes bitterly reflect1 if the sinner injured only himself by his wickedness2 but how often are the innocent made to suffer by the devices of the unscrupulous and selfish6 ,why1 we repeat1 this strange non-intervention of the ,most ,high on behalf of ,his own cause8 #ajd ,on this it must be remarked in the first place that those who accept ,god's transcendence will be careful not to rule out a priori the possibility of such ,divine action as1 regarded from our point of view1 would have to be described as intervention2 the question whether such action has ever taken place1 is a question of fact1 and the view that at particular junctures ,god has thus actively intervened is at any rate capable of being strongly argued4 ,but admitting1 as we think we must1 that ordinary life does not show any instances of such supernatural interposition--that a reckless financier is allowed to enrich himself by cornering the wheat supply and sending up the price of the people's bread2 that a band of reactionaries may arrest the course of reform and plunge a country back into darkness2 that a beneficent act of the legislature may be defeated by greedy cunning--must we despair of solving the general problem which such cases suggest8 ,we think1 on the contrary1 that the explanation may be legitimately sought in what we conceive to have been the ,divine intention in making man free2 that intention1 the making of character1 would obviously suffer defeat by ,god throwing ,his weight--if we may use such a phrase--into this scale as against that1 furthering here and checking there1 for character1 as we just said1 can only result from the free exercise and interplay of will with will4 ,we may well imagine ,god's mode of action to #aje resemble that of a human parent who entrusts a growing child with a growing measure of liberty and responsibility1 well knowing that in the use of it he will have many a slip and stumble1 and occasionally hurt himself2 such a parent will carefully refrain from interference1 preferring that the child should learn his own lessons from his own mistakes1 well knowing that we profit only by the experience for which we ourselves have paid4 ,no one will1 of course1 pretend that such a reconciliation of the facts of sin with the axiom or intuition of ,divine all-goodness is other than incomplete2 we merely urge that1 having regard to the magnitude and the complexity of the subject it could not be otherwise4 ,a theory1 without accounting for all the facts1 may be true so far as it goes1 correctly indicating the way which1 if we could pursue it further1 would lead us into more and fuller truth4 ,no doubt1 when that which is perfect is come1 that which is in part will be done away2 but pending the advent of a complete explanation1 a partial one is not without all value4 ,indeed1 the very inadequacy of our instruments1 resulting in that incompleteness of which we just spoke1 should once more suggest a reflection which1 while in no wise original or startling1 is specially relevant to the subject under discussion3 for if ,god's knowledge necessarily and immeasurably transcends ours1 if ,he knows more than we1 does it not follow #ajf with equal certainty that ,he knows better8 ,granted that we do not understand how this or that dispensation of ,providence fits in with the general belief in ,his perfect goodness1 our failure to understand no more disproves that goodness than the similar failure of a child to comprehend why such and such irksome tasks are imposed upon him by his parent1 disproves the wisdom and goodness which prompt the parent's act4 ,the child cannot understand2 but where the relations are at all normal he acquiesces1 being on general grounds convinced that the parental commands aim at his welfare1 and that his parents1 after all1 know better than he4 ,is the application so far to seek8 ,in the second place--turning now from the subject of sin to that of evil generally--it may be worth while to remind ourselves of a fact which seems to be forgotten by some of the impetuous arraigners of the ,deity1 viz41 that1 after all1 the problem is not a new one1 which they have suddenly discovered by dint of superior sagacity4 ,what we mean is this3 the problem of evil as such is of anything but an abstruse or remote nature1 nor one requiring unusual philosophical penetration to bring to light2 on the contrary1 pain and sorrow1 privation1 adversity1 death--these are experiences that have come within the cognisance of all4 ,if1 then1 the facts are neither so remote nor so inconsiderable that men could have simply #ajg forgotten to take them into account in framing their estimates of the ,divine character1 how is it1 we ask1 that they have arrived at and clung to the belief in the benevolence of ,god at all8 ,if the proof to the contrary was so overpowering1 why1 as a matter of fact1 has it not overpowered them8 ,why should an unknown ,hebrew singer have given expression to this extraordinary sentiment1 ,though ,he slay me1 yet will ,i trust in ,him--and why has that sentiment been re-echoed by millions of men and women acquainted with grief and affliction8 ,the early ,christians did not exactly live lives of luxury or even security1 sheltered from contact with tragedy and horror2 yet the keynote of primitive ,christianity is the note of joy1 while the background of early ,christian experience is a radiant conviction of the ,divine benevolence4 ,and when we remember that the same holds true of so many eminently spiritual souls in all ages1 who have combined a keen sensitiveness to evil and suffering of every kind with an unshakeable trust in the lovingkindness of ,god1 we shall scarcely accuse all this cloud of witnesses of having simply drugged themselves and refused to accept the evidence of their own senses4 ,if men and women suffering from anything rather than moral blindness or moral anaesthesia could1 and can1 nevertheless believe with all their hearts in the ,divine ,fatherhood1 is not such a recurring circumstance significant in itself8 #ajh ,evidently1 granting all the facts1 more than one reading of the facts is possible2 not cloistered mystics1 or anchorites withdrawn from the world1 but heroes engaged in fighting its ills1 have steadfastly proclaimed that ,god is good2 is it an altogether unreasonable hypothesis that their faith1 if it outsoars ours1 may be the result of a deeper insight8 ,and this1 in turn1 suggests another thought1 simple enough in itself1 yet not always borne in mind in connection with this particular theme--viz41 that we are never dealing with facts per se1 but with facts plus our interpretation of them1 which may be right or wrong1 but which1 right or wrong1 helps to decide in a very large measure what the facts themselves shall mean to us4 ,our attitude towards the events which befall us makes all the difference4 ,if men have been ruined by success1 it is as true that men have been made by failure4 ,if men have deteriorated through ease and plenty1 men have been stimulated to effort through hardship and poverty4 ,in a word1 if there is much in the burden1 there is as much in the shouldering4 ,but for ,dante's consecration of sorrow1 the world would have lost the ,commedia ,divina4 ,but for a painful and permanently disabling accident1 the ,english ,labour ,movement would not have had one of its principal leaders in ,mr4 ,philip ,snowden4 ,and as for the influence of outward events and environment generally1 ,mr4 ,chesterton may exaggerate in #aji suggesting that everything good has been snatched from some catastrophe1 but he is certainly right when he says that the most dangerous environment of all is the commodious environment4 ,on the other hand1 of an environment the reverse of commodious1 it has been observed3-- ,logic would seem to say1 ,if ,god brings great pain on a man1 it must make the man revolt against ,god4 ,but observation of facts compels us to say1 ,no1 on the contrary1 nothing exercises so extraordinary an influence in making men love ,god as the suffering of great pain at ,his hands4 ,scientific thinking deals with facts as they are1 not with a priori notions of what we should expect4 ,and in this matter1 the fact as it is1 is that goodness is evolved from pain more richly than from any other source4#a ,we may think such a statement too absolute1 and point to cases where the effect of physical suffering has been altogether different2 but if it is true that in certain well-authenticated and not merely exceptional instances such visitations have resulted in strengthened faith and heightened goodness1 our main contention is proved1 namely1 that the attitude of the individual himself towards the events of his life has much to do with determining what those events are to mean to him4 ,instead of ,was the gift good8 we should more often ask1 ,was the recipient wise8 ,pain is pain1 and disaster is disaster2 but the spirit in which we meet them matters immensely4 #aaj ,but now we are confronted with a more fundamental question3 ,could not ,god have obviated the phenomenon of pain altogether8 ,could ,he not have made us incapable of feeling any but pleasant sensations8 ,mill1 who in his essay on ,nature devotes some--for him--almost vehement pages to this subject1 reaches the conclusion that the only admissible moral theory of ,creation is that the ,principle of ,good cannot at once and altogether subdue the powers of evil #b2 and in dealing with the same topic in the essay on ,theism1 while admitting that appearances do not indicate that contrivance was brought into play purposely to produce pain1 he holds to the view that its very existence shows the power of ,god to be limited ab extra1 by the material conditions under which ,he works3-- ,the author of the machinery is no doubt accountable for having made it susceptible to pain2 but this may have been a necessary condition of its susceptibility to pleasure2 a supposition which avails nothing on the theory of an omnipotent ,creator1 but is an extremely probable one in the case of a ,contriver working under the limitation of inexorable laws and indestructible properties of matter4#c ,such a view of the case1 as we have already said in our previous chapter1 is purely deistic2 but we must now proceed to point out1 with great respect for so great an intellect as ,mill's1 that the supposition which1 he says1 avails nothing #aaa on the theory of an omnipotent ,creator--viz41 that susceptibility to pleasure involves susceptibility to pain--seems to us to fit and cover the facts precisely2 for a capacity for pain and a capacity for pleasure are not two different things which could conceivably exist apart from each other1 but are only different manifestations of one and the same capacity1 viz41 for experiencing sensations of any kind whatsoever4 ,we could no more be capable of feeling pleasure1 while incapable of feeling pain1 than we could be sensitive to musical harmonies1 while insensible to musical discords2 besides which1 monotony of sensation annihilates sensation4 ,on this point we may invoke against the pre-evolutionist ,mill a modern scientific authority like ,professor ,fiske1 who expresses himself to the effect that without the element of antagonism there could be no consciousness1 and therefore no world4 ,it is not a superficial but a fundamental truth1 he observes1 that if there were no colour but red1 it would be exactly the same thing as if there were no colour at all4 4 4 ,if our ears were to be filled with one monotonous roar of ,niagara1 unbroken by alien sounds1 the effect upon consciousness would be absolute silence4 ,if our palates had never come in contact with any tasteful thing save sugar1 we should know no more of sweetness than of bitterness4 ,if we had never felt physical pain1 we could not recognise physical pleasure4 ,for #aab want of the contrasted background1 its pleasurableness would cease to exist4 4 4 ,we are thus brought to a striking conclusion1 the essential soundness of which cannot be gainsaid4 ,in a happy world there must be sorrow and pain4 #d ,and this necessity1 we would add1 does not follow from ,god's failure to overcome any inexorable laws and indestructible properties of matter1 but is implied in the inexorable laws of thought--in that eternal right reason which makes it impossible for ,deity to do what is self-contradictory or absurd4 ,but if the necessity of pain be thus admitted--a most important admission--we may now take a step further ahead4 ,even ,mill1 as we just saw1 expressly disclaimed the notion of attributing physical evil to malign intention on the ,creator's part2 what separates us from ,mill is that in our view the laws of nature1 in inflicting pain1 do not act independently of ,god1 but are ,his laws4 ,do those1 it may be asked1 who allege ,his indifference in not interfering with the operation of the forces of nature when they injure us1 frame a very clear notion of the way in which they think that ,god should1 or might1 manifest ,his interest8 ,on reflection it will be found that what they ask for--the only possible alternative to an unbroken natural order--is such constant miraculous interposition as would make that order non-existent4 ,but assuming that there #aac were no regular sequence or uniformity to speak of--if we never knew whether the course of nature might not be interrupted at any moment on somebody's behalf--should we really be so much better off8 ,would humanity be happier if chaos was substituted for order8 ,without seeking to mitigate the suffering entailed by the unhindered action of nature's forces1 it is still certain that the sheer confusion of a world in which law had been abrogated would be infinitely worse4 ,indeed1 this is to understate the case2 for the fact is that in such a world all the activities of life would be completely paralysed1 and hence life itself1 as we have already had occasion to point out1 could not be carried on4 ,but if the reign of natural law thus represents the only set of conditions under which life is even possible2 and if at the same time this law1 which operates all the time and never relaxes its hold1 is the expression of the will of ,god1 how can we charge ,him with indifference8 ,the truth is1 on the contrary1 that ,he is exercising ,his care1 not intermittently1 by performing a miracle whenever things go wrong1 but continually1 and without any interruption whatsoever4 ,were ,his law other than steadfast1 were there occasional or frequent departures from it1 were it possible to defy nature with impunity just now and again1 the results of such irregular action would be disastrous in the extreme2 it is because ,his will is constant1 and ,his decrees without #aad variableness1 that we are able to learn and obey them1 and by obeying to master nature4 ,but1 after all1 ,he made the laws1 and ,he could have made different ones4 ,certainly2 but a moment's reflection will show that ,he could not have made laws of any kind1 disobedience to which would have had the same consequences as obedience4 ,he might--for all we can say to the contrary--have made strychnine nutritious1 and wheat deadly to us2 but even in that case an indulgence in wheat would have brought about the unpleasant effects at present associated with an overdose of nux vomica4 ,he might have made a raw1 damp atmosphere1 with easterly winds1 the most conducive to health2 but even then it would have been rash to take up one's residence in a warm1 dry climate4 ,pain is an indication that the processes of life are suffering some more or less serious disturbance2 given1 therefore1 any set of natural laws1 and the necessity of obeying them as the condition of life itself1 and we see that disobedience to them would always and inevitably mean pain4 ,we repeat that ,god might have made different laws2 but whatever they were1 their breach must have recoiled upon the breaker4 ,yet even if reflections like these demonstrate to us the necessity for pain1 we are still left to face those greater calamities and disasters which sweep away human lives by the hundred and thousand1 catastrophes like the ,sicilian #aae earthquakes1 that are marked by an appalling wantonness of destruction2 must not such events as these also be attributed to ,god1 and how are they to be reconciled with ,his alleged benevolence8 ,certainly1 no one would attempt to minimise the horrors of the ,sicilian tragedy2 the human mind is overwhelmed by the suddenness1 no less than the magnitude1 of an upheaval of nature resulting in the blotting-out of whole flourishing communities4 ,and yet we venture to say1 paradoxical though it sounds1 that it is1 partly at least1 owing to a certain lack of imagination that such an event looms so immense in our thoughts4 ,most of us do not make the ordinance of death in itself an accusation against the ,most ,high2 we are not specially shocked or outraged by the thought that the whole population of the globe dies out within quite a moderate span of time1 nor even by the reflection that several hundred thousand persons die every year in the ,united ,kingdom alone4 ,we know quite well that every one of those who perished in ,messina must have paid his debt to nature in1 at most1 a few decades4 ,so1 then1 the whole point in our arraignment is this--,it would not have been cruel had these deaths been spread over a period of time1 but it is cruel that they should have taken place simultaneously2 it would not have been cruel had the victims of the earthquake died of illnesses--in many cases prolonged and painful--but it is cruel #aaf that death should have come upon them swiftly1 instantaneously1 without menace or lingering pain2 it would not have been cruel had children survived to mourn their parents1 husbands their wives1 brother the loss of brother1 as in the ordinary course--but it is cruel that by dying in the same hour they were spared the pang of parting4 ,we repeat that it is because we ordinarily use our imaginations too little that we are so apt to lose our balance and sense of proportion in the presence of these catastrophes2 and it may be permissible to point out that there is probably1 quality for quality1 and quantity for quantity1 more grey1 hopeless suffering1 more wretchedness and tragedy1 in ,london to-day than was caused by the ,sicilian catastrophe--suffering and wretchedness that are due not to nature1 but to sin1 though not necessarily on the sufferer's part4 ,and there is1 in justice1 something more to be said when we speak of these dire visitations4 ,while every instinct of humanity inspires us with sympathy for the victims buried under the ruins of ,messina and ,reggio1 it is1 of course1 a matter of common knowledge that the soil on those coasts is volcanic1 and liable to such commotions2 if men will take the risk of living in such localities1 we may pity them when the disaster comes1 but we cannot very fitly impeach ,providence4 ,there is a village near ,chur in ,switzerland1 which has twice been wiped out by avalanches1 yet each time re-built #aag on the same spot2 year by year material is visibly accumulating for a third deadly fall1 and when it takes place1 as take place it will1 men will speak of the dispassionate cruelty of nature4 ,time after time the lava from ,mount ,vesuvius has overwhelmed the localities that nestle on its slopes1 but human heedlessness proves incurable4 ,if the ,sicilians1 knowing the nature of the soil1 had built their towns of isolated1 one-storied1 wooden structures1 at a reasonable distance from the shore1 the effects of earthquake and tidal wave would not have been one hundredth part as terrible2 yet ,messina is being re-built on its former site1 and apparently in the old style of architecture--a proceeding which simply invites a repetition of the same kind of disaster4 ,it is literally true that these greater calamities are in nearly every instance capable of being averted or their incidence minimised2 to give an obvious instance1 one is almost weary of seeing it repeated that the famines and consequent epidemics which visit ,india could be immensely reduced by a wise and generous expenditure on irrigation1 the improved cultivation of the land1 the enlargement of the cultivable area1 and so forth4 ,but men find it easier to turn accusing glances to the sky than to bestir themselves and to use more wisdom1 foresight and energy in directing and subduing the forces of nature4 ,we are well aware that what has been written in the pages of this chapter is no #aah more than a series of scattered hints2 we do not for a moment imagine that1 in the aggregate1 they amount to more than a most fragmentary resolution of the difficulty presented by the reality of evil--indeed1 we have already expressed our belief that a full solution must in the nature of things lie beyond our ken4 ,but if it should appear from the foregoing considerations that some aspects of our problem--such as the existence of sin and of pain--are not as irreconcilable with the goodness of ,god as may have seemed to be the case1 reflection should lead us to the reasonable hope that if we understood more1 we should receive fuller and fuller proof of the truth that ,god is ,love4 ,and when we remember that that ,love shines out most brightly from the ,cross1 and that the world's greatest tragedy has been the world's greatest blessing1 the turning-point in the history of the race1 we may well hush our impatience1 refrain over-confident criticisms1 and commit ourselves to the ,father's hands even while we can only see ,his purposes as in a glass1 darkly4 ,we may believe1 with the psalmist of old1 that by and by we shall behold ,his face in righteousness2 we shall be satisfied1 when we awake1 with ,his likeness4 #a ,r4 ,a4 ,armstrong1 ,god and the ,soul1 pp4 #afa-afb4 #b ,op4 cit41 p4 #ba4 #c ,ibid1 p4 #hb4 #d ,through ,nature to ,god1 pp4 #cf1 #cg4 #aai ,,chapter ,,viii ,,the ,,denial ,,of ,,evil ,we closed our last chapter with a confession and an appeal--a confession of the incompleteness of our answers to the questions suggested by the fact of evil1 and an appeal for patience in recognising that that incompleteness is inevitable1 having regard to our constitutional limitations4 ,there is1 as ,newman said1 a certain grave acquiescence in ignorance1 a recognition of our impotence to solve momentous and urgent questions1 which has a satisfaction of its own4 #a ,that1 however1 is an attitude to which all will not resign themselves4 ,if a knot cannot be unravelled1 their one idea of what to do is to cut it2 if evil cannot be explained1 it can at any rate be denied4 ,thus we find a distinguished living essayist1 with a large constituency of cultured readers1 writing as follows3-- ,the essence of ,god's omnipotence is that both law and matter are ,his and originate from ,him2 so that if a single fibre of what we know to be evil can be found in the world1 either ,god is responsible for that1 or ,he is #abj dealing with something ,he did not originate and cannot overcome4 ,nothing can extricate us from this dilemma1 except that what we think evil is not really evil at all1 but hidden good4 ,if the views of ,divine power and responsibility set forth in this book are true--if1 i4e41 we are justified in having recourse to a theory of ,divine self-limitation--it will be clear that ,mr4 ,benson's dilemma is1 to say the least1 overstated2 but were that dilemma as desperate as he depicts it1 it has strangely escaped him that his suggested mode of extrication is more desperate still4 ,for what he asks us to do is quite simply to abdicate our judgment in respect of both physical and ethical phenomena--not merely to withhold our decision upon this or that particular occurrence1 but to admit in general terms that evil is only apparent and not real4 ,but see to what such an admission commits us3 if we have no grounds for saying that evil is evil1 we can have no grounds either for saying that good is good2 if our faculties are incompetent to diagnose the one kind of phenomena accurately1 they cannot be any more competent to diagnose and deliver reliable verdicts upon the other kind4 ,it is quite a mistake to think that by getting rid of the reality of evil we preserve or affirm the more emphatically the reality of good2 if we confidently pronounce our experience of evil an illusion1 what value can there attach to our finding that our #aba experience of its opposite is a fact8 ,such is the ,nemesis which waits on remedies of the heroic order4 ,nevertheless this particular remedy seems to be enjoying a considerable popularity at the present time2 indeed1 in discussing some aspects of the doctrine which affirms the allness of ,god1 and the allied one of ,monism1 we have already seen that where these are professed1 evil must be explicitly or implicitly denied4 ,this denial is common to the various confused movements--all of them the outcome of a misconceived idealism--which under the names of ,new ,thought1 ,higher ,thought1 ,joy ,philosophy1 ,christian ,science1 etc41 etc41 find their disciples chiefly amongst that not inconsiderable section of the public which has been aptly described as dominated by a longing to combine a picturesque certainty devoid of moral discipline with unlimited transcendental speculations4 ,all these cults combine a vague optimism with an extravagant subjectivity2 all would have us believe that so far from things being what they are1 they are whatever we may think them to be2 all with one accord treat evil in its various manifestations as unreal1 and maintain1 as it has been neatly phrased1 that the process of cure lies in the realisation that there is nothing to be cured4 ,the attraction of such a doctrine for that large number of persons who dislike strenuous effort--either intellectual or #abb moral--is easily accounted for4 ,evil as a fact is not conducive to the comfort of those who contemplate it--how pleasant to be told that it exists only in disordered imaginations2 the sense of sin has always interfered with the enjoyment of life--what a relief to learn that it is merely a chimaera2 pain is grievous indeed--what benefactors are those who teach us how to conjure it away by the simple process of declaring that there is no such thing6 ,a creed promising to accomplish such desirable objects could be sure of votaries1 if proclaimed with sufficient aplomb2 here1 we may surmise1 is the main explanation of the welcome given to those monistic ethics to which we referred in an earlier chapter1 and of the vogue of so-called ,christian ,science1 which invites consideration as the most typical and important of a whole group of movements4 ,we repeat that the nature of the ,christian ,science appeal largely explains the rapid spread of this cult4 ,christian ,science is quite unlike other religions in this1 that while they promise at most salvation--an intangible boon--,mrs4 ,eddy promises her followers health1 relief from bodily pain and sickness1 and thus addresses herself to a universally and urgently felt want4 ,a merely spiritual message may fail to obtain listeners2 but--to state the truth baldly--a person need not be particularly spiritually-minded in order to be drawn towards ,christian ,science4 ,the natural man would much rather #abc be made well than made good1 and a creed which professes to be able to do the former will touch him in his most sensitive part4 ,certainly1 this was one of the difficulties of ,christ's public ministry1 viz41 that the people flocked to ,him to be cured rather than to be taught4 ,but while ,he declined to place the emphasis on ,his works of healing--while ,he left ,capernaum by ,himself before sunrise in order to escape the importunities of the mob1 and refused ,peter's request that ,he should return thither with the words1 ,let us go elsewhere into the next towns that ,i may preach there also2 for to this end came ,i forth--,christian ,science addresses its sure appeal to man's material nature4 ,the contrast is significant4 ,and yet the true essence of ,christian ,science is not faith-healing in the ordinary sense4 ,it does not say1 e4g41 ,here is a case of genuine1 unmistakeable rheumatism or consumption1 but faith is able to dispel it2 on the contrary1 it says1 ,this alleged rheumatism or consumption is a mere illusion1 a phantasm of the imagination2 and the way to be cured is for the 'patient' to discover his mistake4 ,there are no maladies--there are only malades imaginaires4 ,mrs4 ,eddy states in plain words that ,mortal ills are but errors of thought #b2 it is from this point of view that ,christian ,science as a system has to be approached and understood4 #abd ,with the fantastic exegesis of ,scripture on which this creed professes to be based1 we are not directly concerned2 else something might be said of the method of interpretation which is to be found in the official text-book of the movement--a method which sees in the serpent the symbol of malicious animal magnetism1 which identifies the ,holy ,ghost and the ,new ,jerusalem with ,christian ,science1 and the little book brought down from heaven by the mighty angel with ,mrs4 ,eddy's own magnum opus1 ,science and ,health4 ,as ,mr4 ,podmore drily remarks1 ,in these holy games each player is at liberty to make words mean what he wants them to mean2 at the same time1 these grotesque and arbitrary constructions are not precisely calculated to inspire the confidence of balanced minds4 ,let us1 however1 turn at once to the fundamental axioms of ,christian ,science3-- 7#a7 ,god is ,all in all4 7#b7 ,god is ,good4 ,good is ,mind4 7#c7 ,god1 ,spirit1 being all1 nothing is matter4 7#d7 ,life1 ,god1 ,omnipotent ,good1 deny death1 evil1 sin1 disease4 ,in other words1 ,christian ,science begins--and1 for the matter of that1 ends--with the categorical statement that the one and only ,reality is ,mind1 ,goodness1 ,god1 all three of which terms it uses synonymously and interchangeably4 ,so much being granted1 the rest follows in a concatenation according2 the #abe possible permutations are many--the result is always one4 ,god is ,all3 hence1 says ,mrs4 ,eddy1 ,all is ,god1 and there is naught beside ,him2 but ,god is ,good1 and as ,he is ,all1 it follows that ,all is ,good2 and if all is good1 there can be no evil4 ,again1 ,mrs4 ,eddy propounds the following three propositions3 ,god is ,mind2 ,good is ,mind2 ,all is ,mind2 therefore1 once more1 all is good1 all is ,god1 and there can be no evil4 ,or1 to introduce another variation--,god is ,all1 and ,god is ,mind2 therefore ,mind is all2 therefore there is no matter4 ,grant the ,christian ,science premises1 and there is no escaping the ,christian ,science conclusions4 ,but do we grant these premises--do we grant ,mrs4 ,eddy's fundamental pantheistic assumption of the allness of ,god #c8 ,we have shown again and again why we do not2 and with the rejection of the basal tenet of ,christian ,science the superstructure follows4 ,but now let us show how all ,mrs4 ,eddy's juggling with words1 all her assertions of the goodness of all and the allness of good1 do not help her to get rid of evil4 ,granting for argument's sake that ,mind is the only reality1 then the test of reality must be this--that something exists in or for a mind2 in so far1 #abf then1 as evil1 pain1 and so forth exist1 as ,christian ,science tells us1 only in some mind--in so far as disease is a thing of thought #d--;evil1 pain1 disease1 etc41 must pro tanto be real1 nay1 the most real of realities1 for where except in mind could they exist8 ,and even if we can successfully annihilate them by denying their existence1 whence did they come in the first place8 ,from malicious animal magnetism8 ,but if ,god is ,all in all1 and ,all-good1 what is that malicious animal magnetism which is somehow not ,god and not good8 ,does not this whole tangle serve yet once more to illustrate the futility of that doctrine of ,divine allness which we have seen successfully masquerading as ,divine immanence8 ,let us test the worth of these speculations in yet another way4 ,christian ,science declares evil to be non-existent1 illusory1 an error of thought4 ,but that which is true of a species must be true of all its genera2 if all men are mortal1 and ,socrates is a man1 it follows that ,socrates is mortal2 if evil as a whole is nonexistent1 that which applies to the general phenomenon must equally apply to each and all of its manifestations4 ,but error is undoubtedly a form1 and even a serious form1 of evil2 from which it would follow that if evil is not real1 error is not possible--and in that case one opinion is as good as its opposite1 and black and white are only different #abg descriptions of the same thing4 ,but if that is so1 if one thing is as true as another1 we shall conclude that1 e4g41 the rejection of ,christian ,science is no more erroneous than its affirmation4 ,will ,christian ,scientists acquiesce in that inference8 ,and if they will not1 by what means do they propose to show that it is not a legitimate deduction from their own axiom1 the unreality of evil8 ,if error is a real fact1 evil must be so to that extent2 on the other hand1 how can it be an error to believe that evil is real1 if error1 being an evil1 must itself be illusory8 ,but it is time we turned from our examination of the principles of ,christian ,science to their application4 ,so far as the wholesale declaration of the illusoriness of physical evil--the ravages and tortures of disease--is concerned1 the implicit belief extended to the pretensions of this creed to master all such ills is proof1 if proof were wanted1 of the success which rewards those who act on the maxim1 de l'audace1 toujours de l'audace6 ,given the right kind and amount of faith1 we are assured1 ,christian ,science treatment will prove effective in a case of double pneumonia1 or compound fracture1 or malignant tumour1 without the assistance of the physician--above all1 without drugs1 which are pronounced taboo by ,mrs4 ,eddy2 and that1 to quote ,mr4 ,podmore again1 is a postulate which can never be contradicted by experience1 for failure can always be #abh ascribed--as it is1 in fact1 ascribed by the ,christian ,scientist to-day--to want of faith or ',science' on the part of the sufferer4 ,nothing could be more entirely simple or unanswerable3 if the patient improves or recovers1 the credit goes to ,christian ,science2 if he gets worse or dies1 the unfortunate result is debited to his lack of faith4 ,the only thing ,christian ,science fails to answer is1 as we have already seen1 the preliminary question1 viz41 what caused the disease--or at any rate the semblance1 the malignant hallucination of disease--in the first instance4 ,if ,god is all and all is ,god2 if ,god is ,mind and there is nothing but ,mind2 if all therefore is mind and all is good--whence in a good ,mind comes even the hallucination of pain and evil8 ,the thoughts of the practitioner1 says ,mrs4 ,eddy1 should be imbued with a clear conviction of the omnipotence and omnipresence of ,god2 4 4 4 and hence1 that whatever militates against health 4 4 4 is an unjust usurper of the throne of the ,controller of all mankind4 #e ,but if ,god is omnipresent1 ,his presence must be displayed in the disease2 if ,he is omnipotent1 how can there be a usurper on ,his throne8 ,if ,he is ,all1 how can there be aught beside ,him8 ,these are points on which we wait in vain for enlightenment from the ,boston mysteriarch4 #abi ,we shall be told1 however1 that whatever flaws there may be in the theory of ,christian ,science1 this cult could not possibly have obtained its vogue if it were all promise and no performance2 and as a matter of fact1 testimonies to the curative effect of the treatment abound1 furnished by those who say they have been restored to health by these methods1 and as convincing as such testimony can be4 ,we use the latter phrase advisedly2 it is impossible to read these documents without being convinced of the entire good faith of the writers in relating what they themselves believe to be true2 it is impossible not to be convinced by the perusal of their accounts that cures of some sort took place3 the one thing of which it is possible to remain quite unconvinced is the fundamental contention of ,christian ,science1 viz41 that there was no disease to be cured4 ,speaking quite generally1 if one is going to be impressed by testimonials there is of course1 no patent pill of respectable advertising power which cannot produce such by the wastepaper-basketful2 and perfectly sincere and unsolicited testimonials1 too4 ,what these prove1 however1 is neither that the patients have been cured of the particular diseases they may name--and in the diagnosis of which they may very likely be mistaken--nor above all that it is the taking of a particular preparation to which they owe their cures2 they prove the enormous power of suggestion and auto-suggestion1 in #acj virtue of which many ailments yield to the patient's firm assurance that by following a certain course he will get better4 ,everyone knows that a manner which inspires confidence1 a happy blend of cheerfulness and suave authority1 is of at least equal value to a physician as his skill and diplomas2 and it is probably true1 approximately at any rate1 that a man can no more be cured of a serious illness unless he believes in his curability1 than he can be hypnotised against his will4 ,but between the recognition of such a fact1 and the description of a cancer as an obstinate illusion1 or a crushed limb as an error of thought1 there is just the difference which separates sanity from extravaganza4 ,in short1 that which is of truth in ,christian ,science is not peculiar to it2 while what is peculiar to its teaching1 the denial of the reality of shattered legs1 wasted lungs1 diseased spines1 etc41 is not true4 ,the power of mind over body1 the possibility of healing certain diseases by suggestion1 is not the discovery of ,mrs4 ,eddy2 the assumption on the other hand1 that all diseases are susceptible to such treatment is characteristic of the school of which she is the latest and best-known representative--only it is false4 ,all physicians of broad practice and keen observation realise that certain pains may be alleviated or cured1 and that certain morbid conditions may be made to disappear1 provided a change in the mental #aca state of the patient can be brought about4 4 4 4 ,it does not require special learning to build up a psychotherapeutic practice based upon the observation of such cases2 and the ,christian ,science healers1 narrowly educated and of narrow experience1 have done just this thing1 resting upon the theory that the mental influence of the healer is the effective curative agent4 ,it is easy to see how a development of this theory would lead to the assumption that all kinds of diseases may be curable by mental influence emanating from a healer1 this leading to the practice of the so-called 'absent-treatment1' with all its follies and dangers4 #f ,when it is added that the ,christian ,science healer is a professional person1 and that the cost of absent-treatment may come to as much as ten dollars an hour1 we need say no more about the dangers alluded to4#g ,that the quasi-religious formulas of ,christian ,science may prove extremely effective in bringing about such a change in the mental state of certain patients as will cause pains #acb to be alleviated or cured1 and morbid conditions to disappear1 one need have no hesitation in believing2 moreover1 as the medical author just quoted acutely observes1 it is quite possible that some patients would not be cured unless they were allowed to believe that their cures are due to some mysterious or miraculous agency4 ,but even such an admission does not mean that ,christian ,science does more than apply the principle of suggestion1 increasing its efficacy by utilising the religious faculty of the patient2 nor1 above all1 does it give countenance to the root-contention of the creed1 viz41 that pain and disease are unreal4 ,once more1 if mind be the only reality1 then pain1 seeing that it can only be experienced by a mind1 is real in exact proportion as it is intense4 ,it might seem unnecessary to add anything more to what has been said in refutation of the claims of ,christian ,science so far as physical healing is concerned2 but one or two very simple considerations will complete our case without greatly detaining us4 ,in stating categorically and without qualification that mortal ills are but errors of thought1 ,mrs4 ,eddy seems to have overlooked two classes of patients to whom it would be somewhat difficult to apply this sweeping generalisation4 ,we wonder1 for instance1 how this theory could be made to cover the large category of infantile ailments4 ,how1 we are #acc entitled to ask1 would ,christian ,science deal with the teething-troubles which attend babyhood8 ,is it seriously suggested that a feverish1 wailing child is merely the victim of an hallucination--and how would the ,christian ,scientist undertake to convince him of his illusion8 ,on the face of it1 such an enterprise does not look hopeful4 ,but further1 it so happens that human beings are not the only sufferers from pain and sickness2 animals are subject to diseases1 and often to the same diseases as men4 ,we disclaim all intention of treating the subject otherwise than seriously--but if a man's rheumatism is an illusion1 what causes the same affection in a dog or a chimpanzee8 ,and if an embrocation may be used with good effects in the latter case1 why may it not be used in the former8 ,we need not press these questions2 they will serve as they stand to show once more how this whole pretentious philosophy about the unreality1 the imaginary nature1 of pain breaks down as soon as we subject it to simple tests4 ,so also with the ,christian ,science attitude towards drugs1 the prescribing of which ,mrs4 ,eddy places in the same category as the denial of ,god4#h ,an obvious comment suggests itself3 ,if drugs cannot cure1 it follows that they cannot hurt2 will some adherent to this teaching show his consistency in the faith by swallowing a small1 but sufficient quantity #acd of oxalic acid8 ,and so1 finally1 with ,mrs4 ,eddy's singularly futile question1 ,as power divine is in the healer1 why should mortals concern themselves with the chemistry of food8 #i ,without unkindliness1 one feels tempted to reply that this kind of language will begin to be convincing when ,christian ,scientists show their readiness and ability to sustain life on substances chemically certified to be without nutritive properties4 ,but it is not its denial of physical evil that makes this and allied movements a real menace2 dissent as we may from the ,christian ,science theory of bodily illness1 and deplore as we must the fatal results of which we read every now and again when a patient has been persuaded to substitute the ,christian ,science healer for the trained physician--these results concern1 to put it rather bluntly1 no one but the sufferer and his immediate friends4 ,but when we remarked that the natural man desired to be made well rather than to be made good1 we were not merely thinking of one side of ,christian ,science teaching2 we were bearing in mind that the author of ,science and ,health declares the illusoriness of pain only as part of the illusoriness of all evil1 moral as well as physical4 ,christian ,science explicitly denies the reality of sin3 and that denial follows with inexorable logic from its first principle--that #ace ,god is ,all1 and ,all is ,good4 ,and here rather than in the material domain lies the danger we have to face2 this is the side of ,mrs4 ,eddy's doctrine which1 the moment it is attractively presented to1 and grasped by1 half-educated and unstable minds1 will1 we fear1 exercise a fatal fascination over large numbers4 ,for one person who will seriously persuade himself that there is no matter1 or that his sore throat is imaginary1 there will be a number to welcome the good tidings that what they had hitherto regarded as sin wears in reality no such sinister complexion--that1 as ,mrs4 ,eddy openly states1 what seems vice is to be explained as illusions of the physical senses4 ,that is precisely what every sinner would like to believe4 ,i have done that1 says my memory4 ,i cannot have done that1 says my pride1 and remains obdurate4 ,in the end1 my memory gives in4 ,so wrote ,nietzsche1 keenly and cynically observant of his kind4 ,as a matter of fact1 men would give almost anything to be able to convince themselves that they have not done that--not necessarily from pride1 but in order to be rid of shame1 of remorse1 of self-contempt2 will not many of them only too eagerly accept this fatal anodyne when it is offered to them in the pretended name of religion8 ,we have but one comment to urge1 one protest to make4 ,it has taken long ages to develop and heighten man's sensitiveness to #acf the distinction between good and evil2 we say with the most solemn emphasis that anything calculated to dull that sensitiveness1 to wipe out that distinction1 to drug the conscience1 is nothing less than a crime of high treason against humanity4 ,better call evil an unfathomable mystery1 so long as we also regard it as a dread reality1 a foe we must conquer or be conquered by2 but to solve the problem by denying its existence1 to get over the fact of evil by declaring that all is good--that way not only madness but moral disaster lies4 ,let us at least understand what this doctrine is1 which is being so energetically pressed upon us to-day2 and if we see the direction in which that ill-digested pseudo-revelation is likely to lead those who consistently accept it1 let us meet this insidious propaganda with equal energy and better arguments4 ,our first and simplest duty in dealing with the specious doctrine which asserts that evil is not-being--a mere illusion which1 like the idols spoken of by the ,apostle1 is nothing in the world--is to point out promptly and uncompromisingly that whatever such a reading of the facts may be1 and from whatever quarter it may be offered1 it is not ,christian1 but at the furthest remove from ,christianity4 ,shall we be told that the question is not whether these opinions are dangerous1 but whether they are true8 ,we reply that we are well aware that truth is the highest expediency2 but we are not #acg acquainted with any other test of the truth of an opinion save this--whether and how it works4 ,if a speculative theory1 when carried into practice1 should appear to make straight for pernicious results1 in what intelligible sense of the word can it be true8 ,it is the immense merit of ,christianity that it has spoken out with no uncertain voice upon this subject2 it has never sought to minimise or explain away the fact of moral evil2 on the contrary1 it has consistently pointed to the true nature of sin1 by connecting it vitally and causally with the sacrificial death of the ,son of ,god3 tanta molis erat 7if we may slightly vary the immortal line7 humanam solvere gentem4 ,a gospel which lightly dismisses this terrible reality1 and seeks to hide its hideousness behind a rose-coloured mist of fine words1--such an emasculated gospel is not a message of life1 but has the answer of death within itself4 ,that in the past1 in a doctrine such as that of man's total depravity1 the fact of sin has been over-emphasised1 may be readily granted2 but in the present all the symptoms indicate that the peril we have to meet is its under-emphasis4 ,against this whole tendency we must resolutely re-assert the ,christian standpoint and attitude4 ,christianity is that religion which affirms in unfaltering accents the reality of evil--but it sets over against it the greater ,reality of atoning ,love2 it proclaims unsparingly the sinfulness and deadliness #ach of sin1 but offers us the victory over sin and death through ,jesus ,christ our ,lord4 ,o ,timotheus1 guard your trust1 and eschew the irreverent empty phrases and contradictions of a mis-called ',science1' professing which some have missed their true aim in regard to the faith4 ,,note4 ,in order to afford an illustration of ,christian ,science as a thing in being1 we reproduce without comment the following report of an inquest1 as published in the ,tribune1 on ,january #ith1 #aijh3-- ,remarkable questions were put by the coroner to witnesses at a ,richmond 7,surrey7 inquest yesterday on ,mary ,elizabeth ,dixon1 #eh1 a ,christian ,scientist1 who died of bronchitis4 ,mrs4 ,e4 ,d41 of ,st4 ,john's ,road1 said that at the request of ,mrs4 ,dixon she gave her ,christian ,science help--prayer which she had faith would be answered4 ,the ,coroner 7,dr4 ,michael ,taylor73 ,was it8--,she was in a state of collapse on ,saturday night1 but revived much4 ,when ,mrs4 ,dixon had a cold previously it improved wonderfully under ,christian ,science4 ,then ,christian ,science is effectual if not much is the matter1 but is not in the case of a serious illness8--,i don't think she wanted to get better4 ,is that the way you look at it8--,no1 ,i don't4 ,i know ,god is all-power and ever present4 ,but if ,god is all-powerful1 as you say1 and as we all know1 why did you have no response8--,i suppose it was my lack of trust in that all-power4 #aci ,it comes to this1 that although ,he is all-powerful1 unless the person praying for another has perfect faith the patient will not recover8--,nothing is impossible to ,god4 ,the doctor was called in because it was the law4 ,then it was too late4 ,it was as much the law to have called him in when the woman was alive4 ,what is the practice with regard to illness8--,it is prayer4 ,if you had a broken leg1 would you send for a doctor8--,yes1 to set it4 ,i have not sufficient understanding4 ,continuing1 witness said she did not believe in drugs1 but she did in food at present1 because her understanding was not sufficient1 as she was only a student4 ,by a ,juror3 ,the reason ,mrs4 ,dixon got worse was because of lack of understanding on witness's part4 ,the ,coroner3 ,when she got worse1 why did you not send for a doctor8--,i asked her if she wanted a doctor to tell me4 ,yet she was getting worse owing to your lack of understanding8--,i didn't look at it in that light4 ,b4 ,h41 who attended ,mrs4 ,dixon1 said she was a trained nurse with nine years' experience4 ,witness had1 during the past two years1 become a ,christian ,scientist nurse4 ,she was not a practitioner4 ,the ,coroner3 ,has a practitioner any special qualifications8--,no1 a practitioner is one who prays for another4 ,the ,coroner3 ,would you give a patient a mustard poultice8--,no4 ,but you would give her a hot-water bottle8--,yes4 ,then where do you draw the line8 ,you don't believe in material aid8--,no1 ,i believe the other is better4 ,do you believe in a judicious continuation of both8--,no4 ,did you give her beef tea8--,yes1 as a nourishment4 ,but1 nurse1 you ought to know what every medical man knows1 that beef tea is a stimulant4 ,do you believe in stimulants8--,not at all4 #adj ,then why did you give her beef tea8--7,after a pause7 ,it was simpler to get4 ,but it is contrary to your principles4 ,would you give sal volatile8--,no4 ,witness explained that she called in no other help because she believed prayer was the most effectual4 ,why didn't you call in a doctor8--,i think the patient should judge for herself4 ,even though her brain is clouded and she is dying8--,yes4 ,on another point the ,coroner said3 ,did our ,saviour use food and stimulants8--,he gave wine4 ,why don't you give wine8--,he did not give it in illness1 but at a marriage feast4 ,you want us to believe ,he gave wine to people who could do without and withheld it from those who wanted it4 ,asked a question as to calling in a doctor for surgery purposes1 witness said he would only be called in for setting bones and not for an operation4 ,the ,coroner3 ,it amounts to this3 you believe the ,almighty is a bad surgeon1 but a good physician8--,our faith is not yet strong enough4 ,dr4 ,cockell deposed that death was due to acute bronchitis4 ,would she have recovered with medical attendance for a week before8--,yes4 ,the ,coroner1 in summing up1 said there was no doubt ,mrs4 ,dixon was grossly neglected4 ,the jury returned a verdict of ,death from acute bronchitis1 accelerated by gross neglect by ,mrs4 ,d4 and especially by ,nurse ,h4 ,the ,coroner3 ,i am afraid that will mean manslaughter1 which would be too severe4 ,will you alter it1 gentlemen8 ,the jury then altered the verdict to one of severe censure on ,mrs4 ,d4 and ,miss ,h4 for neglecting to obtain medical aid4 #a ,the ,grammar of ,assent1 p4 #bja4 #b ,rudimental ,divine ,science1 p4 #aj4 #c ,op4 cit41 p4 #aj4 ,mrs4 ,eddy is so incredibly ignorant of the meaning of words in common use that she says1 ,mind in matter is pantheism4 ,it has apparently never dawned on her that her own doctrine1 ,god is ,all--,all is ,god is pantheism pure and simple6 #d ,ibid4 #e ,op4 cit41 p4 #i4 #f ,dr4 ,henry ,rutgers ,marshall1 on ,psychotherapeutics1 in the ,hibbert ,journal1 ,january1 #aiji4 #g ,the ,christian ,science healer is supposed to have had his or her powers trained by special tuition1 for which1 in the ordinary course1 a fee is charged4 ,mrs4 ,eddy states that she has never taught a ,primary class without several and sometimes seventeen free students in it1 but adds significantly ,the student who pays must1 of necessity1 do better than he who does not pay 7op4 cit41 p4 #ad74 ,the necessity is not quite obvious1 but the statement sets one wondering whether it would hold true if for student the word patient were substituted4 #h ,op4 cit41 p4 #c4 #i ,ibid41 p4 #ac4 #ada ,,chapter ,,ix ,,determinism ,the under-emphasis of sin1 we said1 is one of the special dangers which threaten the present age2 and nothing is more remarkable or disquieting to observe than the number of attacks that are being made to-day from quarter after quarter1 all of them converging upon the same point4 ,now the cry is raised that sin is a mere mistake1 due to ignorance2 or that it is merely the absence of something1 as a shadow indicates the absence of light#a2 or we are assured that what we call 'evil' is only incidental to the progress and development of the universal order #b--;a necessary step in evolution4 ,now again the burden of responsibility is shifted from the shoulders of the individual on to heredity and environment2 or compromise with what is known to be moral evil is not only excused as a necessity1 but commended as a duty2 or the average person's feelings are considerately soothed by #adb the pronouncement that the mass of a ,christian congregation are about as innocent as men and women can well be in a world where natural temptations are so rife1 and so many social adjustments discountenance heroic saintliness #c--the latter a truly admirable feat of circumlocution4 ,and sometimes1 as we have seen1 sin and evil are themselves in essence negated--generally in virtue of some pseudo-philosophic or pseudo-scientific doctrine of a universe--as when we read that in a universe 4 4 4 there cannot be any room for independent and creative wills1 actually thwarting the ,good ,will4 #d ,doubtless1 these various statements1 whether made in the name of ,monism or ,determinism1 or some form of neo-,christianity1 represent a reaction against that over-emphasis which taught that man was by nature under ,god's wrath and deserving of everlasting torments2 but there can be no question that this reaction has gone very far in the direction of the opposite extreme1 and that the time has come for reconsideration and a return to more balanced views4 ,so far as the virtual denial of human freedom1 human sin1 and indeed of human selfhood1 #adc flows from a perversion of the doctrine of ,divine immanence1 we need not add anything to the observations made in earlier chapters upon this subject2 we might1 however1 quote some pertinent words of ,martineau's1 affirming and explaining that distinction between the ,divine and human personality which can only be ignored to the hopeless confusion of thought3 ,the whole external universe1 then 7external1 ,i mean1 to self-conscious beings71 we unreservedly surrender to the ,indwelling ,will1 of which it is the organised expression4 ,from no point of its space1 from no moment of its time1 is ,his living energy withdrawn1 or less intensely present than in any crisis fitly called creative4 ,but the very same principle which establishes a ,unity of all external causality makes it antithetic to the internal1 and establishes a ,duality between our own and that which is other than ours2 so that1 were not our personal power known to us as one1 the cosmical power would not be guaranteed to us as the other4 ,here1 therefore1 at the boundary of the proper ,ego1 the absorbing claim of the ,supreme will arrests itself1 and recognises a ground on which it does not mean to step4 ,did it still press on and annex this field also1 it would simply abolish the very base of its own recognisable existence1 and1 in making itself all in all1 would vanish totally from view4 4 4 ,are we1 then1 to find ,him in the sunshine and the rain1 and to miss ,him in our thought1 our duty and our love8 ,far from it2 ,he is with us in both3 only in the former it is ,his immanent life1 in the latter ,his transcendent1 with which we are in communion4 #e ,only where this fundamental principle of the non-identity of ,god and man is recognised1 can the facts of human personality1 #add freedom and responsibility for willed acts be rationally based and defended4 ,at the same time this otherness of ,god1 while it is the condition1 is not necessarily the guarantee1 of our freedom4 ,determinism is quite compatible1 in theory1 and has been so found in history1 with belief in the ,divine transcendence2 but it is scarcely compatible with belief in the ,divine goodness4 ,there is no a priori reason making it inconceivable that the doctrine of absolute predestination might be true2 but such a doctrine is not reconcilable with the belief that the ,eternal ,other is also the ,eternal ,father4 ,the ,divine ,autocrat of ,calvinism1 who pre-ordained some of ,his creatures to eternal damnation--not for any demerit of theirs1 but just choosing so--is not unthinkable2 what is unthinkable is that we could love such a ,one--a ,god who had predestined all human sin and woe1 who had fore-ordered things in such a manner that unnumbered hapless souls were doomed evermore to stumble and to suffer4 ,such a ,god might inspire a shuddering1 wondering1 abject awe1 but never affection4 ,only a good ,god1 aiming at the evolution of goodness1 the making of character1 could have endowed us with freedom1 for only through such an endowment can such an aim be realised4 ,and hence there are perhaps few attitudes so entirely irrational as that which affects to see in a determinist interpretation of man's #ade nature a special reason for optimism4 ,occasionally one is invited to rejoice in the great and glorious thought that every man is wholly a product of the ,master ,workman2 it is even urged that such a conception cannot change our appreciation of what is fine in human thought and action1 just as we do not admire a rose the less because we know that it could no more help being what it is than could a stinging nettle or a fungus4 ,we can only say that such a superficial optimism seems infinitely more open to objection than the temper which1 in the face of so much suffering and sin1 has to struggle hard sometimes to preserve its faith in the ,father's love1 and half-wonders if some personal power of evil is not actively engaged in marring ,god's workmanship4 ,anyone who can believe that every man1 just as he is1 represents the ,divine intention in concrete form--anyone who can believe this1 and glory in the thought--must inhabit a strange world1 remote from reality4 ,he can never have learned anything of the greed which condemns myriads of human beings to sunless and degraded lives2 he can never have been inside a police-court2 he can never have seen hapless womanhood flaunting its be-rouged and be-ribboned shame under the electric light of ,west ,end thoroughfares--he can never even have reflected upon any of these things1 and rejoiced in the thought that every human being was wholly the #adf product of the ,master ,workman4 ,if such a thought does not produce something like despair1 it ought to do so2 if it does not1 then it represents not a conviction but a pose4 ,as a matter of fact1 the determinist creed1 with all its professions of charitableness towards the transgressor1 and while pretending to soothe us by absolving us from responsibility for wrong-doing1 fatally paralyses our endeavours4 ,it is a message1 not of liberation from guilt1 but of despair4 ,christianity1 even while condemning sin1 in its very condemnation speaks of hope2 it says to the sinner3 ,you are guilty--you ought to have done better1 and you know it2 you are guilty--you ought still to do better1 and you can4 ,that is a rousing1 vitalising call3 the very censure implies the possibility of better things4 ,but ,determinism says to the moral wreck3 ,not only are you a wreck1 but that is all you ever could have been2 you not only cannot help being what you are1 but in your wretchedness and degradation you are what you could not help being--this was your pre-ordained destiny from the beginning of time4 ,we are not angry with you1 any more than we are angry with tigers for being fierce1 or with thorns for not bearing grapes2 only1 being what you are1 you never could have borne1 and never will bear1 grapes4 ,truly a great and glorious thought6 ,determinism makes of the whole world of erring men a hospital1 and pronounces #adg every patient an incurable--it is ready to grant kindly1 considerate treatment to each1 but holds out hopes of recovery to none4 ,who would not rather submit to a sterner physician1 whose ministrations promised to medicine him back to health again6 ,a consistent ,determinism1 prepared to look stedfastly at things as they are1 can1 we repeat1 lead nowhere but to despair2 a conclusion from which determinists1 fortunately for themselves1 escape by means of the most patent inconsistency4 ,but we turn to the further contention which we already mentioned in passing1 viz41 that the acceptance of ,determinism would by no means change our admiration of what was fine in human thought and action--just as we did not admire a rose the less because it could not help being fragrant and beautiful4 ,here we have a very palpable1 but all the more significant confusion between things totally different--aesthetics and ethics4 ,our admiration for a rose is aesthetic2 our admiration for goodness is ethical1 and we give it with the implicit understanding that the quality we admire is the result of voluntary acts and decisions4 ,all moral judgments imply this2 and in practice we know that the experience of moral struggle and moral conquest is intensely real1 not to be argued away any more than we can be argued out of any other primary fact of consciousness1 which is its own sufficient evidence4 ,let anyone ask himself quite #adh candidly whether the feeling called forth by some rare work of art resembles remotely the emotion with which he reads of some deed of humble heroism or self-sacrifice2 the psychology which discerns here no difference is singularly shallow4 ,but when the would-be optimistic determinist is shown the sheer fatuity of pretending to rejoice in that everything is just as it is--a singular compliment to the ,master ,workman--he executes a volte-face and falls back upon the plea that his doctrine is at any rate a pre-eminently practical one4 ,instead of vainly deploring imaginary sins1 ,determinism would simply have us recognise plain facts3 it would arrange for healthy hereditary influences to cradle the coming generations2 it would adopt the most enlightened educational1 hygienic1 reformatory methods2 it would provide for all the citizens of the ,state such an environment as would steadily make for health and beauty and happiness4 ,there are no sinners1 it says1 but only the unhappy products of conditions which foster anti-social proclivities as automatically as dirt fosters disease2 instead of punishing the products1 let us attack the producing conditions1 and by sweeping them away bring in the millennium4 ,such a plea1 it must be admitted1 harmonises well with our modern tolerance1 our modern zeal for reform2 and yet it rests upon a fundamental fallacy4 ,no one1 of course1 denies the #adi moulding power of heredity and environment2 no one denies such an obvious truism as that we cannot expect to grow fine specimens of humanity in the reeking slum or the sweater's workshop4 ,but as environment is a greater power than heredity1 so there is only one power greater than environment--and that is our power to alter environment4 ,but that1 protests the determinist1 is just what we hold ought to be done4 ,certainly2 only it is just what1 on his presupposition1 cannot be done4 ,for if the slum-dweller cannot help being what he is1 owing to his environment1 neither can the slum-owner1 or the legislator1 or the community1 help being what they are1 owing to the self-same cause4 ,in fact1 we cannot get the word ought from ,determinism2 it is as much out of place in that connection as a free worker in a slave-compound4 ,but every reform springs from a sense of oughtness2 and the sense of moral obligation is itself the spontaneous expression of the consciousness of moral freedom4 ,so far as we believe in the duty of reform--or in duty itself1 sans phrase--we have already renounced ,determinism1 and proclaimed our belief in liberty4 ,let it be said once more1 before we pass from this particular aspect of our subject1 that too much may be set down to1 or expected from1 even environment2 everybody knows that from gentle homes1 surrounded by what seemed the most favouring influences1 #aej there have sprung vicious and depraved characters4 ,we ask ourselves1 in encountering such cases1 ,wanting is--what8 ,and the answer must be given in ,kant's famous dictum3 that which is the only good thing in the world--a good will4 ,in one sense1 paradoxical as it may sound1 much of the strenuous modern advocacy of ,determinism or semi-,determinism is a kind of inverted acknowledgment of man's consciousness of freedom1 viz41 where that consciousness appears as the sense of sin4 ,of course1 when a writer like ,mr4 ,dole assures us that there is no objection to a moral and spiritual ,determinism that binds all things over into the unity of good1 #f we merely reply that on the contrary there is the very serious objection that all things are not good4 ,but most advocates of the determinist position are1 to do them justice1 well aware of the existence of wrong and discord in human life2 and their object is1 by emphasising the influence of heredity and environment1 to remove or at least materially to lighten1 the crushing burden of the sense of sin4 ,the same intention underlies the effort1 occasionally made1 to persuade men that1 seeing they are such as ,god created them1 it is not for them to repine at being what they are1 nor to take too serious a view of any penchant for #aea revolt--another delightful phrase--they may discover within themselves2 as a recent writer has it1 ,the responsibility of its presence and action does not rest with us1 nor are we justified in insulting ,god who made us1 by repenting of what ,he has done4 ,we might as well repent of the tiger and the snake1 the earthquake and the tempest in nature4 #g ,what are we to say of this attempt to make ,god answerable1 not merely for the presence1 but for the action1 of whatever impulse to revolt of which we may be conscious8 ,to be quite frank1 we cannot think the utterance we have just quoted other than extraordinarily ill-considered4 ,the simple fact that we cannot follow all the impulses which arise in us1 but have to choose between higher and lower--the fact that we are well aware of this conflict of unharmonisable elements within ourselves1 some of which can only triumph at the expense of others--seems sufficiently to dispose of this writer's main contention4 ,we may not be responsible for the presence of these warring instincts1 but we are undoubtedly responsible for translating one kind into action while holding the other kind in check4 ,the earthward and the heavenward are in each of us1 striving for mastery2 but no imagination is vainer than that we can indulge both1 or practise the impartiality with which ,montaigne's singular devotee lighted one candle #aeb to ,st4 ,george and another to the dragon4 ,if we would realise the type of perfect in the mind1 we must not gratify the penchant for revolt1 but exert ourselves to lay-- ,the ghost of the brute that is walking and haunting us yet and be free2 we must ,arise and fly ,the reeling ,faun1 the sensual feast2 ,move upward1 working out the beast1 ,and let the ape and tiger die4 ,granted that the lower impulses1 the inheritance from our animal ancestry1 are left in us by ,divine decree1 they are there1 not to be indulged on the plea that to repent would be tantamount to insulting ,god who made us1 but to be conquered by the exercise of that freedom which is the earnest of our call to claim our birthright as children of ,god4 ,but when we are further told that1 as well as repent of our actions1 we might repent of the tiger and the snake1 we are immediately conscious of a double confusion of thought behind that statement2 for in the first place1 we are not even called upon to repent of each other's failings but only of our own1 and in the second there is no analogy between ourselves and the tiger and snake1 creatures which act according to their animal natures1 and are incapable of desiring to be other than they are4 ,our capacity of1 and desire for1 better things attest our possession of a measure of liberty1 and #aec indicate at once our responsibility for the course we take1 and the essential distinction between the animal creation and ourselves--a distinction wittily expressed in the remark that everybody would admit that very few men are really manly2 but nobody would contend that very few whales were really whaley4 ,but those who seek to spare us the discomfort of repentance by teaching us to declare with a new inflection1 ,it is ,he that hath made us1 and not we ourselves1 forget that there is another side to this argument4 ,it is1 of course1 very alluring to be told that we are not really blameworthy for acts which hitherto we have blamed ourselves for--that our impulses are ,god-given--that the sinner is merely a learner in a lower grade in the school1 #h and so forth2 one can understand how grateful is such a morphia injection for deadening the pangs of an accusing conscience4 ,the art of making excuses1 as old as the ,garden of ,eden1 will never lack ardent professors or eager disciples4 ,says ,cassius to ,brutus3-- ,have you not love enough to bear with me ,when that rash humour which my mother gave me ,makes me forgetful8 ,and ,brutus answers with a smile3-- ,yes1 ,cassius1 and from henceforth1 ,when you are over-earnest with your ,brutus1 ,he'll think your mother chides1 and leave you so6 #aed ,but1 after all1 we none of us do exclusively things for which we wish to escape being blamed2 there is hardly anyone who could not name some occasion on which he has made some sacrifice1 foregone an unfair advantage1 declined to listen to selfish promptings1 or held some baser impulse in check4 ,none of these things were done for the sake of receiving praise2 nevertheless1 and quite inevitably1 the doer felt praiseworthy1 conscious of an inner accord whose self-attesting power stamped it a reality1 and not an illusion4 ,but ,determinism leaves no room for this emotion1 any more than for that of remorse or blame-worthiness2 we cannot get rid of the sense of sin1 yet retain the sense of righteousness4 ,the determinist sponge passes over the whole moral vocabulary1 not only over the inconvenient parts2 it obliterates the terms self-indulgence1 dishonesty1 cowardice1 but the same fate overtakes self-conquest1 integrity1 bravery4 ,to vary the phrase slightly1 we must not1 on the determinist hypothesis1 insult ,god by taking credit to ourselves for what ,he has done4 ,are we prepared to surrender the approval of our conscience1 the new-won self-respect which rewards the successful resistance offered to temptation1 as having no basis in fact8 ,and if we are not1 what is this but to affirm our freedom and our responsibility alike in doing and forbearing8 #aee ,and this inner sense of peace or discord1 according as we have acted thus or thus--this immediate consciousness that it lay with us to choose aright or amiss--is both anterior and superior to all argument2 it asserts itself victoriously against all merely intellectual perplexities1 such as are apt to arise when we ask ourselves how man could be free to commit or not to commit an act1 in view of the ,divine omniscience4 ,the contradiction seems a stubborn one1 yet in practice we never feel our freedom circumscribed by it4 ,probably our difficulty arises largely from the mistake of applying time-relations to ,god at all1 and thinking of eternity as an enormously long period instead of timeless ,present1 excluding both unborn ,to-morrow and dead ,yesterday4 ,we1 of course1 have to think under the category of time1 remembering and looking forward2 but the ,divine modus cognoscendi excludes either of these processes1 being the timeless act of ,one who knoweth altogether--in whose sight a thousand years are as a day1 and a day as a thousand years4 ,to the ,eternal ,intelligence1 living in an unbeginning and unending ,present1 past and future must be equally unmeaning2 to such a ,one we cannot but think that all events must be equally and simultaneously present1 for all live unto ,him4 ,if we could behold the drama of existence sub specie aeternitatis1 we might be able to understand how #aef ,divine omniscience can co-exist with human freedom2 as it is1 we can only say1 ,such knowledge is too wonderful for us--it is high1 and we cannot attain unto it4 ,we know that we cannot know4 ,in any case1 even while the ,divine omniscience may present itself to us as a necessity of thought1 human freedom remains a reality of experience and a postulate of morals4#i ,there are1 however1 those to whom human freedom presents itself1 not as a contradiction to ,divine omniscience1 but as a contradiction in terms4 ,man's choice of a course of conduct1 they argue1 cannot be thought of as other than #aeg determined by an efficient cause2 but if it is so determined1 in what sense can it be free8 ,an uncaused act is strictly speaking unthinkable2 but do we not affirm that acts are uncaused when we speak of them as free--in other words1 is not the only alternative to ,determinism what might be called indeterminism8 ,the answer is 7a7 that every choice is certainly the result of an efficient cause2 but 7b7 the fact of this being so interferes in no wise with the reality of liberty1 nor does it contradict the universality of the law of causation4 ,for the efficient cause is the man himself1 and the fact that he can choose is attested in the very act of choice--which would not be choice if there were not at least two real alternatives4 ,we do not quarrel with the obvious truth1 stated by ,mill1 that the will is determined by motives2 we contest the assumption that a free act is an uncaused act4 ,the act is caused or determined by the free choice of a causal self2 in strict parlance1 indeed1 we should have to say that neither acts nor wills1 but only human selves1 are free4 ,the will is not self-determined1 but determined by a self2 and this self is able not only to choose between different motives1 but to attend to one set of motives to the neglect of others1 and even to create motives in order to become able to make a difficult decision4 ,let us1 however1 guard against a possible misconstruction by saying that there is all the difference between this conception of freedom #aeh and the mere spontaneity which is recognised by the followers both of ,spinoza and ,hegel1 a difference which was luminously brought out by ,martineau4#aj ,the ,spinozist doctrine of spontaneity1 as ,mr4 ,picton points out1 means that the individual follows an impulse which has its antecedents 4 4 4 in the chain of invariable sequences4 #aa ,man1 in this view1 is free to do what he wants1 because he wants it2 he is not free in the sense that he could have wanted something different4#ab ,nothing could be more frank than ,mr4 ,picton's statements on this point--as when he speaks of the free man's sense that all things are of ,god1 and could not have been otherwise3 ,of course the obvious retort occurs1 7he continues17 that if indeed everything 4 4 4 occurs by invariable sequence1 all this intellectual gospel of freedom is vain1 and exhortations to its acceptance thrown away4 ,and to those who are not satisfied with the freedom of conscious spontaneity1 a condition in which we do just as we want to do1 though our will is a link in an endless series of untraceable sequences1 ,i suppose this objection must still be final4#ac ,the objection is undoubtedly final1 because it is absolutely valid2 for by freedom we mean the ability to do or leave undone1 to act thus or thus1 and apart from such an ability moral judgments are quite unthinkable4 ,where we pronounce praise or blame1 the tacit #aei presupposition is always that the object of the pronouncement could have acted differently2 and this ,spinozism denies4 ,the same remark applies to the teaching of that modern ,absolute ,idealism which declares1 with ,green1 that man is his motives1 and that he is free inasmuch as it is by his own motives that he is governed4 ,it would be as accurate to call an automatic machine free on the ground that it is by its own works that it is moved4 ,this is only1 as ,professor ,william ,james aptly calls it1 soft ,determinism4 ,if the automaton could decide to slacken or increase its rate of speed1 to go or to stop as it liked and where it liked--above all1 if it could aim at and devise improvements in its own mechanism so as to make itself a better automaton--it would then be appropriate to speak of it as free2 only it would no longer be appropriate to call it an automaton4 ,and similarly it is only if man is able to determine his course of action--if he can choose in any real sense1 i4e41 in the sense that he might choose differently1 if he wished to do so--that it can be anything but an abuse of language to speak of him as free2 for only in that case can he be an object of approbation or condemnation4 ,if he is merely the sum-total of his motives1 he is as little free to act other than he does as a number of chemical elements combined in certain proportions are free to form anything but a definite chemical substance4 ,as #afj ,mr4 ,balfour has well expressed it1#ad ,it may seem at first sight plausible to describe a man as free whose behaviour is due to 'himself' alone4 ,but without quarrelling over words1 it is1 ,i think1 plain that whether it be proper to call him free or not1 he at least lacks freedom in the sense in which freedom is necessary in order to constitute responsibility4 ,it is impossible to say of him that he 'ought1' and therefore he 'can1' for at any given moment of his life his next action is by hypothesis strictly determined4 ,but the freedom of which we are conscious--e4g41 in every experience of conflict between inclination and duty--is something altogether different2 we know that we can yield or resist1 choose between1 reinforce1 and if necessary make1 our motives4#ae #afa ,but is not sin1 it is sometimes asked1 inevitable per se1 and in that sense natural to man1 and if so1 how can we be blamed for what we could not avoid8 ,and again1 is there not some truth in the statement that much that we call evil has been incidental to the progress of the race1 just as the discords produced by the learner on a musical instrument are necessary incidents in the process which will teach him by and by to charm the ear with the perfect harmony8 ,such questions are frequently put forward2 let us see if we are able to clear away the misunderstandings to which they bear witness4 7#a7 ,admitting that a free moral being must be able in theory to choose the wrong as well as the right1 it should in the first place be observed that the possibility of that or any course does not render it inevitable for him to take it1 and it is only the possibility that is given4 ,but it may be justly argued that since as a matter of fact all men sin1 we cannot pretend that we are merely dealing with a theoretical possibility1 but must pronounce sin to be de facto natural to man as well as inevitable--for who has ever avoided it8 ,let us observe what follows3 this1 and no more1 that sin is natural only in the sense in which disease is natural--viz41 as a disorder to which the human frame may become subject1 but nevertheless a disorder4 ,as physical disease entails a diminution of physical life1 so sin entails a diminution of #afb our moral and spiritual life1 an alienation of the soul from ,god2 and while anyone may thus choose to describe sin--the wilful misuse of faculties lent us for other ends--as natural1 it is significant that the result of sin is quite unnatural1 viz41 a state of disunion between the soul and ,god4 ,so much is this the case that the aim of all religion is to bring about a cessation of this unhappy state1 and to effect the healing of the discord created by man's transgression4 ,true religion treats sin1 not as an error to be explained away1 but as a wall of partition to be broken down2 the essential aim of religion is atonement1 man's reconciliation to ,god4 7#b7 ,but it is further urged that in historical retrospect1 and in the light of evolution1 it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that in the course of man's development from a savage and barbaric condition all manner of ills--bloodshed1 slavery1 etc4--have been necessary stages2 may not1 then1 sin be claimed as constituting part of the ,divine plan8 ,and if such was the case once1 may it not be the case still8 ,here we are dealing with a very obvious confusion2 for while man is in a low and undeveloped state1 a good many acts which would be sins if committed by people on a higher level1 have not that character at all4 ,it is quite impossible1 e4g41 to read the ,homeric poems and find in them any trace or indication that deceit1 war and massacres are #afc regarded with so much as moral distaste2 the men of the ,homeric age had simply not risen to that moral height1 and it would be futile to judge them by the standards of a more advanced civilisation4 ,undoubtedly1 in its slow evolution from sub-human origins1 the race passes through long sub-moral stages during which the animal instincts--moods of tiger or of ape--are still in the ascendant2 it is only gradually that man becomes aware of certain practices with shame1 disgust or remorse1 and it is only then that we can begin to speak of the indulgence of the passions which prompt those practices as sin4 ,when ,paul calls the law the strength of sin1 or says that the law came in that the trespass might abound1 he states a truth1 but sees it1 if one may say so1 out of focus2 for the law was not arbitrarily imposed in order to brand a multitude of harmless acts as offences1 but in proportion as the moral law is discerned by man's mind1 acts which formerly were merely non-moral begin to range themselves on this side or that1 as right and wrong4 ,true1 even when our moral perceptions have thus been quickened1 we shall not always rule our province of the brute with a strong hand--true also that1 owing to our earthly nature1 in many things we all stumble2 but so far from viewing these failures complacently1 they ought to spur us to more earnest endeavours to leave our lower inheritance behind4 ,the truth #afd concerning the inevitableness of sin was stated by our ,lord when ,he said1 ,it must needs be that occasions--viz41 of stumbling--come2 but woe to that man through whom the occasion cometh4 ,sin as such1 as an occasion1 is inevitable2 but for any particular sin1 for acting contrarily to the known best1 the individual is responsible--and greatest of all is the responsibility of one who knowingly and of design becomes an occasion of stumbling to another1 making sin more difficult to avoid1 or positively inciting another to wrong-doing4 ,we do not forget the inequalities of moral endowment1 nor do we leave out of sight that a temptation which for one man scarcely so much as exists may prove well-nigh irresistible to another2 but the judgment upon each is in the wise and ,fatherly hands of ,him who knoweth our frame1 and remembereth that we are dust4 ,we have seen that ,determinism1 in spite of its humanitarian and even optimistic pretensions1 when it is consistently applied falsifies every one of its promises2 it is worth while to ask ourselves yet once more what is likely to be the effect of this doctrine upon the characters of those who seriously entertain it4 ,mill1 in his frigid and precise1 yet scrupulously just manner1 expressed the opinion that ,the free-will doctrine1 by keeping in view precisely that portion of the truth which the word necessity puts #afe out of sight1 namely the power of the mind to co-operate in the formation of its own character1 has given to its adherents a practical feeling much nearer to the truth than has generally 7,i believe7 existed in the minds of necessarians4 ,the latter may have had a stronger sense of the importance of what human beings can do as to shape the characters of one another2 but the free-will doctrine has1 ,i believe1 fostered in its supporters a much stronger spirit of self-culture4#af ,if for self-culture we substituted self-reliance1 buoyancy1 a sense of responsibility1 we should scarcely go too far2 for1 indeed1 it would be difficult to say from what sources the consistent determinist is to derive these qualities4 ,he regards himself as the inevitable product of forces which have moulded him into that particular shape and no other2 he cannot help himself or change his character by one hair's-breadth2 he views his own life1 as has been well said1 not in the light of a story which he can carry on as he may choose1 but as a sum which must finish in a given way2 and his one dismal consolation is that he is not responsible for his shortcomings4 ,he can but say with his favourite sage3-- ,the ,ball no question makes of ,ayes and ,noes1 ,but ,here or ,there as strikes the ,player goes2 ,and ,he that toss'd you down into the ,field1 ,he knows about it all--,he knows--,,he knows6 ,but to believe that no effort can avail will certainly not inspire anyone to make such an effort2 on the contrary1 the likelihood is only #aff too great that such a belief will upon occasion serve as a welcome excuse for not making it4 ,it has been said that ,determinism1 if not a very heroic creed1 will at any rate make for tolerance and charity towards human failings2 but nothing is more certain than that this kind of charity will1 in practice1 begin--while its tendency will be also to end--at home4 ,this estimate1 it is true1 is often warmly challenged2 in actual life1 we are told1 many of those who profess determinist principles are notorious for their strenuous moral calibre1 and certainly not open to the charge of laxity4 ,let that statement be ungrudgingly accepted2 what it proves is no more than that prussic acid is entirely harmless--provided it is not taken4 ,we are quite willing to admit that ,determinism1 provided it is not put into practice1 is nothing more than a mistaken theory4 ,so long as men are content to be determinists in their studies and libertarians everywhere else1 no particular mischief is likely to ensue2 and it is matter of common experience1 and for much congratulation1 that our theoretical determinists should so far obey the instinct of moral self-preservation as to be for the most part practical libertarians1 freely pronouncing praise and blame on human conduct1 and feeling praise- and blameworthy themselves4 ,but if they were logical and consistent determinists1 they would do and feel no such thing2 for the praise we give to a #afg well-poised spring-cart is one thing1 and the praise we give to a well-poised character is another4 ,and again1 given a man who really believed1 or whom it suited to believe1 that he was quite irresponsible for his actions1 and that no morally valid censure could attach to him for gratifying some appetite or passion1 one cannot help suspecting that the result would be something much worse than mere laxity4 ,that most persons who argue in favour of ,determinism do not act up to its principles1 is surely nothing in the doctrine's recommendation2 on the other hand there is always the unpleasant possibility that some day they may begin to take their philosophy seriously4 ,and just as one would not like prussic acid to lie about promiscuously where all and sundry could have access to it1 lest there should be a great deal of accidental poisoning1 so we are justified in viewing the broadcast dissemination of determinist theory not merely with the antipathy one may feel towards intellectual error1 but with the apprehension excited by a moral danger4 ,every system or movement which involves the denial of evil or of freedom--the denial or under-emphasis of sin--menaces not only religion in the narrower sense1 but the structure of civilisation itself4 ,the rock upon which all these theories make shipwreck is the fact that we cannot abolish the reality of sin and leave the reality of #afh goodness intact4 ,saint and sinner1 hero and coward1 martyr and traitor1 all1 as we have seen1 are reduced by ,determinism to a common level where there is neither admiration nor censure1 but at most a vague wonder at all the unnecessary suffering--for that at any rate remains real--involved in this profoundly futile procession of phenomena2 and that is a conclusion to which humanity has always refused1 and will always refuse1 to reconcile itself4 ,if we wish to see how utterly a deterministic conception empties morality of meaning1 we need only turn to the earthly career of our ,lord1 and ask ourselves what it is that gives to that life and death their poignant significance but the voluntariness with which the ,saviour took each successive step on the road from ,his native ,nazareth to the place called ,calvary4 ,think of ,him simply as the product of a compelling ,force1 unable to act otherwise than ,he did1 and at one stroke all that moved us to gratitude1 to admiration1 all that appealed to us most deeply1 is gone4 ,there can be no such thing as compulsory heroism or non-voluntary self-sacrifice2 moral judgments upon inevitable conduct are merely absurd--we do not bestow moral approval upon this kind of higher automatism4 ,sometimes1 indeed1 in a connection like this1 an attempt is made at some sort of compromise3 granted1 it is said1 that each separate action of ,christ's was voluntary1 yet ,his life-purpose #afi as a whole was surely pre-determined1 and not left to ,him to adopt or refuse4 ,yet how impossible1 upon closer reflection1 is this species of semi-,determinism6 ,every single act of ,jesus was voluntary2 but ,his whole life and character and purpose--which is just the sum-total of these single1 voluntary acts--these1 we are to believe1 were strictly necessitated4 ,he could choose every step of a way which was yet absolutely chosen for ,him1 so that ,he could tread no other6 ,a tremendous decision like ,his going to ,jerusalem lay within ,his power2 but the aim and meaning of ,his life1 viewed as a whole1 ,he had no power of voluntarily determining4 ,that1 to our mind1 is a wholly irrational position2 one might as reasonably say1 ,every link of this chain is golden2 but the chain itself is iron4 ,simple consistency requires the admission that if the chain is iron1 so must the links be1 and if the links are golden1 so must be the chain4 ,we say again--all that enshrines ,jesus in our hearts1 all that gives its redemptive power to ,his love-prompted death1 and its significance to ,calvary1 rests upon the fact of ,his moral freedom4 ,he had power to lay down ,his life2 therein lay the glory of ,his self-surrender4 ,he was1 indeed1 ,god's instrument in effecting the reconciliation of sinners to the ,divine ,love1 but it rested with ,him to decide whether ,he would be that instrument or no1 and the course ,he chose was not that of #agj mechanical necessity1 nor was the decision to which ,he came a following in the line of least resistance4 ,in accepting the pain and shame of the ,cross1 ,jesus worked ,his ,father's will2 but that will was not imposed upon ,him from without1 but freely responded to from within4 ,as the author of the ,theologia ,germanica has it1 a man should strive to be to the ,eternal ,goodness what his hand is to a man3 but all the ultimate splendour of the achievement is bound up with the initial possibility of the striving4 ,not only the yearning love of ,god1 but the conquering freedom of ,man is finally attested by that blood-red seal which bears the impressure of a ,cross4 #a ,so e4g41 ,in ,the ,theology of ,civilisation1 by ,charles ,f4 ,dole1 p4 #di4 #b ,the ,coming ,people1 by the same author1 p4 #di4 #c ,the ,over-,emphasis of ,sin1 by the ,rev4 ,alexander ,brown1 in the ,hibbert ,journal1 ,april1 #aiji1 p4 #faf4 #d ,the ,theology of ,civilisation1 p4 #fa4 ,it would1 of course1 have been easy to give references from other authors2 but there is an extraordinary family-likeness between the writers of this ,school1 extending down to the very phrasing of their ideas4 #e ,a ,study of ,religion1 vol4 ii41 pp4 #aff1 #agi4 #f ,theology of ,civilisation1 p4 #abi4 #g ,the ,rev4 ,alexander ,brown1 loc4 cit41 p4 #fai2 italics ours4 #h ,dole1 op4 cit41 p4 #aja4 #i ,the analogy of the tyro and the expert chess-player--the tyro free1 yet the expert foreseeing and holding the issue of the game in his own hands--is only superficially plausible4 ,there seems1 however1 one other possible explanatory hypothesis1 though it is here advanced only in the most tentative manner3 may it not be possible for the ,most ,high to impose a limitation upon ,his infinite knowledge corresponding to that self-limitation of ,his infinite power which we regard as a necessary assumption8 ,it would be difficult on a priori grounds to declare such a thing to be inconceivable4 ,when ,paul spoke of himself as determined not to know anything save ,jesus ,christ1 he signified his intention of shutting out from his knowledge whole ranges of facts1 for reasons dictated by the purpose he had in hand2 and as a matter of every-day experience1 we all practise something like this habitually1 voluntarily narrowing the range of our consciousness and our immediate interests for one cause and another4 ,might not ,god1 if the reality of our freedom could not be guaranteed in any other way1 and if that freedom was necessary for the attainment of ,his purpose with man1 forbear in some measure1 however slight1 to exercise ,his omniscience8 ,we are well aware that the subject admits of nothing more than reverent surmise2 and having stated our suggestion1 we simply leave it with the reader as one of those possibilities which will appeal differently to different minds4 #aj ,types of ,ethical ,theory1 vol4 ii41 pp4 #ca ff4 #aa ,spinoza1 p4 #aie4 #ab ,cp4 ,pantheism1 p4 #gd4 #ac ,spinoza1 p4 #aif4 #ad ,in ,mind1 ,october1 #ahic2 quoted in ,professor ,upton's invaluable ,hibbert ,lectures on ,the ,bases of ,religious ,belief1 p4 #bic1 n4 #ae ,it may be interesting to quote a recent popular statement of the neo-,hegelian position in regard to this question3 ,the feeling that we are free is true in this sense1 that the cause of a moral deed is a motive within us1 and not some power outside us4 ,but this motive moves us because of what we are1 because of our characters1 and the character is the product of inherited instincts1 appetites and passions1 modified by controlling ideas which have been acquired since our birth4 ,mr4 ,blatchford is so far right in his book1 ,not ,guilty4 ,the inward and outward conditions of a man's life1 of course1 make him what he is inevitably4 ,we choose1 but our choice is governed by all our past1 and by present circumstances4 4 4 ,we have our ancestors rolled up in us4 ,a man is the last result of the universe4 ,all is law4 ,all is inevitable by the laws of life3 7,the ,rev4 ,g4 ,t4 ,sadler1 ,b4,a41 ,,ll4,b41 in the ,clarion1 ,june #aath1 #aiji74 ,that1 of course1 is not liberty at all2 and the logical honours appear to rest with ,mr4 ,blatchford1 who1 arguing on the same assumptions1 declares sin to be a meaningless term1 seeing that man is not responsible for his nature1 nor for the acts prompted by that nature4 #af ,system of ,logic1 vol4 ii41 p4 #dab 7third edition74 #aga ,,chapter ,x ,,morality ,,as ,a ,,religion ,that minimising or denial of moral evil with which we dealt in the preceding pages1 is common to1 and follows as the corollary from1 all systems in which the personality and transcendence of ,god are either explicitly denied or virtually ignored4 ,monism1 that is to say1--whether of the idealistic or the materialistic variety1 whether pantheist or atheist in complexion--finds its ethical counterpart in ,determinism4 ,there are1 however1 in our pathetically restless age a number--probably a growing number--of serious men and women who attack the problem from the opposite end4 ,weary of speculation1 and leaning on the whole to the side of negation rather than affirmation in matters of theology1 they say that one thing at any rate is left1 a certainty of which no one can deprive them1 an ideal sufficient to inspire mankind--the supreme worthiness of the good life4 ,while the creeds of the ,churches divide their respective adherents from each other1 here1 they tell us1 is a basis upon which all can unite1 and which therefore #agb should assuredly prove adequate and attractive2 nay1 since religion is valued for the kind of life it produces--since the tree is judged neither by its name1 nor age1 nor foliage1 but simply and solely by its fruit--shall we not say that morality itself is the true and only religion1 that residuum of valid and vital truth which remains when all the errors of supernaturalism have been purged and filtered away8 ,certainly there are those in our own day who1 while definitely rejecting the sanctions and authority of religion in its commonly accepted meaning1 are fully convinced that to live an unselfish life is a duty incumbent on man1 and who honestly endeavour to practise what they believe4 ,that being so1 is not faith shown to be practically superfluous1 and the autonomy and sufficiency of ethics a demonstrated fact8 ,such1 in short1 is the contention of the ,ethical ,movement1 so ably and often eloquently represented by leaders like ,felix ,adler1 ,w4 ,m4 ,salter1 ,washington ,sullivan1 ,stanton ,coit1 and others2 all these teachers with one accord deprecate and dismiss theological doctrines as at best not proven1 at worst a hindrance1 and commend instead morality as the all-embracing1 all-sufficing and all-saving religion4 ,to quote ,mr4 ,salter1 who certainly speaks with authority for his side3-- ,a religion that will teach us how to live1 that will hold up clear and high the laws of life and win us to obedience #agc to them--this is the religion the world needs1 and it is the only true religion2 all others1 all that seek to make something else sacred1 that make men put their trust in ,god or ,christ or the ,virgin or the ,bible or the ,church or its sacraments and rites1 are a diverting of man from the real issue2 they are the blind leading of the blind2 they are a delusion and a snare4#a ,mr4 ,salter is1 indeed1 willing to show charity for the belief that the authority of the right is in some way connected with ,god2 but it is the charity that may be extended to an exploded superstition on account of certain beneficent associations that cling to it4 ,if by the term ',god1' he says1#b was meant simply the reason and nature of things1 it might perhaps be freely used2 but the word means something else to most persons--and therefore the honest ethicist will not employ it4 ,for this sensible and candid course we cannot but feel thankful2 ,mr4 ,salter at any rate knows well enough that there is all the difference between the reason and nature of things--between a mere totality of being--and a personal ,god4 ,we cannot disguise from ourselves that the present juncture is in many respects singularly favourable to the ethical movement2 to not a few who have lost their earlier faith and feel the need of something to take its place1 ,ethicism will seem to meet that want1 and they will accordingly give a wistful1 grateful #agd hearing to what ,mr4 ,salter and his colleagues have to preach4 ,probably1 indeed1 it will be people of a higher than the average intellectual and moral calibre who will seek to fill the void left by ,agnosticism by embracing morality as a religion2 and more particularly is this likely to happen when this cult has for its apostles1 men of high character and gracious personality4 ,it is for that very reason that we are bound to examine this plea carefully1 and to ask ourselves whether it is really possible1 as we are assured1 by purely natural and human means to help men to love1 know1 and do the right4 #c ,the issue is no less than a momentous one2 for if religion1 as generally understood1 is a mere graceful superfluity when it is not a delusion and a snare1 very vast changes are bound to follow the recognition of such a fact4 ,dr4 ,coit may be a little premature in making his voluminous arrangements for the adaptation of the ,established ,church and the ,book of ,common ,prayer to the uses of ethical religion2 but if ethicists can convince us of the validity of their claims1 then we must look forward to the fruitful service of man taking the place of the fruitless service of ,god4 ,now the first remark we have to make is that as a matter of fact and of history a high morality has never made its appearance apart #age from religion4 ,such as they are1 our moral code and moral standards at their best are the product of the ,christian faith2 the ethical movement has neither evolved a morality of its own1 nor has it anything better to put in the place of that which we owe to ,christianity4 ,such suggestions of alleged defects in the ethics of the ,gospel as are brought forward by ,mr4 ,salter--e4g41 that ,jesus lacked a scientific sense of cause and effect2 that ,he failed to inculcate intellectual scrupulousness and honesty2 that we cannot go to ,him for political conceptions and industrial ethics1 and so forth--strike one as palpably trivial1 irrelevant1 and made to order2#d and leaving these not very imposing criticisms on one side1 it is simply a fact that the highest laws of life were declared by ,jesus ,christ1 and have never been superseded4 ,and since ethicists have nothing better to propose in the domain of conduct than what we find in the ,gospel--since the higher law1 as formulated by ,mr4 ,salter1 reduces itself to altruism versus living for self--there is nothing harsh in saying that the ethical movement proposes merely to take over ,christian morality minus its ,christian setting4 ,if a simile may be allowed1 we should say that this new firm has no goods of its own manufacture2 it intends to trade with the stock1 and hopes to take over the goodwill1 of the old4 #agf ,whether that is a feasible modus operandi is another question1 at which we shall glance presently2 for the moment we would simply insist upon the fact that hitherto at any rate the ultimate sanction of morality has always been the religious sanction4 ,the ,churches1 in basing morality on religion1 can at any rate point to some actual achievements in the past2 on the other hand those who maintain that morality is independent of religious belief1 and that human conduct will actually rise to a higher level when this truth is recognised1 must pardon us if we tell them that they are merely issuing promissory notes which may or may not be honoured when they fall due4 ,a certain extremely important thing has been done--we will not say perfectly1 but nevertheless done--in a certain way and by certain means for a very long time2 anyone who assures us that he will accomplish the same important thing for us without the means which we have hitherto deemed indispensable1 can hardly be surprised if we reply that while we do not doubt his entire good faith1 we cannot possibly content ourselves with his bare promises in so vital a matter4 ,but when we say this1 we shall at once be met with the rejoinder that it is manifestly unfair to argue as if ,ethicism were all promise and no performance4 ,are there not plenty of kindly1 conscientious1 well-conducted agnostics who might serve as models to some of #agg their ,church-going neighbours8 ,and have we not already referred to some of the ethical teachers themselves as men of high character and gracious personality8 ,all this may be very readily admitted2 but all this has not an atom of bearing upon the matter in hand4 ,the question really is not whether certain avowed agnostics are not as good men as certain professing ,christians2 but whether the moral excellences of the good agnostic are the product1 the fruit1 of agnosticism1 in the same sense in which the virtues of the ,christian are the product of ,christianity4 ,the answer to that question must be unhesitatingly in the negative4 ,there is no disputing the historical fact that the force which has been most potent in building up our ,western civilisation is none other than ,christianity2 the ethics which have shaped and guided right conduct through all these centuries are ,christian ethics4 ,think as we will about dogma1 few will feel competent to contest ,lecky's verdict1 when the historian of ,rationalism and of ,european ,morals declares that ,christianity has been the main source of moral development in ,europe2 we know what this religion has done1 because its actual record is open to inspection4 ,to quote ,lecky again1 ,christianity has produced more heroic actions and formed more upright men than any other creed4 ,now ,agnosticism has not created its own moral system2 agnostic morality at its #agh highest has so far grown in ,christian soil1 and to say that the flower will continue to grow in quite a different soil is to make a very bold and very hazardous prophecy4 ,in the ,west we have never had anything like an agnostic civilisation1 which would allow us to test the effects of non-belief upon conduct on a large scale2 in the ,east1 it is true1 ,japan offers us something like an agnostic civilisation1 but those who are best acquainted with that nation are least inclined to exalt her performances in the domain of ethics4 ,japanese commercial morality is notoriously low2 while ,japan's dealings with ,korea have called forth the unmeasured denunciations of ,european eyewitnesses4 ,the material advances and military exploits of this virtually agnostic nation must not blind us to other and less admirable features2 it would1 indeed1 seem that this highly-gifted race1 while frantically eager to gain the whole world1 has not yet discovered its own soul1 and the familiar question1 ,what shall it profit8 inevitably suggests itself4 ,but not only has ,agnosticism so far not grown its own morality2 there is yet another consideration which leads us to listen with a certain measure of scepticism to the assurances of those who say that right conduct will survive though religion be surrendered4 ,it has perhaps not been generally observed that just as the virtuous agnostic is generally the child of ,christian parents1 so by a seeming irony he is #agi often found to be the father of ,christian children3 there is hardly a genuine case on record where free-thought1 ,agnosticism1 ,rationalism1 has descended from parents to children to the third or fourth generation without a break1 and the practical non-existence of such cases proves something of real and great importance4 ,it has been said that pure-bred ,londoners die out in three generations at most1 unless new blood from the country is brought in to replenish their failing vital power4 ,if unbelief shows the same incapacity to propagate itself by natural descent--if the descendants of unbelievers show a marked tendency to revert to type1 i4e41 to religion--such a fact suggests only one adequate explanation1 viz41 the instinct of self-preservation1 a return to the soil which made the growth of the flower possible4 ,the virtues of the agnostic may be not unfairly compared to cut flowers1 which may continue to shed their perfume for awhile1 but are bound to fade before long4 ,our agnostic ethicists1 being themselves the products of a ,christian civilisation1 may commend1 approve and practise--they may wear the ,christian virtues2 that those virtues will bear transplanting into an agnostic soil and flourish in an agnostic climate is a highly dubious proposition4 ,we can only say that available experience seems to be against it4 ,the ,christian morality implies the ,christian religion which has created it2 as for the #ahj high-minded1 altruistic individual agnostic1 he must simply be pronounced a credit to ,christianity4 ,we say the high-minded individual agnostic1 because candour compels us to go on to state that generally speaking those who have thrown religion to the winds hardly strike one as standing on a particularly high ethical level4 ,one can only go by facts2 and the facts are that the frequenters of the betting-ring1 the dram-shop1 the light-minded1 pleasure-seeking throng that flutters from amusement to amusement without any interest in life's serious duties--these are hardly drawn from the ,church-going strata of society4 ,religion says no to this whole mode of life2 and unbelief is most frequently1 and in its most typical forms1 found where the restraints of religion have proved too irksome to be tolerated4 ,before arguing in the abstract that morality is independent of religion1 and will be advanced by its abandonment1 it would perhaps be better to observe the average1 concrete case of the man who has cut himself adrift from religious beliefs and influences2 then it will be time to decide whether we should like to see the experiment tried on a national scale4 ,it is easy to theorise in vacuo2 in practice we are well aware that without the sanctions and the guardianship of religion morality tends to sink to the level where the accepted motto is the hedonist's ,let us eat and drink and be merry1 for to-morrow we die4 #aha ,but at this point another objection will be raised2 surely1 it is said1 we do not seriously maintain that men are kind to their families1 honest in their every-day transactions1 truthful in speech1 and so forth1 merely because they believe that to do so is to act in accordance with ,divine injunction1 and that if this belief were suddenly destroyed we should be reduced to moral chaos4 ,but this argument1 so frequently met with in this connection1 misapprehends the real issue4 ,we do not dispute that the elements of moral conduct begin to be inculcated wherever there is any social life at all4 ,where there is any living together1 complete selfishness is impossible2 there must come into being a rough law of give-and-take1 a recognition of mutual rights to be respected1 a certain loyalty from the individual towards the tribe1 which in turn befriends and defends each of its members4 ,quite a number of rudimentary virtues are thus developed by the force of public opinion1 which cannot tolerate flagrantly anti-social acts from one member of the community towards the rest2 murder1 violence1 theft1 false witness--these and the like offences are suppressed with a strong hand1 without the need of a special supernatural revelation to decree ,thou shalt not4 ,to be brief1 there is no doubt that this social pressure is powerful enough to insist upon behaviour which will regulate most of the ordinary relationships of life in a fairly #ahb satisfactory manner--i4e41 relationships between equals or members of the same community4 ,the latter is a highly important qualification2 where purely natural sanctions obtain1 equal rights might be enjoyed by all bona fide members of the tribe1 but the same rights would not necessarily extend to an alien4 ,and even within the community governed by such sanctions the weaker1 and especially the weakest1 did not rank as equals2 among the most highly civilised nations of antiquity1 the ,greeks and ,romans1 infanticide and exposure flourished--indeed1 as ,lecky points out1#e by the ideal legislations of ,plato and ,aristotle1 and by the actual legislations of ,lycurgus and ,solon1 infanticide was positively enjoined4 ,nothing can be more significant than to find in the ,self-,tormentor of ,terence the very character who expresses the noble sentiment1 ,i am a man1 and deem nothing that is human alien from me1 giving instructions that if the child that is to be born to him should be a girl1 it is to be put to death4 ,the public opinion of an enlightened and cultured paganism countenanced such deeds without reproach2 it was ,christianity1 or rather ,he who said1 ,suffer the little children to come unto ,me1 that put a stop to these barbarities4 ,the point which we wish to establish is this3 that while evolutional ethics and natural #ahc sanctions will carry us a certain way1 they will certainly not carry us all the way2 indeed1 the moment we come to the higher reaches of character1 these sanctions are seen to be quite inadequate4 ,why1 e4g41 should the conviction be born in man1 and become a governing conviction1 that he must under no circumstances commit a certain act1 though to do so would be easy and advantageous1 and detection not to be feared8 ,why should the moral consciousness of the higher races accept the principle which places self-sacrifice above self-seeking8 ,there is only one explanation for this paradoxical phenomenon3 it is that1 as men rise in the moral scale1 there dawns on them the sense of a law that is not of this world1 an ,ought-to-be1 which speaks with a strange authority1 and will not be denied2 and when this authority is properly interpreted1 it reveals a ,righteous and ,sovereign ,will to which we owe unconditional obedience4 ,and here we may quote in support some significant words of ,mr4 ,salter's--words whose full significance1 we venture to think1 that able and distinguished writer hardly realised when he penned them3 ,the whole meaning of ethics is in the sense of an invisible authority2 to bow to custom1 to public opinion or to law1 is moral idolatry4 #f ,whatever else ,i may doubt about1 ,i cannot doubt the law of duty--that there is a right and a wrong2 that the #ahd right obliges me1 that ,i ought to do it4 4 4 4 ,the law is over all1 though it were never obeyed4 4 4 4 ,ethics is nothing but the response which man and man make to the higher order of things4 4 4 4 ,ecstasy is the grace heaven sets upon the moment in which the soul weds itself to the perfect good4 #g ,let us see what is implied in these truly remarkable statements4 ,the real sanctions of moral conduct are not the sanctions of expediency or force1 but are derived from a higher law1 an invisible authority2 the finest morality is man's free response to a higher order4 ,but1 we ask1 what is this higher order1 this note of command1 but the expression of a higher ,will8 ,and how can there be a higher ,will without a ,higher ,personality1 a ,god who impresses ,his law upon us and makes us aspire after the ideal good8 ,mr4 ,salter explicitly denies that the moral virtues come from below1 from prudence1 from the sense of decency1 from longsighted selfishness2 they who think so1 he declares1 in a fine burst1 never breathed the climate of morality4 #h ,but if not from below1 they must come from above2 and this above really must be something more than an atmospheric conception4 ,will ,mr4 ,salter help us to determine its nature more clearly8 ,he says1 ,the ,mighty ,power1 hid from our gaze by the thin screen of nature and of nature's laws 4 4 4 is #ahe with our struggles after a perfect right #i2 but if this ,mighty ,power1 which is not so much expressed as hidden by nature's laws--which therefore transcends nature--is in the highest sense moral1 how can it be less than personal8 ,it is this ,power which1 according to our author1 gives us the vision of the ideal1 this ,power which sets the mark of its approval upon our surrender to its behests1 this ,power which manifests its character in doing justice upon individuals and nations alike1 weeding out the selfish1 the wanton1 the luxurious1 and preserving the pure and upright2 may we not ask what reason there is for withholding from that ,power the one adequate name of ,god8#aj ,let us pursue and emphasise this thought a little further4 ,already we have seen that--teste ,mr4 ,salter--the highest ethics require our belief in a mighty1 transcendent and benevolent ,power2 that admission means nothing less than the surrender of naturalism #ahf in morals--it is an acknowledgment that ultimately a true ethic involves and presupposes a metaphysic4 ,indeed1 when ,mr4 ,salter speaks of ethical religion1 the same implication is there4 ,religion signifies a living and personal relationship between the worshipper and the object of his worship3 we can stand in such a relationship to a living1 personal ,god1 in harmony with whose will alone we are able to find our true happiness2 we cannot stand in such a relationship to an impersonal power or a universal order4 ,mr4 ,salter speaks of man bending hushed and subdued1 as he thinks of those mighty laws on which the health and safety of the race depends1 and calls that a religion2 we submit that so far as such an emotion is religious1 it means that behind those mighty laws there stands a mighty ,lawgiver1 whom we worship and seek to obey because ,he is good4 ,we can keep a law1 we can conform to it so as to escape hurt1 but we cannot worship it except when we conceive of it as the manifestation of a good ,will2 neither can we derive moral stimulus from an abstract ideal4 ,it is when the ideal speaks in us and to us as the behest of the ,living ,god--above all1 when it stands before us incarnated1 made actual in the ,son of ,god--that it becomes dynamic1 drawing and uplifting and transforming men into the ,divine likeness4 ,we are not greatly helped by such a statement as that the bare idea of morality1 #ahg quite apart from faith in ,god1 may be the supreme passion to a man2 we have to deal with things as they are1 and in actual life we well know that the most commonplace presentation of the ,gospel has been more of a force in the making of character and as an inspiration to righteousness than the most refined philosophical ,ethicism4 ,and now let us show1 from yet another point of view1 as we think may be done quite simply and cogently1 that it is impossible rationally to get away from the theistic position if we are in earnest about morality1 viewed as the pursuit of the ideal4 ,in order to engage in such a pursuit1 we must in the first place be free agents1 able to choose between conflicting motives and to follow the right4 ,if our actions are necessitated1 then to speak of our pursuing this or that course1 choosing and rejecting1 is of course a mere contradiction in terms4 ,but if the universe1 including ourselves1 is simply the resultant outcome of the interaction of unconscious mechanical forces1 freewill is an absolute illusion1 and ,determinism the only true theory2 and again1 if ,determinism is true1 we cannot choose1 we cannot strive--in a word1 we cannot help being what we are4 ,hence1 if morality in any intelligible sense is to exist at all1 we must be free2 and only a personal and transcendent ,god could have conferred on us the faculty of freewill4 #ahh ,we pass on to one or two final considerations4 ,one of our ethicists1 who genially informs us that theology is discredited 4 4 4 and the world is indifferent to what the ,church either thinks or says1 writes as follows3 ,the ,ethical ,movement believes that the good life has an imperative claim upon us because of its supreme worth for humanity4 #aa ,as against this statement we have no hesitation in affirming that only religion1 in the accepted sense of the term1 can give us the absolute conviction of the absolute supremacy of moral claims--the assurance that it were better to suffer1 to hunger1 to be despised and rejected of men1 to die on a cross1 than to violate one of these4 ,grant that the good life is of supreme worth for humanity2 yet supposing a man is sorely tempted to obtain some immense advantage or to gratify some consuming passion1 at the cost of injuring someone else--suppose he can do so with safety and success--why should he prefer humanity's interests to his own8 ,why1 indeed8 ,we make bold to say that no one in the throes of conflict between duty and desire1 at the moment of moral crisis1 has ever been influenced by the worth of his action for humanity4 ,the ultimate sanction of right conduct must be drawn from a ,source beyond humanity1 which enjoins the right at all costs--from ,him who is humanity's ,maker and ,ruler4 #ahi ,and the same fact is borne witness to by the experience which waits upon wilful wrong-doing1 by the sense of sin4 ,such an emotion can never be inspired by an impersonal order with which we have come into conflict1 but only by a personal ,will against which we are conscious of having offended4 ,the man who disregards the law of gravitation and falls from a ladder1 experiences one kind of painful sensation2 but the man who disregards the law of righteousness and falls into sin1 experiences quite a different kind of painful sensation--the sensation1 not of self-pity1 but of self-accusation and remorse1 because it is ,god's holiness against which he has transgressed2 and that feeling finds utterance age after age in the agonised cry1 ,against ,thee1 ,thee only1 have ,i sinned1 and done that which is evil in ,thy sight4 ,the truth is1 those who claim to set up morality as a religion1 while declaring the personal ,deity of theology illusory1 are engaged in an impossible task2 and it is because of the inherent hopelessness of their enterprise that we must raise our voice in warning to any who may be tempted to put faith in their fair promises4 ,the ethicist's intentions are admirable2 but he sets about their realisation in a manner which dooms him and them to failure4 ,let us have practice without theory1 he says1 the superstructure without the foundation1 the fruit without the root1 works without the #aij faith which produces works3 and such being the nature of his undertaking1 he fares accordingly1 a spectacle of ineffectual goodness1 wondering why the world declines to listen to his so reasonable gospel4 ,but the world continues to cling to an ultra-rational ,gospel because it is instinctively aware that morality rests upon ultra-rational sanctions4 ,ethicism may borrow from ,christianity the doctrine of the brotherhood of man1 but it has no explanation to give of the basis supporting that axiom--why we ought to regard each human being as having certain indefeasible claims upon us1 so that we may not treat him as a mere means subserving our ends4 ,that position can never be defended on purely natural grounds2 in the last analysis the brotherhood of man has a right to be accepted as true only by those who believe in the ,fatherhood of ,god4 ,in conclusion1 as all true morality pre-supposes religion1 so it is only religion which can supply the strongest incentive and encouragement to the good life2 for it is religion alone which has the promise that the ,good shall and must prevail1 that the stars in their courses are fighting on the side of right and truth1 and that it shall be well or ill with us according as we range ourselves on that side or in opposition to it4 ,take away the idea of a ,god whose will is that righteousness shall triumph1 that life shall be lord of death1 and #aia love victorious over all1 and we have no guarantee but that all the efforts and sacrifices of martyr and reformer may be in vain1 and the hope of the world a delusion4 ,it is only the believer who can never despair1 who knows that his work will endure and enrich the world--that there will be no collapse or final disarray1 that the world is no blot nor blank1 but means intensely and means good4 ,it is that faith which makes endeavour and surrender worth while2 that faith--the assurance of things hoped for1 the evidence of things not seen--which alone gives us a right to sing ,felix ,adler's noble hymn3-- ,and the work that we have builded1 ,oft with bleeding hands and tears1 ,oft in error1 oft in anguish1 ,will not perish with our years1 ,it will rise and shine transfigured ,in the final reign of light2 ,it will pass into the splendours ,of the ,city of the ,light4 ,for the assurance which breathes in these lines rests on a previous1 deeper assurance3 it is that which the ,christian expresses in the words1 ,if ,god be for us1 who is against us8 #a ,ethical ,religion1 p4 #dh4 #b ,ibid1 p4 #ci4 #c ,see ,a ,few ,points about ,ethical ,societies1 a tract issued by the ,union of ,ethical ,societies4 #d ,ethical ,religion1 pp4 #ha1 #hd1 #hf1 #hi2 for a concise treatment of this subject the reader may be referred to the present writer's ,jesus or ,christ8 chapter iv4 #e ,history of ,european ,morals1 ii41 p4 #bf4 #f ,op4 cit41 p4 #ch4 #g ,ibid4 pp4 #af-ah4 #h ,op4 cit41 p4 #ag4 #i ,ibid41 p4 #eg4 #aj ,if for the word ',god' you read the 'universal life1' writes the ,rev4 ,r4 ,j4 ,campbell1 you have at once gained the ear of every high-minded thinking man to whom you appeal4 7,the ,christian ,commonwealth1 ,april #adth1 #aiji47 ,are we1 then1 to understand that if we want to appeal to high-minded thinking men1 we must drop the term ,god and substitute for it1 as being less offensive to these higher thinkers1 some non-committal phrase like universal life8 ,we say quite frankly that we are not prepared to pay such a price for making such a successful appeal2 for the universal life--just because it is universal and all-embracing--is no more good than bad--it has no moral character1 and hence can exercise no moral authority1 nor generate any moral enthusiasm4 #aa ,what the ,ethical ,movement is1 by ,harry ,snell4 #aib ,,chapter ,,xi ,,problems ,,of ,,prayer ,in the opening chapters of this book we had occasion once or twice to ask ourselves in passing how the new emphasis on the doctrine of ,divine immanence was likely to affect the question of prayer2 in turning now to a more direct treatment of the latter subject1 this is again the first and most important query we shall have to consider4 ,truth1 as we all know1 is a mean--it represents a balance between opposing extremes2 what is1 however1 not always recognised is that the extremes are not necessarily equidistant from the true centre1 and there are cases when it is of the greatest importance to discern which of them is nearer and which more remote from the truth4 ,in the present instance we have insisted all along that of the two possible extremes of ,deism and ,pantheism the former1 with its exclusive insistance upon ,god's transcendence1 is not only more intelligible but far more true than the latter1 with its one-sided stress on ,his immanence2 for1 as we previously expressed it1 in the exercise of religion it is the transcendent ,god #aic with whom we are concerned4 ,in fact1 ,deism may be a very faulty type of religion1 theoretically considered2 but ,pantheism is religion's practical annihilation4 ,it is not for nothing that in ,persia1 e4g41 the name of ,sufi--in theory a pantheistic believer in the identity of the worshipper with his ,deity--signifies in current use not a mystic1 but a freethinker6 ,so far as the religious life is concerned1 we repeat that ,deism is the lesser error and the lesser danger2 and nowhere is this more closely brought home to us than when we consider the reality and the meaning of prayer4 ,for however far-off ,god may be thought to be1 it has never been suggested that the voice of prayer is not able to travel across the distance--,he may hear us in heaven1 ,his dwelling-place1 and when ,he heareth1 forgive2 but if ,his presence is so universally diffused that we ourselves form part of it1 we shall hardly know to whom or to what to address ourselves in the act of adoration4 ,we can pray to a ,deity conceived as solely transcendent1 but not to a ,deity conceived as solely immanent1 i4e41 as the ,sum of ,being4 ,a vague cosmic emotion differs toto coelo from worship2 we cannot worship that which includes us1 for if we did we should be indulging in self-worship1 and as for prayer1 we could no more seriously offer it to the universe than to the atmosphere4 ,this point cannot be too clearly realised4 ,prayer is the soul's communion with ,god2 but if the soul is an #aid integral constituent of ,god1 a mode or phase of the ,divine ,being1 then this communion1 being already an accomplished and unalterable fact1 cannot be so much as desired1 still less does it need to be brought about by prayer or any other means whatsoever4 ,nothing could be more instructive in this connection than what is apparently a favourite illustration with those for whom immanence is only a synonym for ,monism1 and which likens the relation of ,god to the individual soul to that subsisting between the ocean and some individual bay3 the hundred bays and gulfs and creeks that succeed each other round the island1 we read1 are in the ocean1 and the ocean is in them4 #a ,now let us see what this means4 ,there may be the most urgent necessity for digging channels to connect a reservoir with the sea1 so that it may be filled with its fulness2 but it would be absurd to speak of opening up or renewing communication between bay and ocean--a communication whose uninterrupted nature is implied in the very terms of the image4 ,on such an interpretation of immanence1 prayer in any real sense is either superfluous or impossible2 for if no one hopeth for that which he #aie seeth1 neither would any one in his senses seek to bring to pass a condition of things which is thought to be already existing4 ,here we see once more the unbridgeable gulf between every form of idealistic ,monism--,eastern or ,western--and ,christianity2 for while1 e4g41 the central idea of ,indian piety is meditation1 the absorption of the individual in the life-spirit1 the experience of identity with the universality and oneness of the ,godhead1 on the other hand ,christianity is the religion of prayer--prayer is its crown and its pearl4 #b ,that is really the crux of the whole matter2 prayer must be conceived as an active intercourse between the worshipper and a ,person other than himself1 who is the object of his worship4 ,it is not a soliloquy--what the ,germans expressively call a ,selbstgesprch1 or self-talk2 it is not a monologue1 but a dialogue2 it is not a mere contemplation1 but addressed to ,someone who is thought of as willing to listen and able to answer4 ,as ,sabatier has well said1 ,prayer is religion in act2 that is1 prayer is real religion4 ,wherever men believe in a personal ,god1 as distinct from an all-inclusive consciousness of being of which they are fleeting expressions--mere surface ripples on an infinite ocean--that belief will attest itself by the prayerful life4 ,on the other hand1 a prayerless religion is a contradiction in terms2 it either has no needs to express or #aif it will die from lack of self-expression4 ,the believer will pray from a sense of inner necessity1 coupled with the instinctive assurance that the need of which he is conscious will thus1 and thus only1 meet with its satisfaction4 ,the genuineness of religion--to quote ,professor ,william ,james--is thus indissolubly bound up with the question whether the prayerful consciousness be or be not deceitful4 ,the conviction that something is genuinely transacted in this consciousness is the very core of living religion4 #c ,is there1 then1 or is there not1 something genuinely transacted in the experience of prayer8 ,a transaction1 ex hypothesi1 can only take place between two parties2 it implies two volitional centres4 ,and1 furthermore1 what is it that is transacted8 ,is prayer only a very noble form of auto-suggestion--are its effects merely subjective1 or are they also objective8 ,these are problems which could hardly be said to exist for an earlier age2 to the modern mind they are intensely real1 and press for answers4 ,it must be recognised at once that the idea of ,god as immanent in nature1 expressing ,himself in those observed uniformities to which we give the name of natural laws1 creates difficulties of its own in regard to this subject2 for if these laws show forth ,his will1 is it even thinkable that our formulated desires could move ,him to depart from what we might speak of as ,his original #aig intention8 ,his will is either the absolutely best or it is not2 if it is1 why pray that ,he may modify it8 ,if it is not1 is ,he not less than perfectly good1 since ,his design admits of improvement8 ,can we conceive of ,him as doing something in answer to a human petition which ,he would not do apart from such a petition8 ,can we think of ,him as being prevailed upon by our assiduities and importunities to alter ,his decrees--is not this whole notion rather paltry and derogatory to ,his dignity8 ,everybody is familiar with these questions and arguments2 let us see in what proportion truth and error are combined in them4 7#a7 ,a good deal of unnecessary difficulty arises in the first place from the habitual failure of many people to bear in mind that though ,god is immanent in the cosmos1 ,he is not only immanent2 as soon as ,his transcendence is realised1 it is seen that there exists no a priori reason against the possibility of what from our point of view would look like ,divine interpositions in the ordinary course of nature4 ,we have1 it must be remembered1 not the slightest grounds for assuming that there can be no departures from the uniformities of nature1 nor are we in a position to state dogmatically that no imaginable conditions would ever furnish an adequate reason for such a departure4 ,admitting that the regular processes observed in the physical universe represent something of the ,divine mode of action1 we have no #aih warrant for maintaining that these are the only modes of such action2 probability1 in effect1 is all the other way4 ,lo1 these are but the outskirts of ,his ways2 and how small a whisper do we hear of ,him6 ,but the thunder of ,his power who can understand8 ,a transcendent ,god is eo ipso not limited to such methods as we happen to have caught a glimpse or a whisper of4 7#b7 ,but when this is clearly understood1 it has on the other hand to be as frankly admitted--indeed1 it is stating the obvious to say--that in modern times the idea of the uniformity of nature has obtained such a hold upon the general educated mind as renders any breach of that order far more improbable to us than it could have appeared to a pre-scientific generation4 ,all physical science rests1 broadly speaking1 upon the assumption that nature acts uniformly2 without saying that it must be so1 we are well assured that it is so1 because all observation and experiment are found to bear out the truth of the principle we have assumed4 ,all we have learned concerning nature excludes the notion that there is anything haphazard or arbitrary in her ways4 ,we do not feel at all as though the action of natural forces might be suspended or modified for our particular benefit1 and hence certain ideas of the efficacy of prayer--e4g41 for rain or fine weather--have become impossible for us to entertain with the ease of our ancestors4 ,we start with a mental attitude--hardly #aii to be called a prejudice1 since it is based upon a large body of experience--of profound assurance that in matters like these the will of ,god finds its expression in the unbroken operation of ,his ordinary laws1 without variableness or shadow of turning2 most people1 moreover1 would acknowledge that it is better that these laws should be stable and capable of being learned and depended upon than that the ,divine will should be incalculable--ondoyant et divers--a matter of moods on ,his side and of importunity on ours4 ,tennyson's familiar lines represent the typically modern outlook with the utmost accuracy and conciseness3-- ,god is ,law1 say the wise2 ,o soul1 and let us rejoice#a ,for if ,he thunder by law1 the thunder is yet ,his ,voice4 7#c7 ,and while the scientific temper of the present day could not fail to affect our thoughts concerning prayer in some directions1 the same has surely to be said about the ethical temper of the age1 as shown in our enlarged conceptions of ,god4 ,to put it bluntly1 much of the language about what used to be called special providences has become unreal and ceased to be edifying for us4 ,on this whole subject some words of ,principal ,adeney's can hardly be bettered3-- ,under the old theory ,god had ,his favourites who were saved by hair-breadth escapes1 in accidents that were fatal to persons who were not the objects of special providences2 this was supposed to account for the fact that one man in particular found that somebody else #bjj had taken the last berth in the ship he had meant to sail by1 and so escaped the fate of the crew and passengers when it went down with all on board--no special providence saving them4 ,it looks like a reflection of the pagan mythological tales about heroes rescued by the timely interference of gods and goddesses in battles where thousands of common mortals perish unheeded4 ,it is the aristocratic idea of privilege carried up to religion4 ,the newer view is more democratic1 and it seems to agree better with our ,lord's assurance that not a sparrow falls to the ground without our ,father's notice1 that the very hairs of our heads are all numbered4#d ,all this has its direct bearing upon the subject of prayer4 ,we may still be occasionally regaled with stories of one solitary sailor being saved--,providence looking after him in response to his mother's petitions--while every other soul on board was drowned2 but these narratives1 once irresistible in the impression they created1 are to-day received with somewhat mixed feelings4 ,the view of ,god's character which they inculcate is apt to strike us as unsatisfactory2 that ,he should avert a great and presumedly unmerited physical calamity from one individual simply and solely because ,he has been asked to do so by some other individual1 while allowing the same calamity to overtake numerous others no more deserving of affliction1 does not fit in with our conception of ,him4 ,we are slowly learning to substitute for the notion of any kind of preferential treatment at the hand of ,god a belief in the unchanging goodness of ,his decrees1 in the wisdom of ,his counsel1 #bja and in the reality of ,his abiding and enfolding love2 by ,providence we mean something that is neither local nor personal1 nor particular1 but universal--the ,providence of unchanging law--that living and loving ,will which knoweth altogether4 7#d7 ,but if1 owing to such considerations as these1 we are less inclined to-day to frame certain kinds of petition1 or to expect them to be answered1 it is also true that we are increasingly coming to re-discover what should never have been forgotten1 viz41 that petition is not the whole but only a part1 and perhaps a subordinate part1 of prayer4 ,a glance at our ,lord's priceless bequest to humanity1 the ,model ,prayer1 should suffice to place this beyond a doubt4 ,if we study it clause by clause1 we find that the first place is assigned simply to adoration1 and the claiming of the supreme privilege of spiritual communion1 with an implicit1 although not explicit1 thanksgiving for that privilege2 next we find two clauses expressive of aspiration for the achievement of the highest aims1 with the implied vow to help on their realisation by our own conduct and efforts2 and not until then do we come upon a supplication1 which moreover prays only for the simplest of material blessings--for bare sustenance1 in fact4 ,this is followed by confession1 with a prayer for mercy1 and a promise to show ourselves merciful to our brethren2 and a prayer for deliverance #bjb and guidance brings us to the final act of praise4 ,thus1 with one most modest exception1 the blessings which ,god is asked to bestow are spiritual blessings2 for a petition asking1 e4g41 that the operation of some natural law may be temporarily suspended for our benefit we should look altogether in vain4 ,in any case we ought to learn from the one prayer which our ,lord expressly taught ,his disciples to give to mere petition a much less prominent place than it usually occupies2 adoration1 confession and thanksgiving should between them take the predominant share in our communion with the ,most ,high1 thus correcting the tendency to make of prayer a mere recital of wants more or less indiscriminately addressed to the ,divine bounty4 ,the supreme object to be kept in view is that we should become of ,god's way of thinking--not that we should attempt to make ,him of ours2 in ,matthew ,henry's shrewd comparison1 prayer is like the boat-hook1 which brings the boat to the land1 not the land to the boat4 ,but when we have clarified our ideas on the subject to this extent1 we must once more face the question suggested by ,professor ,james--,what is it that is transacted8 ,the effect of prayer upon those who offer it is too well-attested to be called into doubt2 what we have to ask ourselves1 however1 is whether those effects are1 in the strict sense of the term1 purely subjective1 i4e41 as we #bjc previously expressed it1 in the nature of a noble auto-suggestion4 ,the answer to that query must in the last resort be determined by our thought concerning ,god and our relation to ,him4 ,let it be said once more3 if1 with the pantheist1 we assume that we are essentially and inalienably one with the ,all--part of ,it1 as the bay is of the ocean--prayer1 as the theist understands it1 is a self-contradiction2 if offered at all1 it will be1 not the establishment of a relation which is ex hypothesi always in being1 but at most a clearer realisation by the particle of its fundamental identity with the ,whole4 ,prayer is founded upon the belief that the ,deity is at least interested in ,his worshipper--or else1 why speak to the ,unheeding8 ,but ,spinozism distinctly denies the possibility of ,god's entertaining any feelings towards individuals--indeed1 ,spinoza condemns the individual's desire for ,god's personal love2 at most he will admit that ',god1 inasmuch as ,he loves ,himself1 loves men1' because men are parts and proportions of ,god4 4 4 ,the complacency of the ,universe in its self-awareness1 the love of ,god towards ,himself1 as ,spinoza has it1 includes us in its embrace1 and that is enough4 #e ,we reply that this complacency of the ,universe in its self-awareness may be enough for ,spinozists2 but it is not enough to move men to prayer--and this is borne out by ,mr4 ,picton's total silence on this #bjd topic in his exposition of his ,master's doctrine4 ,mr4 ,chesterton1 with his usual felicity of phrase1 hits the nail on the head when he says that upon this principle the whole cosmos is only one enormously selfish person2 certainly it should be clear that on this assumption1 as there can be no return of affection from a ,god whose love is only self-love1 so the effect of prayer can only be that which is produced upon the soul by its consciousness--supposed to be elevating--of being an infinitesimal fraction of an infinite totality4 ,we say that this consciousness is supposed to be elevating1 though why it should be so is not quite apparent2 for whatever this heterogeneous sum-total of existences may be1 it is not1 in our sense of the term1 good1 as the ,god of ,christianity is good4 ,but if1 instead of losing ourselves in the fog-land of ,pantheism1 ,theosophy and their unavowed congeners1 we take our stand upon the firm belief in the otherness of ,god1 the case alters altogether4 ,prayer at once becomes rational instead of being a contradiction in terms2 it is the accomplishment of something which is not already accomplished2 it springs from the consciousness of a spiritual need1 it is born of the instinct of spiritual self-preservation4 ,it sets up a connection between two centres--man and ,god--which can only be connected because of a fundamental likeness subsisting between them2 but the likeness is not oneness--indeed1 the latter would exclude #bje the former1 for only separates can be like each other4 ,on this theory prayer is no mere meditation1 but an intense and strenuous endeavour to make actual something that is only potential2 to use the simile we previously employed1 it is a digging of channels along which the sea may pour of its fulness into an inland reservoir4 ,that this is what really takes place in prayer--that there is such a real response from ,him to whom it is directed--we have no hesitation whatever in affirming2 and this notwithstanding the fact that such an experience cannot be proved to one who has not shared it1 any more than we can convey a sense of the grandeur of ,mont ,blanc to one whose eye has never beheld its majestic proportions4 ,evidently1 in this as in every corresponding case the testimony of those who say that they have had a certain experience must be preferred to that of others who can only say that they have not had it2 and the witness to spiritual renewal1 reinforcement1 replenishing received in prayer--to the entering in of a ,presence when the doors were thrown open2 to a peace and blessedness which were not of the world's giving--this witness is so strong and so uniform that we have no choice but to pronounce it decisive4 ,in every such case something had been genuinely transacted2 not only had man spoken1 but ,god had answered--the worshipper had not merely invoked1 but in a very real sense he had evoked1 the ,divine ,presence4 #bjf ,but can we go any further than this8 ,can we1 that is to say1 maintain that ,god answers prayer1 not only by flooding the adoring soul with fresh strength1 gladness1 confidence1 but by bringing to pass events which otherwise would not have come about8 ,this objective efficacy of prayer1 in the narrower sense1 is frequently doubted to-day2 but1 as we shall attempt to show1 upon grounds which1 when examined1 prove untenable4 ,the difficulty1 as it is most generally stated1 arises from a misunderstanding2 answers to prayer are regarded as interferences with the uniformities of nature1 as arbitrary--and therefore unthinkable--interruptions of the chain of cause and effect1 for which there can be no room in an orderly universe4 ,this1 no doubt1 was what ,turgenev meant when he asked1 ,does not all prayer mean au fond a wish that in a given case two and two may not make four8 ,that ,turgenev's aphorism quite illegitimately narrows down the meaning of prayer to petition1 may pass2 it is more important for us to investigate his implied challenge--the grounds upon which he expresses his absolute disbelief in the fulfilment of such petitions4#f ,a simple preliminary reflection should come to our aid4 ,god is surely always bringing things to pass on condition that we first do certain other things1 and on no other conditions #bjg whatsoever4 ,the seeking has to go before the finding1 the knocking to precede the opening of the doors4 ,he will give us waving corn1 providing the ground is ploughed and sown2 that is to say1 ,he answers our request1 if we will make it in the right manner--,he lays down certain rules on compliance with which we may secure certain blessings4 ,is it objected that ploughing and sowing1 unlike prayer1 are physical exertions made for the purpose of bringing about physical results8 ,that would be a very superficial view2 it is certainly truer to say that they are acts of will1 and even acts of faith2 and in the ultimate analysis the power which has produced the harvest is not the power of matter1 but of mind--the mind of man acting in accordance with the ,mind of ,god4 ,man has asked1 ,god has answered2 and would not have answered in that particular manner but for the particular manner of that request4 ,let us go a step further1 still keeping to the obvious4 ,most visitors to ,geneva have made the short excursion to the ,forces matrices1 the great power-station where the swift waters of the ,rhone are pressed into the service of man and made to light the streets1 propel the tramways and drive all the machinery of the #bjh city4 ,now these vast powers were always there--no law of nature was broken1 nor any new one introduced1 when they were utilised to lighten man's labours and multiply his energies2 all that has happened is that man has discovered existing laws and harnessed them to his use1 and once more the real force motrice resides not in those silently-revolving engines that generate the electric current1 but in the mind that devised and controls them4 ,thought1 then--unseen1 impalpable--is energy in its essence1 the master force which directs1 subdues and uses matter2 and in prayer we have already seen that we place ourselves in communication with the ,central ,force of the universe1 acquiring power we should not otherwise possess1 and replenishing our emptiness from an inexhaustible store4 ,but if thought1 mind1 will1 are that which lies behind all physical accomplishment1 from the simplest to the most wonderful2 and if by an exercise of the same faculty we may actually secure results of a spiritual order1 direct answering messages1 from ,god3 why should it be a priori unthinkable that we may by the same agency of prayer obtain more objective responses1 viz41 the fulfilment of our petitions8 ,frankly1 we can discover no theoretical grounds on which such a possibility could be merely waved on one side as not worth consideration4 ,shall we be told that we cannot think that ,god would grant a certain wish only on condition that we #bji expressed it to ,him8 ,but we have already found that in the regular experience of life the ,divine bounty seems to come in response to human efforts which are ultimately efforts of the will4 ,once more1 everything depends upon our thought of ,god2 if ,he is such as ,jesus taught us to regard ,him1 may it not well be that ,his ,fatherly love goes out to us in fullest measure when we call upon it with fullest and most childlike trust8 ,if it is urged that ,god would surely under all circumstances grant ,his children whatever may contribute to their happiness1 we need only observe that every parent has had occasion to say to a much-loved child1 ,you shall have this when you know how to ask for it4 ,the truth has been stated with characteristic simplicity and insight by ,dr4 ,james ,drummond1 in the words1 ,if ,god has left certain things dependent on the action of the human will1 ,he may also have left certain things dependent on human petition4 #g ,so much is sure1 that in all true prayer we set spiritual forces in motion1 to whose effects upon ourselves we can bear witness2 and if their action in one direction is an ascertained fact1 however mysterious and inexplicable1 with what warrant shall we deny the possibility of their acting in another8 ,certainly we shall not argue that such action involves an interference with natural law2 and if we have to admit our ignorance as to #baj how such a force would operate and bring results to pass1 let us remind ourselves that the ultimate how8--the bridge between antecedent and consequent1 and why the former should be followed by the latter--always and inevitably escapes us4 ,why in the thousand and more observed forms of snow-crystals the filaments of ice should always be arranged at angles of #fj degrees or #abj degrees2 why sulphate of potash and sulphate of alumina should crystallise in octahedrons or in cubes1 but in no other forms2 what is the real connection between molecular changes in the brain-substance and states of consciousness--all these1 and a myriad more1 are unsolved mysteries3 we can only say that we are dealing with facts of experience4 ,and as in these and countless other cases1 so here also1 in this matter of answers to prayer1 the final and only test is that of experience4 ,that a vessel in distress should be able to send a message to another vessel a hundred miles out of sight1 and summon it to its aid1 would have struck an earlier generation as a piece of wild romancing--but we know it is actually done2 that a soul's earnest prayer may avail to enlist mighty energies in its help and so to bring about results which otherwise would not have come to pass1 ought hardly to strike the present age as an inherently incredible proposition4 ,but we shall be told that our parallel does not hold good3 if the ,marconi apparatus failed seven times out of ten1 we should hardly #baa think it worth while to provide our ships with so unreliable an instrument2 yet who would say that even three out of ten prayers for stated objects met with fulfilment8 ,the objection1 however1 is not unanswerable2 indeed1 the very comparison employed in stating it may enable us to supply at least a partial answer4 ,for we understand that the success of wireless messages being transmitted and received depends upon absolutely perfect tuning2 the electric waves set up1 i4e41 will only act upon a receiver most delicately attuned to a particular rate of oscillations1 and when the difference between the rate of oscillation of the waves and the receiver exceeds one per cent41 resonance ceases altogether1 so that the message may be sent1 but will not be received4 ,it strikes us as hardly a fanciful supposition that many prayers fail to obtain an answer for a precisely analogous reason1 i4e41 for lack of attuning4 ,the mere uttering of devotional phraseology1 or even the sending forth of anguished appeals1 does not of necessity constitute true prayer at all1 and hence remains ineffective1 because the soul is not really en rapport with ,god4 ,we suggest that the supplication which availeth much in its working will be the outcome of a whole spiritual discipline1 whereby the individual spirit has become attuned to the ,spirit whom it seeks2 if the majority of prayers go unanswered1 it is because they are mere recitals of a tale of wants1 without even an attempt upon the #bab part of those who utter them to put themselves into the attitude upon which an answer depends4 ,on the other hand1 where the adjustment of which we speak has reached a high state of perfection1 the soul not only transmits its message to ,god with the perfect assurance of being heard1 but it is also continually sensitive to the messages which incessantly flash through the spiritual ether from ,god1 but which only those can hear who have learned the secret of listening for ,his word4 ,in dealing with this question of unanswered prayer1 we have given the first place to what seems to us the most important as well as the least frequently regarded reason--the lack of spiritual discipline1 which is ultimately the lack of faith1 with which we pray4 ,when we remember1 moreover1 that many of our petitions are framed in very natural and inevitable ignorance of what is for our truest good1 we realise another and very obvious reason for the non-fulfilment of a large proportion of the wishes we lay before the throne of ,god1 whose goodness is as much attested by what ,he denies to our foolishness as by what ,he grants to our entreaties4 ,and how numerous are the prayers which reflection and an awakened moral sense rule out of court3 prayers which ask ,god to do for us by special intervention what we ought to do for ourselves by our own effort and industry2 prayer for success in dealings and enterprises which in themselves are ethically #bac unjustifiable1 and to which the only answer could be1 ,thou thoughtest that ,i was altogether such an one as thyself2 prayers which carry the spirit of egoism1 of competition1 of bargaining even into our relations with the ,most ,high2 prayers of an imprecatory character such as meet and shock us in some of the psalms4 ,how could these and their like possibly be granted by a just and merciful ,creator8 ,but apart from such presumptuous1 foolish1 or impious supplications as are at once repulsed and rebuked by the ,divine silence1 what are the objects we may lawfully pray for1 asking for a response8 ,it must be confessed that with the exception of petitions for spiritual blessings--for a deeper faith1 for a more complete obedience1 for a humbler heart1 for a wider sympathy--such as can never be out of place1 it is impossible to draw a hard-and-fast line2 there is1 indeed1 a whole vast category of possible objects of prayer which one cannot a priori pronounce legitimate or otherwise4 ,we can only humbly confess that we know not how to pray as we ought1 nor what things it is in our best interest to have granted or withheld from us2 but with this proviso1 and with the clause1 ,nevertheless1 not my will but ,thine1 added to our petitions1 there can be no wrong in making our requests to ,god for every manner of blessing1 material or otherwise1 and whether on our own behalf or on behalf of others4 ,here we may surely with #bad all confidence and with all reverence invoke the analogy of human parenthood4 ,no true earthly parent is offended or moved to impatience by his children expressing to him all their wants and wishes with perfect unreserve1 even though his loving wisdom has anticipated their real needs1 and will decide which of their desires may be granted2 indeed1 as we already hinted1 the granting of those desires may depend to some extent upon the children's attitude1 upon the filial1 trustful1 affectionate disposition they exhibit4 ,so in regard to the supplications we address to our ,father in ,heaven3 we cannot think of ,his being moved by our mere importunity1 or by the mechanical repetition of set phrases2 but that the fulfilment of some wish of ours may be conditioned by our humility and confidence in expressing it1 presents no improbability4 ,in any case1 what is necessary on our part is that we should have faith1 not only in ,god's power to grant our petitions1 but in ,his wisdom in granting or refusing them as may be most expedient for us4 ,we ourselves can1 within limits1 fulfil most of our children's requests2 but a wise and loving parent will many a time say no1 when his child may marvel at what to him must seem a mere arbitrary or even unkind refusal of an innocent desire4 ,that hapless man of genius1 the late ,john ,davidson1 condensed the truth into one illuminating phrase when he spoke of prayer rightly uttered as #bae submissive aspiration2 it would be difficult to devise another form of words equally brief yet containing so much of the essence of the matter4 ,even short of actual fulfilment1 it is an immeasurable privilege simply to speak to ,god about all the things that weigh on our minds1 assured of ,his hearing1 nor should the fact that ,he knows all about our troubles before we open our lips concerning them restrain our utterance2 for our object is not to give ,him information1 but to place ourselves in conscious communion with ,him1 and by viewing our affairs in ,his light to see light4 ,this applies to all our petitions1 and perhaps in an especial measure to intercessory prayer1 those touching requests which we send up for our dear ones in sickness1 peril1 sorrow1 need1 or any other adversity4 ,of course1 all such intercessions ought to be mentally qualified by the assurance that ,god will do what is best1 even though we may be unable to understand ,his decrees2 but there is nothing unreasonable in the belief that our prayers for others may be1 and frequently are1 directly effective1 setting energies in motion which might otherwise have remained latent and inoperative4 ,how these energies operate may be quite beyond our power to ascertain or even to guess2 but if--to say it once more--the action of matter on matter1 the how of chemical combinations1 eludes us1 shall we complain because the action of mind on mind1 spirit on spirit1 is no #baf less elusive8 ,the final test--whether1 e4g41 a mother's prayer that her absent son may be preserved from the snare of some great temptation1 is able to work a change in his mind--is1 as we said above1 the test of experience2 and unless we are dogmatically determined to reject all testimony which bears on this subject1 there seems no escaping the conclusion that specific prayers have been specifically1 directly1 and unmistakeably answered in instances too numerous to admit of explanation by coincidence4#h ,the volume of human testimony bearing on this subject is too great to be swept aside by a simple refusal to consider it2 if there is no insurmountable logical obstacle to the possibility of prayer proving objectively effective--and we have tried to show that there are no such obstacles--we must examine the alleged instances of such answers without prejudice2 and if we do so1 then1 after making all legitimate deductions1 we shall still find a body of residual fact which is not to be explained away4 ,by all means1 then1 we conclude1 let us obey the instincts which urge us to turn to ,god in #bag prayer2 they lie deeper and are less fallible--embodying as they do the experience of the race--than our individual reasonings4 ,we may tell our ,father in all simplicity of whatever desires we may cherish with an approving conscience1 leaving the fulfilment to ,his wise and steadfast love2 it is not the ignorance of our requests but the faithlessness of our spirits that we most stand in need of guarding against4 ,let us here1 as elsewhere1 follow the example of the ,son of ,god1 whose unique intimacy with the ,father made ,him only the more earnest in communing with ,him1 least lonely when alone with ,god4 ,above all1 let us bear in mind that the best prayer is that which has least of self-seeking in it1 but is answered in the making1 and so sends us back to our tasks--perhaps to our trials--refreshed as by a draught from some hidden and precious spring1 renewed in manhood and nearer to ,god4 ,in the oft-quoted aphorism of ,george ,meredith1 ,he who rises from his prayer a better man1 his prayer is answered4 ,as a ,greater than ,meredith said1 ,your ,heavenly ,father knoweth that ye have need of all these things2 but seek ye first ,his ,kingdom1 and ,his righteousness1 and all these things shall be added unto you4 ,the ideal prayer is that which will ask little1 aspire much1 submit altogether2 it is the soul's complete surrender to and rest in ,god4 #a ,the ,rev4 ,e4 ,w4 ,lewis1 ,m4,a41 ,b4,d41 in a paper on ,the ,divine ,immanence1 its ,meaning and its ,implications4 ,compare also ,the ,new ,theology1 p4 #cd4 ,as ,dr4 ,william ,adamson observes1 ,the illustration is unfortunate4 ,the supposed ocean is to be thought of as infinite1 and the bay is finite1 but in their essence and existence they are essentially one4 ,there can be no bay where there is no boundary1 and where in this case could the boundary be found1 for there can be nothing outside the infinite8 #b ,bousset1 ,faith of a ,modern ,protestant1 p4 #ei4 #c ,the ,varieties of ,religious ,experience1 p4 #dff4 #d ,a ,century's ,progress1 p4 #aje-f4 #e ,spinoza1 by ,j4 ,allanson ,picton1 p4 #bac4 #f ,so far1 of course1 as such an attitude may be the outcome of an antecedent disbelief in ,god1 it is perfectly logical2 only we have no common ground with those who take that view4 ,it is otherwise1 however1 where an avowed acceptance of ,theism is nevertheless accompanied by doubts as regards any objective effects flowing from supplications addressed to ,god2 it is with such doubts as these that we are concerned4 #g ,studies in ,christian ,doctrine1 p4 #aig4 #h ,precisely such an instance was brought under the notice of the present writer by a correspondent1 whose prayers that an absent one in distant lands might be able to resist the power of strong temptation was heard past all doubting--and that without the object of these petitions being aware of the cause1 as let a remark of his own attest3 ,i don't know why1 but sometimes ,i feel myself in some way held back from doing certain things--how1 ,i cannot explain2 ,i only know that ,i should do as others do1 were it not for this compelling feeling4 #bah ,,chapter ,,xii ,,immortality ,throughout the preceding pages we have been principally engaged in tracing the effects of the idea of ,divine immanence upon the main contents of religious thought4 ,while trying to show that this idea1 rightly understood and set in its proper place1 embodies an important and at one time unduly neglected truth1 we have also seen that its misinterpretation and over-emphasis--the tendency to view it as not only true but as constituting the whole truth--is attended by dangers of a particularly grave character4 ,under whatever name1 idealistic ,monism or any other1 the doctrine which recognises only one ultimate ,existence expressing itself in all things and working its will in all events1 is fatal to any religion worthy the name2 indeed1 since the term religion indicates a link1 and a link is possible only between things or beings requiring to be held together1 the fundamental tenet of ,monism excludes religion in the only vital sense it has ever been known to bear1 and more especially the ,christian religion4 ,quite #bai inevitably it abandons the personality and ,fatherhood of ,god1 the selfhood and freedom of man1 the reality of sin and evil1 which it describes as not-being1 and the value and rationality of prayer--for how or to whom can we pray if we are already on the eternal throne8 ,quite inevitably1 therefore1 we may add1 the votaries of this philosophy1 in attempting to accommodate it to the facts of life1 the intuitions of the moral self and the aspirations of the soul1 are faced everywhere by irreconcilable antinomies and find no end1 in wandering mazes lost4 ,are the assumptions of the monist any more in harmony with the doctrine of immortality than with those other beliefs with which it thus finds itself at variance8 ,we have already seen that they are not3 neither the ,monism of ,mr4 ,picton nor that of ,mr4 ,wells leaves any room for personal survival--as is1 indeed1 only to be expected in accordance with their premises2 for if the individual as such does not really exist1 why should he persist8 ,and from yet another monistic quarter we are oracularly assured that we shall one day know that the end of our being is that it may be submerged without reserve in the infinite ocean of ,god4 ,nothing could be more definite2 nor1 it must be confessed1 more utterly hopeless4 ,to be submerged without reserve is to cease from even the illusion of individuality2 it is absorption1 ,nirvana4 #bbj ,in taking up this position1 in finally quenching ,the hope whereto so passionately cling ,the dreaming generations from of old1 the monist is merely true to his creed2 we may1 however1 express a preference that he should do so without religious circumlocutions--that the verdict should be1 as in the famous historical instance1 la mort1 sans phrase4 ,when ,mr4 ,wells says-- ,i do not believe ,i have any personal immortality4 4 4 ,the experiment will be over1 the rinsed beaker returned to its shelf1 the crystals gone dissolving down the wastepipe--#a we know where we are1 and feel thankful to the author for his frankness2 to talk about submersion in the infinite ocean of ,god1 on the other hand1 invests an idea which1 nakedly stated1 means annihilation pure and simple1 with a pseudo-religious air which is far more subtly dangerous4 ,indeed1 of the various expedients for extinguishing men's faith in the life to come1 this is probably the most insidiously effective in use to-day2 it is the silken handkerchief1 drenched with chloroform and held quite gently to the victim's face--a lethal weapon in all but appearance4 ,and there are some who are attracted by the faint1 cloying odour of this chloroform4 ,before we examine this fashionable doctrine of absorption1 however1 it may be well to deal #bba with certain other causes which between them account for much of the uneasiness--often unavowed but nevertheless very real--concerning a future life1 which unquestionably is widely felt in our day4 ,all assertions to the contrary notwithstanding1 it is a case of uneasiness1 and not of indifference2 the bravado which professes to give thanks to whatever gods there be-- ,that no life lives for ever ,that dead men rise up never1 ,that even the weariest river ,winds somewhere safe to sea-- convinces no one4 ,most men have known moods of severe depression and lassitude when not to be at all seemed the one consummation to be desired2 but that is not the normal attitude of normal people4 ,such would still fain believe that the grave is not the end1 but many of them are in a state of bewilderment and insecurity4 ,on the one hand men have never grown reconciled to the heart-breaking triviality of death1 never accepted this dispensation without a question1 a hope1 or1 failing hope1 a sense of rebellion2 on the other1 we have to recognise that we live in an age when multitudes have ceased to accept religious beliefs simply upon the authority of the ,bible--when educated people generally have come quite definitely to disbelieve in the resurrection of the body1 a final day of judgment1 a localised #bbb heaven and material hell--an age which must be one of manifold doubts and misgivings4 ,but this break-up of ,biblical authority and its unquestioning acceptance is itself largely due to that resistless advance of physical science which has reconstructed the world for us with such masterful hands4 ,the results of the modern conception of the universe are only just beginning to get into our system2 as yet they are still largely unassimilated1 and give us trouble accordingly4 ,let us take such a statement as the following1 and imagine its effect upon the average individual3-- ,think of ,mercury in its wild rush through the solar heat1 or ,venus gleaming in the western sky1 or ruddy ,mars with its tantalising problems1 or of mighty ,jupiter #a1bcj times the size of our own planet1 or of ,saturn with its wondrous rings1 or of ,uranus and ,neptune revolving in their tremendous orbits--the latter nearly three thousand millions of miles away from the centre of our system4 4 4 ,but the true awfulness is yet untouched4 ,what of the millions of millions of suns that blaze in immeasurable space beyond our comparatively little solar sphere8 ,sirius alone1 at the foot of the constellation of ,orion1 is #abe times larger than our sun4 ,fifteen hundred millions of millions of miles away1 where ordinary eyes dimly descry half a dozen points of light1 the telescope reveals more than a thousand orbs1 some seventy of them vaster than our sun4 ,what indeed is the whole of this our tiny planet compared with ,alcyone--#a1jjj times larger than our central sun6#b ,these1 of course1 are among the commonplaces of modern astronomy2 but we do not think we #bbc are wrong in saying that they leave a great many minds singularly ill at ease1 in a condition of vague but unmistakeable discomfort1 oppressed by the vastness of the universe as revealed by science1 feeling lost and utterly insignificant in this illimitable expanse of worlds on circling worlds1 and aeons upon exhaustless aeons4 ,it was possible1 when the universe was regarded as a comparatively small affair1 with our earth as its veritable centre1 to think oneself of sufficient value in the scheme of things to live for ever2 but now such a claim seems to not a few grotesque in its presumption4 ,have we not been told by ,mr4 ,balfour that1 so far as natural science by itself is able to teach us1 man's very existence is an accident1 his story a brief and discreditable episode in the life of one of the meanest of the planets8--and shall such a one1 member of such a race1 dream of prolonging his atomic existence world without end8 ,as ,lucretius asked3-- ,what6 ,shall the dateless worlds to dust be blown ,back to the unremembered and unknown1 ,and this frail ,thou--this flame of yesterday-- ,burn on1 forlorn1 immortal1 and alone8 ,this mental attitude1 familiar enough nowadays1 has been forcibly and typically expressed in a clever1 melancholy book1 ,the ,letters ,which never ,reached ,him4 ,we suffer1 the author says1 from our own diminutiveness and from the narrow limits of our life and knowledge since the endlessness of space and time have #bbd been taught to us4 ,people of former epochs cannot have known this contrast between human smallness and the world's infinity2 they must have been more contented1 because they fancied they were made in right proportion to everything else4 ,such conditions as these favoured the flourishing of that highest blossom of the conviction of personal importance1 the belief in one's eternal individual continuance4 ,but one who has been cast by the waves on countless foreign shores1 and who has reflected that everywhere1 and since times infinite1 millions and millions have been born and buried without leaving by their coming and going more trace than the swarms of insects which for a moment glide through the rays of the sun--such a one loses the belief in the importance of all transitory phases1 and doubts the inner necessity of an eternal continuance for all those ephemeral1 ant-like existences which in endless1 unchanging repetitions ever rise anew to disappear again4 ,modern astronomy and geology1 by expanding the world beyond all conception1 seem1 in fact1 but to emphasise ,omar ,khayyam's mocking lines3-- ,and fear not lest ,existence1 closing your ,account and mine1 should know the like no more2 ,the ,eternal ,saki from that bowl hath pour'd ,millions of ,bubbles like us1 and will pour4 ,and if such are the reflections forced upon us by the contemplation of the vastness of #bbe the cosmos--a vastness in whose midst we feel homeless and forlorn--it has further to be remembered that the attitude of modern science1 as embodied in that of some of its most confident and popular representatives1 has been distinctly and openly unfavourable to belief in a future life4 ,if man was truly descended from the lower creation1 it seemed obvious to infer that as had been his origin1 so also would be his destiny--the destiny of the beasts that perish4 ,the ,kraft und ,stoff school of physicists proclaimed aloud that consciousness was only a function of the brain1 and would come to a stop together with the mechanism which produced it2 as ,haeckel expressed it1 ,the various functions of the soul are bound up with certain special parts of the brain1 and cannot be exercised unless these are in a normal condition2 if the areas are destroyed their function is extinguished2 and this is especially applicable to the 'organs of thought1' the four central instruments of mental activity4 #c ,but if our inner life was merely the counterpart of certain changes in the grey matter of the brain1 how could the function be expected to persist after its organ had undergone decay8 ,such1 in short1 are our principal modern difficulties with regard to belief in a life to come2 do they1 or do they not1 present valid and insuperable obstacles to a reasonable faith8 #bbf 7#a7 ,while making all allowance for the feeling of insignificance and forlornness which is apt to overwhelm us when we begin to realise the immensity of the material universe1 a little closer thought should make it obvious that nothing in the nature of mere bulk or bigness furnishes even a reasonable presumption1 let alone a convincing argument1 against the survival of the soul2 it is indeed difficult to perceive what legitimate bearing these physical phenomena are supposed to have upon a purely spiritual question4 ,if we are to argue on a priori grounds1 we are on the contrary justified in saying that the human mind1 which has discovered and is capable of co-ordinating the myriad facts concerning the world of matter that make up modern science1 is itself something far more wonderful than any of its discoveries1 or the sum of them4 ,if we are asked1 ,is it conceivable that suns and stars shall pass away--as they undoubtedly will--and that man shall persist8 we can but answer1 ,yes2 it is very conceivable2 for man is far more highly organised than suns and stars1 moves on an immeasurably higher level1 can reason1 look before and after1 form ideals of conduct1 reach out in love1 and think the thoughts of ,god after ,him4 ,as soon as we leave the lower reaches of being1 bulk is seen to matter very little4 ,the immense proportions of those flying reptiles and other monsters which peopled the earth in pre-historic #bbg times did not protect them against dying out1 and their places being taken by much slighter creatures which had some more valuable attributes than size2 the diplodocus ,carnegii in the ,british ,museum measures some seventy-five feet1 but that fact did not prevent the species from becoming extinct uncounted ages since--simply because it was lacking in the higher qualities which would have enabled it to survive4 ,and even the diplodocus1 with its lumbering body and diminutive brain1 was whole worlds superior to inorganic nature4 ,that the marvellous thing called human personality should outlast the decay of what is so much inferior to itself1 is therefore not only not inconceivable1 but in itself not even improbable4 ,it is a strange sort of modesty--to say the least of it--which would make us think ourselves of less account in the scale of existence or the sight of ,god than unconscious matter in its cruder and lower stages4 ,one might as sensibly urge that the delicate hairspring of a watch1 being of featherweight and almost invisible1 must be worth less than a lump of crude iron-ore4 7#b7 ,we turn to the supposed argument from evolution1 viz41 from man's lowly origin1 as furnishing a strong presumption against his immortality4 ,this plea1 familiar enough in sceptical discussions of the subject1 has been put forward with great poetic force by ,mr4 ,william ,watson2 after graphically describing #bbh the gibbering form obscene that was and was not man1 as lower in many respects than the beasts and birds in whose midst he dwelt1 he suggests that it was ,rather some random throw ,of heedless ,nature's die1 ',twould seem1 that from so low ,hath lifted man so high4 ,if1 then1 our rise from gloom ,hath this capricious air1 ,what ground is mine to assume ,an upward process there1 ,in yonder worlds that shine ,from upward tracts of sky8 ,no ground to assume is mine ,nor warrant to deny4 ,equal1 my source of hope1 my reason for despair4 ,but1 with great admiration for ,mr4 ,watson as a poet1 it is impossible not to recognise that at least two radical flaws lurk in his agnostic argument4 ,in the first place1 he makes the mistake of judging issues by origins instead of origins by issues2 the sub-human beginnings of man trouble us not at all1 since we can see in the subsequent history of the race how great were the possibilities infolded in that gibbering form obscene1 and unfolded in a ,plato1 a ,raphael1 a ,shakespeare4 ,that such a development from such a lowly initial stage should have been so much as possible1 is in itself significant of much2 for nothing is evolved that was not first involved4 ,but in the second place1 ,mr4 ,watson's assumption that the process which lifted man from the level of the #bbi brute to one immeasurably higher was dictated by hap and hazard strikes us as wholly gratuitous4 ,on the face of it1 that process1 in itself so little to be expected1 bears the mark1 not of chance but of its very contrary4 ,that the cosmic drama should have followed this particular course2 that from the cooling down of fiery nebulas there should have come forth the orderly system we behold in nature2 that life should have climbed up from the speck of protoplasm through primal ooze and slime1 making its way step by step through all the lower creation until it blossomed into man--this1 to the unbiassed mind1 does not wear the aspect of mere incalculable accident1 but of all-embracing wisdom and directivity4 ,and once we have shaken off the delusion that the marvellous order and progress we behold in nature are the outcome of chance1 we have the best of reasons for assuming that the same upward process will still continue1 reaching forward from the seen to the unseen2 at any rate1 so well-qualified and thorough-going an evolutionist as ,professor ,fiske gave it as his mature opinion that in the course of evolution there is no more philosophical difficulty in man's acquiring immortal life1 than in his acquiring the erect posture and articulate speech4 #d #bcj ,and the reasonableness of this view grows the clearer to us the more we realise the purposive character of the evolutionary process4 ,the unmistakeable purpose of that process is the production of the higher from the lower2 all through the ages the vast design works itself out in a ceaseless ascending movement1 the theme expanding1 its meaning becoming more apparent4 ,then1 when a certain point in this development has been reached1 evolution takes a direction such as no one could have forecast3 its operation upon the physical frame is diverted to the mind1 the centre of interest transferred from the outward organism to the inner forces of which it is the vehicle--and man becomes a living soul4 ,since1 then1 it has taken all these myriad ages1 all this immense expenditure of planning and energy1 to produce what is incontestably the crowning work of creation on this globe1 must we not say that this was the issue towards which the whole process was set in motion from the very beginning8 ,and if this is so1 are we to think that at the end1 when its carefully1 patiently wrought-out purpose has been attained1 this process suddenly turns irrational1 and hands over its last and highest product to destruction8 ,as has been well said1 ,to suppose that what has been evolved at such cost will suddenly collapse1 is to suppose that the whole scheme of things is self-stultifying2 and for such a supposition we #bca see not only no necessity1 but no shadow of warrant4 ,the question is reduced to this3 are man's highest spiritual qualities1 into the production of which all this creative energy has gone1 to disappear with the rest8 ,has all this work been done for nothing8 ,is it all ephemeral1 all a bubble that bursts1 a vision that fades8 ,are we to regard the ,creator's work as like that of a child1 who builds houses out of blocks1 just for the pleasure of knocking them down8 ,for aught that science can tell us1 it may be so1 but ,i can see no good reason for believing any such thing 4 4 4 ,the more thoroughly we comprehend that process of evolution by which things have come to be what they are1 the more we are likely to feel that to deny the everlasting persistence of the spiritual element in man is to rob the whole process of its meaning4 ,it goes far towards putting us to permanent intellectual confusion1 and ,i do not see that anyone has as yet alleged1 or is ever likely to allege1 a sufficient reason for our accepting so dire an alternative4#e ,if belief in the soul's persistence must always be an act of faith1 it is for the evolutionist an act of reasonable faith1 based on his experience of the rationality1 and what has been called the integrity1 of the cosmos4 7#c7 ,of the hostility of physical science to belief in life beyond the grave it is perhaps sufficient to say that the somewhat dogmatic attitude of denial which flourished in certain scientific circles somewhere about a quarter of a century ago has to-day made room for a very different temper1 at once more sympathetic and more willing to acknowledge #bcb that a belief is not necessarily disproved because the methods of the chemical or biological laboratory fail to substantiate it4 ,as for the crude proposition that the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile1 and that the life of the soul must cease with that of the body1 this was characterised by the eminent thinker whom we quoted a moment ago as perhaps the most colossal instance of baseless assumption that is known to the history of philosophy4 ,admitting that to every state of consciousness1 to every minutest transition in our thoughts1 there corresponds a cerebral change1 it is yet nothing less than a childish blunder to confound correspondence with causality4 ,the materialist has positively no good ground for stating that cerebral changes are the causes of the mental states corresponding to them2 indeed1 the contrary proposition is far more inherently probable1 since it is spirit1 and not matter1 that possesses the power of purpose1 and may therefore be regarded as the final cause of matter4#f ,when ,professor ,haeckel urges that the various functions of the soul are bound up with certain special parts of the brain1 and cease when the latter are destroyed1 the reply is quite simple3 non sequitur4 ,he has apparently forgotten his own warning against the dangerous error of a one-sided over-estimation of experience4 #g #bcc ,the utmost that experience can prove is that the brain is the transmitting apparatus for flashing forth and making intelligible the messages of the soul1 and that1 when this apparatus breaks down1 further transmission of messages becomes impossible2 but no experience can prove that when the instrument is destroyed1 the soul which used it for purposes of communication and self-manifestation ceases to be1 and only slipshod logic would draw such an inference4 ,in discussing the ,divine ,personality1 we already quoted ,mill1 a far more careful reasoner than ,haeckel1 who laid it down that while experience furnished us with no example of any series of states of consciousness without a material brain1 yet it was as easy to imagine such a series of states without as with this accompaniment2 indeed1 he saw no valid reason to preclude us from supposing that the same thoughts1 emotions1 volitions1 and even sensations which we have here1 may persist or recommence somewhere else under other conditions--i4e41 without such an apparatus as is at present at our disposal4 ,it is only a dogmatic materialist of ,haeckel's almost extinct pattern who could fail to make the simple distinction between visible instrument and invisible player4 ,turning aside1 however1 from the antiquated views of ,haeckel--views which1 as he himself bitterly complains1 some of his most #bcd illustrious scientific compeers in his own country1 men like ,virchow1 ,du ,bois-,reymond and ,wundt lived to repudiate#h--we may for a moment glance at an argument on behalf of belief brought forward by so distinguished and modern a spokesman of physical science as ,sir ,oliver ,lodge4 ,his contention1 set forth in the course of a paper on ,the ,permanence of ,personality1#i is really identical with that which ,browning expresses with such passionate conviction in the words1 ,there shall never be one lost good4 ,while we have become familiar with such a conception as the conservation of energy1 ,sir ,oliver ,lodge brings before us ,professor ,hffding's axiom of the conservation of value1 and applies it to the question under discussion4 ,according to him1 the whole progress and course of evolution is to increase and intensify the ,valuable--that which 'avails' or is serviceable for highest purposes2 and he accordingly defines immortality as the persistence of things which the universe has gained and which1 once acquired1 cannot be let go4 ,from this point of view1 he says1 the law of evolution is that ,good shall on the whole increase in the universe with the process of the suns3 that immortality itself is a special case of a more general law1 namely1 that in the whole universe nothing really finally perishes that is worth keeping1 that a thing once attained #bce is not thrown away4 ,the soul1 in other words1 will not perish--just as we had already argued--because it is too valuable to perish2 if we may trust this latest interpretation of the meaning and purpose of evolution1 the spiritual element in man will endure because it is worthy to endure4 ,but how are we to think of its enduring8 ,as a separate self1 conscious of its identity1 able to form the proposition ,i am ,i1 or swallowed up in the ,whole1 with a final merging and loss of selfhood8 ,must we think of man's ultimate destiny in the terms of the concluding distichs of ,mr4 ,watson's great ,hymn to the ,sea--a consummation ,when1 from this threshold of being1 these steps of the ,presence1 this precinct1 ,into the matrix of ,life darkly divinely resumed1 ,man and his littleness perish1 erased like an error and cancelled1 ,man and his greatness survive1 lost in the greatness of ,god8 ,that is the query with which we opened this chapter2 and1 in answering it1 it is but fair to say that ,sir ,oliver ,lodge shows a marked inclination to take up a position identical with that of ,mr4 ,watson3 ,everything sufficiently valuable1 he says1 be it beauty1 artistic achievement1 knowledge1 unselfish affection1 may be thought of as enduring henceforth and for ever1 if not with an individual #bcf and personal existence1 yet as part of the eternal ,being of ,god4 ,now this is not only a wholly unsatisfactory conclusion from the point of view of religion2 it is a surrender of the very point at issue--viz41 the permanence of personality--and in reality lets slip what ,sir ,oliver ,lodge himself was contending for4 ,it is unsatisfactory from the point of view of religion2 for such a re-absorption of the soul into a grand self-conscious totality of being1 involving of necessity the end of all we mean by individuality1 consciousness1 character1 is not immortality at all--to all intents and purposes it is1 as we said1 annihilation4 ,there is not an iota to choose1 so far as the religious believer is concerned1 between this theory and the frank materialism of ,lucretius1 so wonderfully rendered by ,mr4 ,mallock3-- ,the seeds that once were we take flight and fly1 ,winnowed to earth1 or whirled along the sky1 ,not lost but disunited4 ,life lives on4 ,it is the lives1 the lives1 the lives that die4 ,they go beyond recapture and recall1 ,lost in the all-indissoluble ,all3 ,gone like the rainbow from the fountain's foam1 ,gone like the spindrift shuddering down the squall1 ,flakes of the water1 on the waters cease6 ,soul of the body1 melt and sleep like these4 ,atoms to atoms--weariness to rest-- ,ashes to ashes--hopes and fears to peace6 #bcg ,pantheism may speak delusively of the peace of absorption in the ,infinite1 or of the end of our being as submersion1 without reserve1 in the infinite ocean of ,god2 but regarded from the standpoint of individuality1 there is no difference between such a fate and the total extinction of the soul-- ,the healing gospel of the eternal death --preached with such haunting eloquence by the ,roman poet4 ,the truth1 as ,dr4 ,illingworth has well expressed it1 is that in practice ,pantheism is really indistinguishable from ,materialism2 it is merely ,materialism grown sentimental1 but no more tenable for its change of name4 #aj ,but1 in the next place1 in tentatively committing himself to the conclusion we are criticising1 it seems to us that ,sir ,oliver ,lodge loses sight of the very essence of his own contention3 his conclusion1 in effect1 contradicts his premises4 ,syllogistically1 and1 of course1 very bluntly stated1 his argument might be summed up as follows3 ,what is of value is preserved2 the soul is of value2 therefore the soul is--dissolved4 ,let us put this a little more explicitly4 ,that which has been gained in the course of evolution1 so far as the human soul is concerned--that which makes it worthy to endure1 viz41 its character1 conscience1 idealism and so forth--belongs to the #bch soul precisely as an individual entity1 and in no other way whatsoever2 neither can it be effectively preserved save in the form of an individual entity4 ,the soul1 in other words1 is not to be compared to a mere quantum of raw material1 or to a cupful of water temporarily drawn from an infinite deep into which it may be poured back1 and nothing lost3 it is1 on the contrary1 a highly individualised product1 so individual as to be unique1 and in simply being merged in the totality of being all that is most valuable in it would be lost and wasted4 ,we have no difficulty in believing that mere life--the potentiality1 the material out of which higher things evolve--may go back into the all1 to arise again in new manifestations and combinations2 but it is otherwise with the highly complex resultant of the evolutionary process which we call personality1 endowed as it is with self-consciousness1 with the sense of right and wrong1 the capacity for ideals1 the faculty of self-giving1 a god-like within answering to the ,god without4 ,it is because these things--those which avail for highest purposes--make man personal and mark him off1 broadly speaking1 from the lower1 sub-human life out of which he has emerged1 that we believe in the permanence of human personality1 of the spiritual element in man1 in the survival of the soul as individual and personal1 and not merely as part of the eternal ,being of ,god4 ,a simple illustration will help us to enforce our #bci point of view4 ,in the process of porcelain manufacture the half-finished ware is placed in seggars or coarse clay shells for protection in the glaze or enamel kiln4 ,these temporary shells1 having served their purpose1 are broken up and ground down again into a shapeless mass under heavy revolving rollers2 but no one would dream of treating the graceful vases and figures they enclosed for a time after the same fashion4 ,the parallel is fairly obvious3 the protecting clay envelope broken to pieces1 merged and mingled with other clay1 to be so used and broken a hundred times2 the precious product carefully taken from its coarse shell and preserved4 ,the dust returns to the earth as it was1 and the spirit returns unto ,god who gave it3 returns1 but not as it came forth from ,him1 but differentiated1 individual1 shaped and coloured2 returns1 not to be absorbed and lost in an all-indissoluble ,all1 but1 as we hold1 for still further processes of perfecting4 ,and if we are asked for the ground whence we derive the latter assurance1 we answer1 ,it is founded upon our belief1 not in a universal substance or an all-inclusive consciousness of being1 but in the ,god and ,father of our ,lord ,jesus ,christ4 ,by no possibility can these two conceptions be made to harmonise or to pass into one another2 on the former view1 as we have seen1 the significance of the individual soul is and must be nil--on the latter1 the value of the soul is infinite1 because it is #bdj the object of the ,divine ,love1 created by ,god unto ,himself1 in order to experience and respond to ,his affection4 ,on the former view1 we are finite modes of infinite ,being--on the latter1 we are children of the ,father4 ,it is because we have believed the love which ,god hath to us--the love made manifest supremely in ,jesus ,christ--that we echo so confidently the poet's ,thou wilt not leave us in the dust3 the ,christian doctrine of immortality flows quite naturally from the ,christian doctrine of ,god4 ,the argument is frankly ethical2 it flows from the view of ,god's character which we have received through the revelation of that character in ,his ,son4 ,without hurling any wild indictment at life1 we dare to say that it requires to be supplemented by the life to come in order to fit in with the idea of a just and loving ,god1 a faithful and merciful ,creator4 ,this span of days1 this hand's-breadth of existence1 is too palpably fragmentary4 ,the sinner1 the failure1 all those who have here missed the way1 ask another opportunity of the ,divine mercy2 the wronged1 the sufferers from unmerited griefs1 those whose lives passed in gloom and closed in tragedy1 appeal for justice2 the longing for reunion with loved ones whose going hence has left us permanently poorer1 demands fulfilment2 the goodness of the good and the sanctity of the saint plead for the wages of going on4 ,this ethical argument for personal #bda immortality--,browning's ,on the earth the broken arcs2 in the heaven the perfect round--will carry no weight with those who profess a religion of the universe2 for the universe1 viewed simply as the sum-total of phenomena1 possesses1 as we have so frequently pointed out1 no sufficiently decided moral character to inspire us with confidence in its justice1 or mercy1 or pitifulness4 ,on the other hand1 the same argument will powerfully appeal to all who believe in the ,divine ,goodness1 and especially to those who1 looking unto ,jesus1 have in ,his face beheld the lineaments of the ,father4 ,if ,god be such as ,jesus taught1 then life everlasting may be a dim1 intangible dream1 but a dream that is destined to come true3 we shall be satisfied when we awake4 ,thus1 at the close of this inquiry1 we find ourselves left with two ultimate realities--two1 not one2 alike1 not identical2 related1 and therefore distinct1 for a relation can only subsist between one and another3 the realities of ,god and the soul4 ,gott und die ,seele1 die ,seele und ihr ,gott--these two1 eternally akin1 yet in their kinship unconfounded1 make up the theme and the content of religion2 and any attempt to obliterate the distinction between them in some monistic formula1 any tendency to surrender either the ,divine or the human personality1 any philosophy which seeks to merge man in ,god and ,god in the #bdb universe1 is fatal to religion itself4 ,we have been told of late that there is no ,divine immanence which does not imply the allness of ,god2 we reply that there is no sane and sober theology which will not feel called upon to challenge this fundamental error4 ,god1 immanent in the universe as life and energy1 is not the universe2 man1 the partaker of the ,divine nature1 indwelt by the ,spirit of ,god1 is other than ,god4 ,these are commonplaces1 truly2 yet in the presence of more than one contemporary movement aiming to set these basal truths aside--truths whose acceptance or rejection involves far-reaching issues in faith and morals--there may be some excuse and even some necessity for reiterating them so persistently and at such length as has been done in these pages4 ,man is inalienably akin to ,god--man is everlastingly other than ,god2 upon this note we are content to close4 ,in that fact we have1 not only the ultimate explanation of the phenomenon of religion1 the ultimate foundation of ethics1 the ultimate ground of the felt need of salvation1 but also the ultimate hope of immortality--that reasonable hope1 expressed by the ,hebrew seer for all time in words of sublime and intuitive insight3 ,art not ,,thou from everlasting1 ,o ,lord my ,god1 mine ,holy ,one8 ,,we ,,shall ,,not ,,die4 #a ,first and ,last ,things1 pp4 #hj1 #bch4 #b ,ballard1 ,christian ,essentials1 pp4 #aj-ab4 #c ,the ,riddle of the ,universe1 p4 #gb4 #d ,life ,everlasting1 p4 #he4 ,to the same effect is ,huxley's statement declaring that while he would neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man1 immortality itself struck him as not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter4 #e ,man's ,destiny1 by ,john ,fiske1 pp4 #aad-aaf4 #f ,cp4 ,illingworth1 ,divine ,immanence1 p4 #h4 #g ,the ,riddle of the ,universe1 p4 #g4 #h ,op4 cit42 see ch4 vi41 passim4 #i ,see the ,hibbert ,journal1 ,april #aijh1 pp4 #efe-efg4 #aj ,divine ,immanence1 p4 #ci4